I think I get it now
January 12th, 2011 at 11:01 PM ^
Disagree totally with this. Don't think Bo loved Michigan. You can't inspire unless you are passionate.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:03 PM ^
of people bringing up Bo every 5 seconds. Bo was a great coach, but he retired 20 years ago. Given the changes in scholarship rules, the rise of recruiting sites, and the increase in the number of good football programs, hee might as well have been coaching a completely different sport.
Michigan is going to have a very hard time moving forward as a program if it doesn't stop insisting on looking back.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^
Nah dude, this is MICHIGAN!, where you drive forward by staring in the rearview mirrors.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:34 PM ^
But he wasn't coaching a completely different sport. He was coaching Michigan football, and he took a once proud team that had grown accustomed to being punked by Woody Hayes and immediately made them a Big 10 power and competitive with their arch-rival again. Honestly, as a fellow Michigan fan, I'm not sure how or why you can be tired of people talking about the guy who revived the program.
Regardless, given the current circumstances, I think you can expect to hear people talking about Bo a lot more as they hope Hoke is the second coming. I don't see how fans remembering and discussing Bo has anything to do with what happens on the football field. If your point is that Michigan has to get away from "3 yards and a cloud of dust" to compete these days, I think that's irrelevant. Many people were crafting comparisons between Bo and Rodriguez when RR took over.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:38 PM ^
my point is that people need to stop acting like there's something unique and holy about Michigan football -- when in reality it's just the same as any other big, historically successful football program except more tied down by its past -- and stop acting like "what would Bo think about X" is a legitimate question.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:57 PM ^
It is easy to say "he's our coach so let's support him." But I genuinely thought Coach Hoke was terrific during the press conference. You can see passion, sincerity and love for all things Michigan. He killed it. I don't think it is fair to bash Brandon by contrast. Brandon is sleep deprived and justifiably sick of the media nonesense. I think Brandon was fired up by Coach and thought this is the time to send the message that this is Michigan. We run things, not the Detroit press.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:58 PM ^
I don't know about you guys, but I was fired up and ready to just about run through a wall about halfway through his introductory comments.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:58 PM ^
You couldn't resist smiling and laughing at Hoke's childlike glee with being here. The man is a true coach. He talks like one, acts like one, and he knows his stuff. When asked about rivalries he was almost embarassed, like they insulted him. Of course he cares about them. That't football. He is a true football coach, and it came out in the press conference. There should be no Rich Rod supporters left after watching Hoke truly care about Michigan.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^
January 12th, 2011 at 11:15 PM ^
I was assuming he meant there shouldn't be RR supporters that are bitter and refuse to support hoke. I didn't take it to mean what you did. Now I'm not sure though, now that you've shown me the other way to take it.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:21 AM ^
is how I meant it, my apologies
January 12th, 2011 at 11:17 PM ^
Spoken like a champ. Well done sir.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:27 PM ^
I second this. I am extremely hyped up for Hoke after his presser, and am moving on from being an RR supporter. However, when RR takes the field at another school, I'll be pulling for him to win (unless it conflicts with Michigan rooting interests). The man gave his all for Michigan, it just didn't work out.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:59 PM ^
If someone can fill me in on what "understanding Michigan" means, that would be great.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^
January 12th, 2011 at 11:11 PM ^
January 12th, 2011 at 11:16 PM ^
January 12th, 2011 at 11:16 PM ^
I don't know if this helps with that meaning, but I'd say that if you can come into your first presser, with a large chunk of the fanbase underwhelmed with your hire...and then, fire up that fanbase, turning disappointment into excitement...well, then you "understand Michigan".
January 12th, 2011 at 11:25 PM ^
or maybe it explains too much. I mean, Brady Hoke didn't say anything today that should fundamentally alter people's perceptions of how Brady Hoke goes about coaching football (.
All he did was offer pablum about how much he loves Michigan and how much he hates Ohio State. Which is nice, I guess, but it's not really that big a factor in actually winning football games, and it's certainly less of a factor than actually being a good strategic football coach and recruiter. Nick Saban doesn't have any special affinity for Alabama, and Urban Meyer didn't have any special affinity for Florida, but they were incredibly successful, because they're great football coaches. Bobby Caldwell couldn't stop talking about how much he loved Vandy and how honored he was to be their coach, and Vandy still got utterly waxed in the SEC.
I get that Brady Hoke made people feel like Michigan is a special place today. I just don't get why I should consider that important.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:28 PM ^
I get that Brady Hoke made people feel like Michigan is a special place today. I just don't get why I should consider that important.
Yep, that's exactly it. He made people feel special and re-enforced their worldview. It's not important at all, unless you're the kind of moron that uses the word intangibles a lot.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:11 AM ^
January 13th, 2011 at 1:02 AM ^
I'm just upset that because Hoke was nationally acclaimed as a Michigan Man and that's why we chose him, then the media just writes softball puff pieces about him, Michigan looks like it's stuck in the past to observers. Our national image is one of wanting to go back to the 1970s. Not very flattering.
