Next big 3 Michigan sport to win National title/have National POY?
Had a discussion today with a friend and wanted to get the MGoBoard's opinions on who they think will be next.
I think the next national champion of the "big 3" (Football, Men's Basketball, Hockey) will be Hockey because of the excellent talent they have now as well as having another a first round NHL draft pick come in for potentially a minimum of 3 years.
They just have to put it together chemistry wise. IMO, it's all there. We've seen what they're capable of when clicking. That goes for everyone. Nagelvoort was leading the nation in save % for a good chunk of last season as a freshman.
For the next national POY, this is a tough one but I would say Basketball.
All of your posts are exactly 11-13 lines of text long... Almost always... You may not be human.
It's the goggles, right? Do they give it away?
I'd take that under in a heartbeat.
That's why I'm glad I'm not a betting man.
What about Mark Dantonio going 21-18 in his first 3 years at MSU? He never won a conference title anywhere else. It's no use arguing with a close minded person though who is not going to consider other possibilities other than Hoke is a fat bozo who needs to wear a headset.
Another fanboy. They travel in packs...
I've had to at least attempt to reason with someone who had trouble presenting their disagreements in a constructive manner already this week, so we shall try it here. Nobody is putting down your dissent so much as the way you're doing it. Calling people "fanboy" dismissively and refusing to constructively participate in any discussion can and will lead to your blogging life here being tragically cut short, so I encourage you to be just a little more thoughtful in your replies. Consider yourself warned.
As opposed to me being called an ass hole and bozo....
No one called you a bozo and you were called an asshole only after you started trolling and calling everyone who disagrees with you fanboys.
Another troll. They travel alone because they are assholes who have no friends...
had Mitch not been injured, but I'll chip in with a vote for the bb team. What Belein does with his perimiters players is almost legendary already, and turning Morgan into possibly an NBA talent was probably even a bigger achievement. My opinion is when he finally nails his next Mitch who is able to play injury free, our bb program, already in the discussion among the best will go even further and the next time we play in the NC game there will be a contributing big on the floor that will put us over the top. Football is just too damn difficult to predict. One loss, even with the new format, may prohibit one of the nation's top four teams from even participating. And the BIG as proven this past year is going to continue its balance that getting through that schedule with one conference loss only will be quite an achievement in itself.
Are you serious? Your points about basketball make zero sense. We were in the national championship the season before last and were a few plays away from winning it. This year we made the Elite 8 and lost an extremely close game to a team who was on one of the best runs in NCAA tournament history. Jordan Morgan was not a medicore big man. He was one of the best defensive players in the Big Ten last season. This year our big men are going to be very young but also were pretty highly rated recruits who will turn into solid players because we have one of the best staffs at development in NCAA.
Hockey has probably the easiest path to a NC.
POY probably is most likely from basketball
I don't care if people think Hoke isn't the right guy. I have a problem with people who claim to know it all that Hoke is not the right guy and are belligerent with those who disagree with them.
Yeah. Just because you've had two mediocre seasons doesn't mean the next two will be mediocre as well. I have no problem with someone saying "I don't think Hoke is the man for the job after the last few years. I do have a problem with someone saying "We won't be good at all with Hoke" since you're giving youself no room to be wrong and thus claim to know it all. Notice how I never said anything about how Hoke is the man for the job or anything like that. Imagine if someone said "We will never be relevent nationally with Beilein" or something after his 3rd year.
He was just clartifying his [?] original point, which was presumably about the guy who melted down upthread. That is the "someone," not you. No need to whine.
For what it's worth, Hoke will get at least two more years, no matter what, whether you like it or not. Probably three or four, really, assuming he is able to hold his classes together. He will get a chance to field a team or two with an intact group of fifth-year seniors that he recuited (not counting his first class).
If that doesn't happen, and Brandon fires Hoke after this season, Hoke won't be the only one gone. Brandon will lose his job. Indeed, if Brandon were to want to fire Hoke after this season (again, assuming his recruiting classes are still intact), I'd fire him (Brandon) first, and bring in someone who has the guts to carry out the plan.
