- Member for
- 5 years 6 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 day 4 hours ago||Biggest? No.||
|1 week 20 hours ago||He played for a MAC Championship||
I'd say that any game that would put him into a championship contention or a big time nonconference game. Extra points for a rival on the road (which he's 0-5). Hoke has struggled to beat good teams his entire career.
The only time I can remember him really handling a good team was the Nebraska game his first year. Both ND games felt like we were bailed out. I remember looking it up last year, but I think in 11 years of coaching he's only beaten a team that finished ranked 5 or 6 times (all at home).
|1 week 20 hours ago||He's innovative without being dogmatic||
That's the genius of Beilein whether it be going away from the 1-3-1 but still practicing it enough to use in case we need it (like we did against Kansas a couple years ago) to teaching kids how to shoot the ball correctly (which is why he has the ball he created).
|1 week 23 hours ago||The problem isn't that elite coaches don't have bad losses||
It's that those bad losses are made up with many more elite wins. Hoke has zero elite wins...ever. Even before he came to Michigan he had no elite wins or big upsets. He's the only coach we've ever hired from the outside who had not won a conference title before they got to Michigan.
|1 week 1 day ago||Dantonio took over a tire fire||
Hoke took over a team with talent on it and an easy schedule. Dantonio won the Big Ten in his 4th year and 9 games in his second year. Hoke has lost as many games to MSU in 3 years that Dantonio has in 7. This is not a let's wait and see if he can build a program moment, Hoke walked into a decent situation, especially considering the turmoil OSU was in.
|1 week 1 day ago||I agree||
But it is what it is.
|1 week 1 day ago||So...we have a long history||
Cool so does Rome.
One of our biggest problems is that we're so obsessed with the past that we have stopped innovating. Michigan had 11 national titles! (1/2 of one since 1948).
We have 42 big ten titles! (1/2 in a decade).
Little brother lol! (We haven't scored a TD against MSU in over two games and haven't scored a TD. at ND in 2 games)
We've beaten OSU twice since 2001.
What exactly is the Michigan of old? Yost and Crisler innovated rather than saying This Is Michigan! (Tm). If you want to point to Bo, that's great, I love him too, but realize that none of those 11 titles you brag about belong to him. He was King of the Big Ten in an era that it was important, but outside of the Midwest few are impressed.
We are never going to be good again simply because Yost, Crisler, Bo, and Lloyd were. Michigan is good when it uses its powerful tradition to be new and leading.
|1 week 4 days ago||At this point||
You're not going to get a big name who's not an alum (or John Harbaugh, who's basically one), I think. If you're Art Briles or Kevin Sumlin, there's no reason to leave their situation, especailly after what happened to Rich Rod.
An big name outsider would have to understand Michigan's prima donna outlook the way Bo did (and theyway Rich didn't). If Les will coach for 6-8 more years, you have to do it.
As for smaller name guys. I've been impressed with Beau Baldwin at Eastern Washington, but he's from California. Craig Bohl has Big Ten ties and was great at NDSU. I just don't see how the football alum and AD insiders allow a hire like that after Hoke goes 9-4 this year.
|1 week 4 days ago||Shaw is vastly overrated||
He always gets outschemed by good teams.
|1 week 4 days ago||This will go well||
Let's talk in 10 weeks.
|1 week 4 days ago||You'd be correct if you'd written that 2 years ago||
It's year 4. He didn't walk into a situation where there were 50 freshmen. He walked into a situation with some pretty good guys on the team. Hell, he had a first and third round draft pick offensive lineman on the team last year. This team isn't that young, especially compared to our rivals.
|1 week 5 days ago||Yeah, not so much||
In today's media everyone would gave known who Bo was. He won the MAC twice and finished second three times. He was 40-17-3 and was in his mid-30s.
|1 week 5 days ago||This Post Could Be Posted After Any Road Loss Over Last 4 Years||
In four years Brady Hoke's Michigan teams have scored a grand total of 2 touchdowns at Notre Dame and Michigan State (those 2 touchdowns are from 2011 and happen to also be the last time we scored a touchdown against MSU).
Brady Hoke has never beaten a team away from the Big House that finished the regular season with a winning record. Even when he went 10-2 he lost on the road to the two teams that finished the regular season with a winning record. His best road win is at Illinois and that team finished 7-6 (6-6 regular season).
This is year 4: it's not a coincidence anymore or an injury problem or bad luck or youth. It's a trend.
|1 week 5 days ago||Carroll wasn't a failure||
He won the division in his first year, went to the Wild Card the year after and then went 8-8.
|1 week 5 days ago||I feel similar to you||
My wife noticed that I don't get fired up about losses the way I used to for football and still do for basketball and asked me why. After thinking about it, it's because I just don't see Brady Hoke as either an inspirational type of figure (like Lloyd) or a genius of some kind (like Beilein and to an extent, Rich Rod, at least on offense). It doesn't feel like we're going anywhere.
For me, Brady Hoke is exactly what Brian thought he was during the coaching searches: he's a .600 coach who beats bad teams, competes with decent teams, and gets blown out by good teams. He succeeds by winning home games and pulling an upset at home, but isn't going to do that on road.
