Why fire Barwis?
Why fire Barwis? It seems Hoke is intent on doing a complete housecleaning like RR did. Why not retain someone that seems to be one of the best, that brought Michigan up to date? It would seem you would like some continuity for the players. Offense and defense schemes will change completely (again). We expect all of the defensive coaches to be gone all of the offensive coaches gone (except maybe Fred Jackson). Ex players seemed to hold Barwis in high regard and he would seem to have relationships with all of the players that might aid in retention. He seemed to be good for recruiting.
It bugged me when RR fired everyone last time rather than trying to keep some staff to serve as a bridge (in hindsight keeping the defensive staff would have been a good idea). S&C coach would seem like the least risky (from a scheme standpoint) to retain.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:55 PM ^
Because he has his own guys. Any leader, in virtually any field of endeavor, accumulates a stable of loyal followers who come with him.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:42 PM ^
Obviously not the same but I work for a large company and we make acquisitions all of the time. We lose some people in the transition due to culture and compensation changes but we usually bring along some people who ultimately take leadership positions in our company.
Personally I find it is important to bring in people with different ways of doing things as it adds to the collective intelligence of the group. I find the leaders that meld a leadership team from different sources better than the power broker who has to bring in all of his cronies to lead his team.
I understand the desire to have your own core team, but does it have to be every single person? What would it hurt to bring some of the old team on board?
January 12th, 2011 at 10:07 PM ^
A different perspective but not the same thing at all.
True you may hire someone to take a leadership position, but this type of things happens ALL the time in corporate if they are allowed to bring people below them. Let's put it this way, your new company just hired you for a multi-million dollar project. Your future and the company's future depends on your productivity. If given the opportunity to bring in your own guys, do you (A) go out on a limb and keep the new company's men, especially knowing that the previous regime f'ed it up bigtime, or (B) bring in your own guys who you know how they work and know that the chemistry is there.
Easy choice.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:48 PM ^
assess the existing talent and keep the good ones. That way they have some continuity for the transition versus starting over from scratch. "Your own guys" don't know everything, nor do they have the relationships with the 'rank and file' (in this case the players). We've seen how well starting off with a 'clean slate' with respect to the leadership (coaches) can work.
The smart coporate guys don't piss all over what they've just taken over... Most times the answer is somewhere in the middle.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:33 PM ^
I agree with you, and no it doesn't have to be and shouldn't be everybody. But I don't think Hoke is bringing all of his own people, but will assemble something of a new team. And there's always Coach Jackson.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:00 PM ^
It's the coach's preference. If he in comfortable with his guy, he should bring him in. I have heard that SDSU's S&C coach is highly regarded also. I for one want any new coach to have all the tools he needs/wants at his disposal. No excuses and the best chance to succeed.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:09 PM ^
mike martin would destroy that tire
January 12th, 2011 at 9:21 PM ^
Obviously Barwis was fired to make room for "EPIC SDSU ECSTASY OF GOLD WORKOUT MUSIC VIDEO MAN"
January 12th, 2011 at 9:47 PM ^
Watching that video makes me want to go out and buy my own big tire, so I can go flip it around in the parking lot of my apartment complex.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:42 PM ^
I was just thinking the same thing.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:21 PM ^
Ennio is the man. Great music.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:21 PM ^
actually play "The Ecstasy of Gold" during the workouts. I'm ready to max out right now!
January 12th, 2011 at 10:30 PM ^
But some of those close up shots look a little too much like the whole "touching kids" spiel.
<br>
<br>More seriously, the Internet is Amazing. Everything is on there now.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:37 PM ^
Mostly good stuff but there's a disturbing lack of power cleans in the video and an equally disturbing appearance of barbell bicep curls.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:30 PM ^
a bit dramatic. I'm gonna miss the the barwisization of his wolf pack.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:57 PM ^
cuz he shrunk our players
January 12th, 2011 at 8:58 PM ^
Signed Patrick Omameh?
January 12th, 2011 at 9:08 PM ^
I'd say he was given small guys more so than shrinking them.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:31 PM ^
She said.
January 13th, 2011 at 6:21 AM ^
got where he is because Barwis took an out of shape average player and helped turned him into the 13th overall player in the draft. Omameh was mention and Taylor Lewan thinks your a donkey so you better watch out.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:10 PM ^
I'm loving the tSIO reference...
January 12th, 2011 at 9:00 PM ^
Barwis will land on his feet - its impossible for him not to... He'll be employed soon, probably at Pitt.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:45 PM ^
What if you are a 19 year old Soph getting a new coach you know nothing about, wouldn't some consistency be helpful? I'm not worried about Barwis but it just seems like we are blowing the whole thing up again needlessly.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:00 PM ^
...is the S&C spot. Yes, Barwis is a very effective S & C guy but Hoke has his guy and his guy has been pretty darn effective. There really is no point in getting upset over a change in the S & C department.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:28 PM ^
But what about the wolves?! Think of the wolves!