Hoke wasn't hired to "turn Michigan around" (again, as others seem to think, not you). Michigan was never Stanford. It's a useless comparison. Hoke was hired to clean up the mess after recruiting and attrition got out of control. He's done that, and now he needs a couple of years to take the next step as a head coach. The question of whether Hoke can win the big games is one for the near future, not the present.
Many AD's survive after firing coaches they hire. It's holding on to them too long that causes them to get fired.
His first full class were SO and RS FR last year. Even if he was the best talent developer in the history of football, they still wouldn't be enough to make up for the disasterous 2010 class, who should be the heart of our team right now. It's not that people that support Hoke think the last two years have been sunshine and rainbows, it hasn't. It's just that we feel people need to be realistic about the time it takes to turn a program around, especially when we're climbing out of a crater as deep the one we were in when Hoke got here.
Also, I don't think people give Hoke and Co enough credit for developing players and tend to cherry pick the worst "busts" and ignore guys like Funchess, Ryan, Countess, Butt, etc. We had basically one position group, OL, underperform their expectations... if you can even call it that given their experience and age. Unfortunately, that was a fatal weakness the last couple years.
Finally, our OC wasn't exactly very good at scheming around weaknesses, so it's probably wise to give the new guy a couple seasons to full install his system and see if we can get a Mattisonesque turn around in the offense.
Harbaugh is elite. He turned around a complete garbage of a program with academic restrictions and built them into something that not onl yturned great when he was there, but preserved after he left. He then went to a somewhat talented team in San Fran, with NO OFF SEASON PROGRAM since that was the year they were locked out, and look what he did. Guy is proven and at this point one of the top 5 coaches in the game. For all the Hoke defenders by comparison to what Harbaugh did at Stanford (again it was 1-11 before he showed up), it took 6 years for him to have ONE elite year at Ball State and what is troubling to me is the year he left the program crumbled. So he didnt built a system or a program - he built a team. That promptly crumbled after those seniors left.
And yes stop comparing Dantonio to Hoke. Dantonio has proven himself and he had a big mess of John L Smith and Bobby Williams to clean up. No one can tell me despite the 2010 disaster Hoke had it worse than that. To everyone who says "look at Dantonio after 3 years ... and then look at what we are doing blah blah" - you can say that about every coach in America after 3 years who has a say .550-.600 record. That doesn't mean anything about the next few years....and doesnt justify every coach in the nation. You could say the exact same thing about Charlie Weiss after 3 years at ND.
My feeling is Hoke needs 2 fantastic coordinators and he is just a CEO type coach. I don't see any part of this team that he really dominates.... unless you count defensive lineman. That doesn't mean doom but it is coordinator reliant - Bobby Bowden rolled around for a few decades like this with some great years.
My other feeling is when Hoke has all his classes our floor will return to the Carr years, that is 3-4 loss seasons. Which is what got the the fans restless so if that is what Hoke is, we will just have gone in one big circle jerk. I don't know if that is what Hoke is but thus far I have seen little to prove otherwise. Even with a deficient team the performances when we face like minded or better opponents has been not great - we had 2 weeks to prepare for MSU and they had 1, and we got de-panted. We had a month+ to prepare for Coach Synder, and we looked poor. On the flip side there is OSU so I'll offer that as a positive I suppose.
Bottom line 2015 will tell me what Hoke is. He will have 9 or 10 returning starters on offense depending on if Funchess returns and most of the defense will return. He will never ever have an easier schedule with a patsy non conf and no Wisconsin in the Big 10 crossover. Both MSU and OSU will be at home. If he pulls a Carr and does the normal 3-4 loss things in that type of season then we just have Carr lite. There will be no season in the next decade where more things will be in UM's favor than 2015 - it needs to be a 1 or 2 loss season.
As an aside 3-4 losses while most here seem to have accepted as ok (I see a lot of "hey we cannot be as good as OSU the past 6 months, which is garbage - that is like OKlahoma saying they can't be as good as Texas) is not very good at all considering at UM you play 2 baby seals in non conf and 2-3 bad to mediocre Big 10 teams every year . That means you are handed 5-0 every year out of the box. That leaves a 7 game season versus "competent" opponents. To have a 3-4 loss season it means of the remaining 7 games you went 4-3 or 3-4. So a 3-4 loss season just means you went .500 versus any team with a heartbeat. So it is underachieiving at a program like UM... see OSU's records the past 15 years for what our footprint should be give or take 1 extra loss annually.
