Why Are People Defending Hoke?

Do you see how much the current players support him?  He's a supportable guy, I'm sure, if you played for him.  He's tough, very kind, cares deeply about his players, etc.

Of course, when it comes down to it, his football teams don't win games.

Sometimes there's a man... I won't say a hero, 'cause, what's a hero? But sometimes, there's a man. And I'm talkin' about the Hoke here. Sometimes, there's a man, well, he's the man for his time and place. He fits right in there. And that's the Hoke, in Ann Arbor.

And even if he's a lazy man - and the Hoke was most certainly that. Quite possibly the laziest in Washtenaw County, which would place him high in the runnin' for laziest worldwide.

But sometimes there's a man, sometimes, there's a man. Aw. I lost my train of thought here. But... aw, hell. I've done introduced him enough.

The same reason people defended RR, they feel like we may be dumping the guy a year early for a guy (Harbaugh in both cases) who is unlikely to come.  He brings back a lot of talent next year and already has a pretty good defense.  The offensive line has improved, Ty Isaac may be pretty sick behind it next year.  I have more faith in Nuss than I had in GERG.  For both coaches the side they specialize in was/is good but not great, and they made pretty big mistakes on the other side of the ball.

It's the fanbase.  Pick any outrageous idea and some Michigan fan holds it.  We need to implement a power running scheme; we need to run read option; we need to go 5-wide airraid.  We need to be tougher.  We need to hire Tony Dungy.  We need to go press man coverage; we need to run MSU's cover 4; we need to go press man and run MSU's cover 4 (yeah I know).  This guy needs to be fired.  This guy needs to be hired.  We need to recruit guys who won't embarass the university.  We need more guys from the hood.  

And it goes on, and on, and on.

You can already see that a top notch AD won't come here and Hoke will probably stay as the "champion of athlete academics".

I was at a formal back in the late '80's and one of the guys at my table was a back-up center for the football team. Being as socially awkward back then as I am today, I naively I asked, "So... you like Bo Schembechler?" And the guy squinted at me, paused and said. "Like?" and made a face like just bit into a lemon. He said, "I don't think I would use the word "like". But I respect the hell out of him."

That may be the difference.

has performed reasonably well. He is quirky like every coach. There is something about him which fans will latch onto as a flaw of leadership if you're losing, and a non-sequitor if you are not. That would be the headset issue. 

He has recruited well and he has graduated seniors, raising the academic plane of the Michigan brand. We don't look at that stuff as being necessarily important, but to the school, and especially in the wake of Stretchgate, it ought to be. Clearly, the president sees it that way. 

The other reason to defend Hoke is because he might be the coach next year. Whether you want that or not, who knows how he gets graded out by Mr. Hackett, Michigan's apparently appointed hatchet man who will be doing the killing'em softly work or perhaps not. 

Before Mark Schlissel revised his public remarks for clarification, and let's be clear that the clarification seemed not extremely clarifying in my mind, I got to thinking that Schissel is a very smart guy about keeping things close, and letting decisiionmakers make harder choices in closer quarters. 

In other words, I think the president wants control over the next leader of the athletic department, and basically Mr. Hackett is on the clock. If he performs well, and the right choice isn't available immediately, he has his man. Mr. Hackett has Michigan football ties, isn't arrogant and has and will make tough choices. Why create a committee when a pick and roll works just as well, especially at a place where the decisionmakers are the new kids  on the block being pulled in various directions for a variety of reasons. When you are being asked to make all the hard choices, who needs a committee. This is quite a time suck, or sink. Sorry. 

Anyway, this has guided my thought process. That in the wake of the athletic department uproar that has beseiged this president,  in his remarks about reigning in athletics as it connects to the university at large, he didn't use tame language in suggesting what people have asked him to do: hire a new AD to fire Hoke. Guess what, he isn't acting on that impulse because he is a deliberate guy who knows how to play the game in the academic political world. You don't get where he has without having that ability. He won't overreach but he knows the score. 

So, he hired the right guy for the right time to do the right thing. And that thing might not end up being Hoke's head but, then, on the other hand, it very well could or will. At least the recruit class thinks so. '

I think his revised commentary about relationships going forward is informed by current events, his own philosophy and a desire for a semblence of control.

Brady Hoke would be perfect as head coach if he could just win and develop the players he's recruited. For most, that is no longer an issue, but for the people in charge it still is. And that is why he is being defended.  

Honest to pete, even if everyone agrees the guy can't leave fast enough, how can a poor "radio journalist" cover his minutes if he doesn't fabricate a controversy?

Someone has to be the idiot on sports chat shows or there's nothing to watch/listen to.

I think from a players point of view, unless the coach is a complete asshole, they will support the coach. I don't think it's typical for players to blame and point fingers at coaches for losing. I think the situation would have to be pretty bad for players and fans to be on same page.

They probably have experiences that differ than yours. We (at least, I) watch the games, either on tv or in person. I see a bad football team. I conclude that Hoke is not a good coach.

Some people have actually discussed football in depth with Hoke. They have been coached by him or have, at least, watched him coach in person. Those people seem to, at least publicly, claim that he is a good coach. 

This raises three questions: (1) do these people actually believe what they are saying, or are they just toeing some sort of party line? (2) if they really believe what they are saying, what do these individuals that know Hoke personally or have witnessed him coaching in person witness that leads them to conclude that Hoke is the guy for the job? (3) if Hoke is, indeed, a good coach, as some people claim, what is leading to the preposterously bad product on the field?

I don't have the answers to any of the above questions, nor do I really care to speculate. It just makes me sad.

Has anyone noticed that plates are basically really shallow bowls?  I mean they still can hold some liquid.  Bizarre!