January 12th, 2011 at 9:03 PM ^
According to Hoke, he "took nobodies (at Ball State) and turned them into NFL caliber players"
January 12th, 2011 at 9:17 PM ^
This was one of my favorite things reading about Hoke the last few days. I am by no means saying that Barwis or RR were incapable of preparing players for the NFL, but the thought of having NFL sized and conditioned bodies on defense for UM again makes me pretty excited.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:21 PM ^
I wonder why those NFL caliber players couldn't get Hoke to a .500 record (or even one conference title)?
January 12th, 2011 at 9:28 PM ^
because Ball State was darn near the worst D-1 football team in the nation before he got there.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:59 PM ^
Ball State was 6-6 the year before he got there (.500) (2002). 5-6 the year prior (2001). 5-6 the year prior to that (2000).
The next four years, Hoke underperformed each of those 2000-2002 Ball State teams: 2003: 4-8; 2004: 2-9; 2005: 4-7; 2006: 5-7.
Look, I understand -- now that he's our coach, we need to support him. But let's not start pretending that white is black, day is night, Lloyd Carr cured cancer, and Brady Hoke took the "worst D-1 team" in the nation and turned it around. Let's stick to the facts: he was a DL coach at Michigan; he doesn't need a map to the campus; he is a hard worker and people like him. He really wants this job. Let's hope he succeeds.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:24 PM ^
Perhaps someone will dig into this, but as I recall Hoke began scheduling tougher opponents than his predecessor(s) did. I didn't follow Ball State closely at the time (followed Toledo and Bowling Green), but I thought under Hoke, Ball State loaded up their OOC schedule with a couple B10 teams every year (including Michigan, in 06), as well as teams like Nebraska, Auburn, BC, etc. That might explain a few of his losses.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:03 PM ^
I like Barwis. May be the University can make him the director of all S&C and he would oversee all sports. If the new coach wants to bring in his new guy S&C coach for the football team then he has that right. From what I've heard Barwis really like the University and I hope the University can keep him within the AD.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:05 PM ^
I agree completely.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:09 PM ^
I was thinking something similar. In particular I know the hockey guys utilize his services quite a bit so I can only imagine most other sports would to some extent.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:11 PM ^
Not gonna happen. This has been talked about already.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:39 PM ^
want to stay? All of his boys are gone and he'd be the perpetual outsider. I like the guy but I can't see him staying even if asked since he can probably get the same gig at Pitt with his former colleagues.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:01 PM ^
Barwis would stay. That is not speculation. But I am not optimistic that he will be given the opportunity.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:03 PM ^
and his voice would have been spectacular for the Hoke-a-mania meme.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:03 PM ^
I've seen that Hoke is bringing his own S&C coach, but I haven't heard that Barwis is leaving Michigan. It's been said Barwis likes it at Michigan. I'm hoping Barwis will stay at Michigan (other sports?) while Hoke brings his S&C coach as well.
I think it would be good for the players to have some consistency.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:06 PM ^
You bring up a great point. I think RR firing everyone (except FJ) when he arrived started a lot of the backlash/undermining of the program during his tenure.
I hate making any arguments using Rosenberg as an example--since we all know he's a rat--but I seem to remember him being initially excited about hiring RR (something to the effect of "Schiano and Les are good coaches, but RR is a GREAT coach"). Everything seemed to turn after the purge of Lloyd's staff.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:22 PM ^
The great irony: the very guy Lloyd least wanted to be hired (Miles) probably would have kept more of his assistants around than the guy who ended up getting the job (RR).
January 12th, 2011 at 9:25 PM ^
Why do we insist on thinking that Michigan is the only place where coaching changes don't result in assistant changes as well? We act like LC's and RR's assistants were fired with prejudice, it's not personal, it's business, it's how it works everywhere.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:30 PM ^
Because there is a difference between succeeding a coach who steps down voluntarily and replacing a coach who is fired. In the former case, it's typical to retain some assistants to bridge the transition. When you're replacing a guy as loyal to his assistants as Carr, it's pretty much essential.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:54 PM ^
In doing some research on coordinator canning, it looks like in almost all cases where a head coach leaves -- for any reason -- the coordinators change. RR kept Fred Jackson; I think the only other coaches that folks wish he had kept are Loefler and Campbell.
Not sure what Barwis's contract situation is; he has a young family so I hope he's taken care of one way or another.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:41 PM ^
With a different system. Loeffler and Campbell were/are excellent coaches, but I can at least see how Rich's system has different requirements for those positions.
<br>
<br>But Van Bedford would have been shitloads better than the secondary coaching we got. Couldn't do much worse than the LBer coaching we had either (push out one coach, then give to GERG). Stripling was a good line coach too, but Tall was probably the strength of our defensive coaching. They'd have been better off making Bedford DC and let him coach d-backs, and have him bring in another assistant, or keep one of the old one's.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:45 PM ^
Or "Vance".
January 12th, 2011 at 9:06 PM ^
Because of The Wellman Factor. This team is gonna get Wellmanized.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:17 PM ^
Barwis likely will follow RR wherever he ends up. RR probably won't take a job this year, but he may in 2012. Hoke may decide it isn't worth retaining him for what might not be the long-term, especially if it means losing his SDSU S&C guy in the meantime.