This team, on either side of the ball, can no longer be called young, even if an incoming freshman were to unseat someone listed no. 1 on the depth chart. Available at every position on the OL is at least one highly recruited player who will be spending no less than his third year in AA. Starting as a RS Freshman, as many did, was possibly the best thing to happen to them. If nothing else, it proved to all, despite their resumes coming in, they weren't ready for prime time. They've enjoyed all the privileges of being part of the Michigan football tradition for two full years and year three is a year that you can reasonable expect returns on your investment. According to all those that rate these players, they came in expected to be superior to those across the line from them and even though no one expected that to be in even their second year in the program as RS Freshmen, the third year makes all the difference. You've been in one of cfb's best weight training programs, you're already advanced technique that got you here should be drastically improved upon by year three plus you are armed with the knowledge that, as a unit, you are certainly capable of erasing at least three of the four losses that were decided by less than the number of digits on both hands.
You will not be over taxed in schemes. With your new OC you will be instructed to seal off a zone on every play instead of overthinking the many choices that were too often the wrong ones last season. This in itself is going to allow you to play in the manner you did three years ago in h.s. and use your strength, size and superior athleticism to sustain time consuming, point producing drives. Our qb in probably no less than the second best in the conference and by sheer numbers and star power, one of our RBs should emerge as more than dependable. IMO, and the offense wasn't allowed to show much in the spring game, I'm thinking Smith showed a determination the others lacked and he could prove to be the go-to guy.
The defense speaks for itself. We are two deep at every position, allowing one of the best DCs to rotate at he sees fit and we have no obvious weaknesses. Even the DL, down in numbers in recent years, goes two deep easily, and our back seven should be the conference's best.
It's been awhile since we've had to sneak up on people but every program that has ever been turned around begins with a few "surprise" victories. If Brady would have walked here to take this job, we'll see if he's able to trot to keep it. Winning ten this year shouldn't require a superb effort on his part. Everywhere he's ever been he has been able to outrecruit his counterparts. Although OSU still ranks ahead of us in that department, he isn't that far behind and easily outdistances everyone else over the past four year period. It's simply time to saddle up and get those suckers corralled. Michigan fans expect a certain amount of celebration come Saturday evening and Mr. Hoke, you've been practicing with that lasso long enough. Time to bring a few of the big ones down.
[Preface - @1927 I did not downvote you]
But I disagre with you on Shane on this account. You will never have 22 returning starters.
Next point. Shane will be a 3rd year QB in a 4 year career. If he cannot succeed in the second half of his career we have problems from our OC (who is also our QB coach). if a guy cannot suceed in his 3rd year out of 4 years - well we are doomed. It is saying we can only count on senior QBs. His offense will be loaded everywhere in 2015 - finally experienced upperclassmen at the OL, TEs galore, and even if Funchess leaves a ton of WRs ... and two 5 star RBs plus Smith. It is like what the Lions have given Stafford - weapons everywhere.
Look at other teams - Winston 2nd year, Manziel 2nd year, any Oregon QB under the sun 2nd or 3rd year. Shane need not be great - I am saying a good 3rd to 4th best QB in the Big 10 that year. Look at Henne for example as a freshman. Or sophomore. Shane will have less on field experience when he steps out there for 2015 but more years in the system and learning and watching film of opponents and strengh training than Henne did those first 2 years.
As for 2014 I dont have that high of hopes in terms of record because of the OL again and the youth of the offense as a whole (plus a lot of tricky games on paper) but I expect the team to be far better in Nov than Sep. I said that last year and was smacked across the face by this team and its coaching staff. Maybe it was because there was a donut hole in the jr class (that has now moved to the sr class) due to the 2010s and we had too many 2nd year players in the system that the game was still too big for. But this year we are populated with 3rd year players everywhere which is the year you should have no excuses in a system. Plus veterans on defense with those 2nd and 3rd year players - the product needs to be better as the season progresses as it is at any school where the coaches are good or paid anywhere near what ours are.