I've also realized that the thing I like about Brady Hoke is that he loves Michigan the way I do, but that can only get me so far, I guess. I'm only 30, so I wasn't around for Bump, but from talking to folks that were around back then, that's exactly who Hoke is. A Michigan Man who's an average coach.
|1 week 5 days ago||His personality is more suited for college||
I've been wondering if that'd happen. In college the coach is god, in the NFL the star players are. Harbaugh's personality probably works better in college because the maximum years that a player will spend with him is 5.
|1 week 5 days ago||Chances are||
We go 8-3 with a shot at OSU on the road. The Big Ten being dreadful has helped Hoke keep his job and if we can beat a winning team on the road once we could have a chance at the division at OSU.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Wearing the headset for Hoke||
Is what wearing a tie was for Amaker, which makes sense because they both got the Michigan job based on one pretty good season and recommendation from a well-liked coach they worked for.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||In what regard isn't MSU our Little Brother||
Institutionally, they are, in fact, our little brother. The university is younger than ours and it is univerally acknowledged that Michigan is a better school. I attended MSU for a semester before going to UM. They are, in every way, from the libraries and academic environment to the student body, the little brother. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
It's not just about football. It never has been, which is why the comment received so much traction.
|4 weeks 19 hours ago||I tend to agree with you||
But realize that the teams you mentioned have pretty much dominated college football the last few years. I also didn't say he's a bad recruiter. He's basically driving a Ferrari and hitting the gas on straightaways. Recruiting is the thing he's best at, but it's also fairly clear that he's not the best recruiter in the Midwest.
|4 weeks 23 hours ago||I don't get why people act as if he's killing it in recruiting||
He's a good recruiter, but he's not outstanding. He's been outrecruited by OSU every single year. He routinely has the third or fourth best class in the Big Ten. He's gotten some good players (Peppers is probably going to be an all-time great), but let's not kid ourselves here, he's not a better recruiter than Kelly or Urban. He's had two good classes and in both years OSU did better.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||It all depends on the alternative||
If we go 8-4, 9-3 and lose to OSU and MSU, AND someone like Jim orJohn Harbaugh, or some other no brainer, is available, then of course we'd be fools to not hire them. Hoke's at the point where only a clear upgrade would be worth changing coaches (assuming he continues his trend of being a .540% winning coach).
We're at the point where the next hire has to be the perfect one. Here's hoping that means we're just bumping up Nuss in a few years after Hoke has a successful run, but we can't do what we did with Rich Rod and just start making changes to make a change.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Loved Nuss since he was at Washington||
Still unnerved by the fact that Hoke's never beaten a top 20 team on the road in his career and we'll have 3 of those games this year.
|8 weeks 3 days ago||Lifetime scholarships||
A minor league football and basketball league funded by the pro leagues and commitment/eligibility rules similar to college baseball. Players get a cut of all sales from likeness being used.
|8 weeks 5 days ago||your premise is wrong||
Sports does not affect enrollment, quality, and university profile in any meaningful way. Study after study shows that small upticks in applications immediately go back down within a very short period. FGCU would have many more applications from having a top biochemistry major than if they became Duke basketball overnight.
At the end of the day, very few people choose their college because of sports. That's especially true for public universities. The Flutie Effect is short term.
The reason why low-level universities have football is precisely because it's something fun to do (and funded by alumni), not because they believe it will help them fulfill their academic mission or raise their university profile.
Academics, researchers, and prospective students are aware of schools like Butler, VCU, and FGCU already because they have motivation to do so. That's who raises academic profiles, not someone who likes sports and recognizes their mascot. I understand that it's counterintuitive, but every single examination of the topic bears that out. If football became banned tomorrow, Michigan would continue to be Michigan and the student body would simply find something else to do on Saturdays. Our enrollment would be pretty much the same, as would our applications, etc.
You should think about your premise not from the lower end of the academic scale, but from the higher one. If sports had a meaningful impact on your university profile the Ivy League would be the SEC and schools like Washington U, Cal Tech, MIT, etc would all pour as much money into their teams as Texas. Those schools obsess over having elite profiles and have boatloads of dollars at their disposal.
|8 weeks 6 days ago||You couldn't be more wrong||
Let's take Butler. Butler was founded in 1855, nearly 150 years before they had major success in basketball. Sports has nothing to do with its existence or the quality of education it provides. You think they're random because you don't know about them outside of sports, but that doesn't make them random.
None of these institutions need sports to survive. A great example of this is Chicago. Another, though less drastic, example of this is Rice University. They have a stadium that hosted a Super Bowl because they were great in the 50s and 60s, but recently the football team has been awful and no one goes to games (though last year they won a conference title for the first time in decades). Despite having an AD that performs poorly outside of baseball, the university has consistently done well, both academically and fundraising.
Sports is a side thing universities do for fun, it has little effect on their existences.
|8 weeks 6 days ago||Study after study has shown that to be untrue||
If anything, it takes away from academic donations because the AD is separated from the general fund, but they can offer something to give away, which academic departments can't.
|8 weeks 6 days ago||I'm an academic too||
Most of the folks I know would happily discard sports if it became something that went against, or at least hindered, the academic mission. You're probably like me and found other academics who like sports tend to hang out with each other. For every one of us, there's two who don't like sports and one who couldn't care less.
|8 weeks 6 days ago||Academics approach college football like an alien topic||
They know people care about it, but they don't really understand why, especially in an academic setting.
|8 weeks 6 days ago||He's right, it's not.||
Nearly none of the faculty believe that Michigan must be in the football business. This is what Brian misses in the union discussion. Most academics couldn't care less about football or sports in general. Very few like it, some more tolerate it, and most dislike its connection to academic instutions.
College football exists because of the connection between alumni and current students that it creates. If football players become treated like employees, and thus separated from the student body, you'll start to see teams get shut down because there would be no justification for their existence (this is true even for schools where that connection is simply fiction in reality today, once the veil is torn those schools would have a difficult time justifying the playing of football.).
Nearly all of these universities were created long before college football existed. The large majority of those in charge of the academic wings of these universities would have no problem if the universities at which they administrate and teach no longer played sports. If Michigan dropped its athletic department tomorrow the academic wing would be negligibly affected (and if it would be, we're doing something very wrong).