So what's the problem with comparing Dantonio and Hoke? You say that he proved himself. Yeah he did in his 4th year. He did jack at Cincinnati and years 1-3 at MSU. The problem here is that no one keeps an open mind to these possibilities. Everyone who disagrees with the Hoke supporters seems to argue that we somehow like going 7-6 like that's some guarantee every year thus forward with Hoke. Hell no I don't. I also don't like going 15-17 in basketball which was John Beilein's record in Michigan's 3rd season.
All I am saying is its too simple.
A) You can take any mediocre coach in the country after 3 years and say "oh yeah but Dantonio...just wait til year 4". You could then argue that for every coach in America starting in year 4. How many will actually take the program to the next level like Dantonio did? Not many. I have no idea if Hoke will (he has a major built in advantage in resources, talent, etc over 95% of coaches in Div I) but its too simply to take any coach and say "don't worry, he is on the same flight path as COACH XYZ who took off at school XYZ." Charlie Weiss was on the same flight path as Hoke was more or less after 3 years as well, just the 3rd year was a complete wipe out but same idea - great recruiting, average results on field. Year 4 was 7-6. So we could just as easily use Weiss as an example rather than Dantonio as to what might happen no?
B) Better than comparing to Dantonio is comparing to all coaches entering year 4. There is an array of outcomes - leveling off, falling off, advancing. If our team was in California or Texas no one would be talking about Dantonio, we'd be looking at a comparable locally.
Bottom line - there are many coaches who did "ok" in their first 3 years, who went on to continue to just do ok. There are also those who the first 3 years were a building block to better things. And there were those who were living off previous coach talent and then it fell apart in years 4-5. So just picking one random coach locally and saying "because there, then most likely will happen here" is just too simple.
All that said there is way too much talent coming in for UM to fall off from here. The likely outcomes are (A) this staff is excellent and Hoke shines and we begin seasons of 11-2 regularly or (B) Hoke is average and coordinators underwhelm and they take all this talent and go back to what Michigan was for long periods under Carr where so much talent somehow found ways to lose 3-4 games a year.
p.s. as much as we pick on the HC I think position coaches are way undervalued on these boards. Right now on offense I think we have 1 position coach who seems to get the most out of his talent - Hecklinski. Obviously Funk has a lot of eyes on him and Jackson IMO has underwhelmed since Mike Hart walked on campus. As for defense it is difficult to tell but obviously with all the changes happening there was internal review that things were not working there to full capacity either.
I'd disagree pretty much completely with this. Hoke took a historically bad defense and turned it around in a season. He's only had a few star-caliber players, but they did alright under Hoke (Lewan, Ryan, Martin, Molk, etc), but he certainly didn't do his biggest start player, denard, right.
I'd agree that he hasn't proven he can consistently coach at the highest level, but I'd think 8-4 will let him keep his job. He is, after all, woking through a major hole in the team roster from the sad results of the incoming classes of 2009 and 2010, and the schedule he is handed isn't a great one. Going 8-4 in 2015 will cost him his job for sure.
My biggest fear though is the idea of going through another rebuilding process if there's a coaching change. Hoke should be given enough time to prove himself. Beilein took a few years to get the ball rolling and now we know we've got the best basketball coach out there. Same goes for Mark Dantonio and what he has done at MSU. Far from the epicness of John Beilein, but with time he's built a decent program.
do we average per decade, combined across football, basketball, and hockey?
Especially with the new playoff system that will probably be expanded in the years to come. My guess it may be the 2017 team. It may or may not be with Hoke. Only time will tell. If Hoke is gone in two years, I think the brinks truck will be backed up to JH, who will probably be sick of the NFL in 2 or 3 years. Plus Hoke will have left the cupboard fully stocked! I hope Hoke can start winning here and be the coach to lead us the way in 2017!
NCAA is just so difficult to make a run all the way! MBB would be my second pick though!
However, if you were to compare each sport by how many conference championships they win over say, the next 10-15 years, basketball should easily do the best in that regard. Hockey comes in second and football is third.
My view from those days is Carr coached (with respect to decisions) with an infuriating conservatism. Hoke has shown me that he is willing to put the team on the line in critical situations. I believe that is a key strength of a team that will eventually prove big dividends. The team is going to get used to this expectation and it will be something they handle well going forward.
I like, respect, and expect the fact that those coaches named care about their players, want to graduate them, and recruit guys with a minimum of off-field incidents. That will always be important to me and will not change.
So back to Hoke. In my mind its almost a decision of economics, like it or not. The powerful high roller super-donatin' alumni seem to like him as donations are rolling in. In my opinion they have slightly more power than the broad fanbase, who basically only have ticket purchases (and lack thereof) and their ability to vote with their feet. Unless its a complete goose-egg, the fanbase is going to keep coming, as they have done virtually uninterrupted since the 1940s. My information is that the influential alumni disliked RR for various reasons and what Michigan had become to the point where the donation faucet was about to be turned OFF and DB's ears perked up to that.
Harbaugh may be able to win more games, his track record would suggest higher average performance at high levels of the game, but I think the variance is a lot higher on what the powerful alumni would think about the coach and program going forward. My guess is they prefer more personal conservatism than a guy who lets a lot of stuff hang out. But it is yet to be seen.
While I respect Coach Dantonio, I believe the RR years were like a winning lottery ticket for him Rod seemed to hang out in South Carolina and Florida during the offseason, based on all the scholarship offers that are archived on Magnus' site....hence leaving in-state recruiting Wide Open for the other school to cherry pick. I think the work put in during those years has paid handsome dividends in east lansing, and the inertia generated will continue for quite awhile, for even as Michigan recruits nationally, that's one more guy who might have an easy default choice to play in the center of the state.
DB has shown lately, a swift axe on those coaches who aren't performing at a high level. However those are non-revenue sports, and so I believe a large bank account is Very Effective in recruiting new coaches with potentially higher upside because there's only so much opportunity nationally for coaches in those sports. Football not so much. Being the engine of the entire athletic program, it has a huge potential to sink the entire ship if things go wrong if he uses his axe too quickly and without someone to step into the void and automatically perform at a higher level.
Which would quickly mean DB would be looking for another job....
My opinion could be unpopular but I believe we will be with Hoke for a number of years extending into a second contract unless there's some kind of negative meteor strike in the W-L record. I think he does have what it takes to add to high-level coordinators to get the job done and we will see that within 2 years' time.
Basketball for the title, football for the POY.
Hence, it was quite clear RichRod wasn't a big defensive guy. Hell, that Illinois game in 2010 had a combined score of 127 points. It was pretty exciting to watch, but the 65 scored on us by Illinois of all teams must be up there in the record books.
As for Rodriguez, he obviously called the shots on offense, but Hoke seems to leave nearly all the play calling up to his coordinators. Then during practices I imagine most the teaching/development of guys falls on the assistants as well. So I'm really curious what it is about the Jim Harbaugh type of guys that, in general, helps them reach such a high level of success? I realize all coaches take a somewhat different approach based on their individual football philosophies, personal characteristics, the specific style of play they want to implement, etc. And certainly there are some exceptionally innovative people like RichRod who thrived (just not at Michigan) based off of a new, unique system they established. However, it just seems like there's got to be something very significant that really sets a guy apart in order to become one of the game's elite coaches.
That said, I feel like all coaches need to be great leaders and have the ability to establish very good chemistry amongst the team. However, my best guess as to what could be an important quality for reaching a high level of success involves a coach being able to fully earn every possible bit of respect and trust from his team; one that can really motivate his guys to play with a great deal of heart and passion. Traits such as these are pretty obvious though and can be applied to any coach, regardless of their sport.
So it would be cool if anyone that has more football knowledge than me could provide some input on what might be potential key characteristics and attributes of the best head football coaches. I'm sure people here on The Blog have personal experiences that could have shaped their opinions on the matter as well. I'm just all around very curious, particularly when we have a guy like Brady Hoke who has so much faith in his staff, namely the coordinators of whom are really integral to his success.
Wow I definitely just went on a tangent there...probably could use a lesson on concision.