I agree with your points though. I just hate how Michigan, it's fans, Athletic Department, and media treated someone that was hired to do a job then had support cut out from him. The guy coached the right way, and made mistakes. In firing him after 3 years, if Hoke (please, God, don't let this happen) goes 6-6, 5-7, 4-8, 7-5 then what do we do?
January 12th, 2011 at 11:42 PM ^
You think that Hoke's "loving Michigan" is not a big factor in recruiting, but I strongly disagree. It's a lot easier to sell something you love (or work for a company you love) than it is to sell something you don't have that same attachment to. RR might have (and likely) loved his program, but Hoke loves his program and all of the Michigan programs that came before. I'm not trying to knock RR in saying that, but that's a natural advantage Hoke will have in recruiting.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:48 PM ^
Saban, Meyer, Carroll when he was at USC, Lane Kiffin (for some bizarre reason), Tressel probably, Miles maybe (I'm excluding Mack Brown because recruiting at UT isn't exactly hard).
How many of those guys would you say have the kind of deep connection to their school that you're describing, and how many would you say are just hired guns?
January 12th, 2011 at 11:56 PM ^
Maybe it's more apt to compare Michigan coaches (where one can sell the love for "his" program while the other can sell love for "the" program), but I'll play your game...
The USC guys (although Carroll is a native CA guy) seemed to have been hired guns with hired players. Saban and Meyer were able to sell "National Championship". Tressel is an Ohio guy who loves OSU - which makes him similar to Hoke in that regard. How about Bowden at FSU - think it helped that he loved the school? Paterno at PSU? Guys can recruit for lots of different reasons, but if you think that loving the product doesn't help...well...you've never tried to sell anything.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:58 PM ^
I think it's stupid to suggest that Rich Rodriguez didn't love Michigan just because he didn't use the right secret handshake and speak in the right code words.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:34 AM ^
Yes. I'm so stupid. In fact, I'm so stupid that I forgot to type what you claim I said! Boy, what is wrong with me?
It's not a knock against your boy to suggest that he didn't have the same love for the program...he had nothing to do with it until he got here. That's natural. All I was saying is that it's easier to sell something that you really love. It's easier to sell an idea that you think is fantastic. It's easier to sell a car that you think is the greatest. RR might have thought "his" car was the greatest, but there's just no practical way that he had the same love for the entire auto company. Try to think about that for a second instead of just reflexively dismissing it. It's not an attack.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:44 AM ^
I get that Brady Hoke made people feel like Michigan is a special place today. I just don't get why I should consider that important.
It's a fair question, but I think we should consider it important. Let me take a shot at explaining why.
I think it gets at the roots of why we follow sports to begin with -- its ultimately all about feeling part of something special. Winning is definitely an important aspect of that. For example: research on college fans has found that on days following wins, people tend to wear the logos and shirts and things more often compared with days following losses (Cialdini et al., 1976: Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375). But winning isn't the only way to feel good about being part of this thing.
Part of what makes us feel good is that we have a culture that we feel good about associating with. We have a shared hatred of an evil outgroup (that place in Ohio) which gives us even more cohesion as a group, we have a shared attitude about certain things, certain things and people and references we know about together as a group. These things reenforce our group identity just as much as our win/loss record do, and the separation from part of this culture (no disrespect intended towards RR, I am a big fan and supporter) did seem to do something to our group identity.
Surely if we don't also win football games our Michigan identity will continue to suffer, but I think that feeling that Michigan is special is not some peripheral icing on the cake, its the whole point.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:04 AM ^
but i thought it was generally understood that that psychological phenomenon wasn't exactly a GOOD thing...
January 13th, 2011 at 1:08 AM ^
Certainly there are cases in which group bias can be a negative thing, but in the realm of sports most of the research has shown that association with a team is actually healthy, because it fosters positive social relationships and self-esteem.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:42 PM ^
It means that Rich didn't understand Michigan, that's why he lost. I know, that's so much clearer isn't it.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:43 PM ^
Here's what understanding Michigan means:
Q: People say that, after the last 3 years, Michigan is not an elite job anymore, and -
A: Who says that?
Q: Well - [naming a couple of names]
A (paraphrased): That may be their opinion, but this is an elite job. This is Michigan, for God's sake.
To me, that sounded like the answer Bo would've given.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:58 PM ^
To me, that sounded like the answer Bo would've given.
He's dead. Stop putting words in his mouth to validate how you feel.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:21 AM ^
January 13th, 2011 at 3:58 AM ^
I was a part of the class of 2005. At the graduation ceremony, Bo received an honorary PhD for his years of service to U of M. As it was conferred to him, he said a few words, the most salient of which was the following quote: "You have the capacity to lead. So lead."
I'm not using it to validate how I feel. I'm using it because I know how I felt when I heard those words coming from him. And Hoke's response yesterday gave me a similar feeling.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:59 PM ^
he has all the intangibles, and unfortunately we have to wait 8 months to see the rest.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:03 PM ^
Awesome post. I was pro-Hoke from the beginning of the whole CC. Not saying that as an I told you so to anyone - I remember Hoke from my says at Michigan in the 1990s, and when his name came up, I did my research.
Wait. As you get to know him, you will be more pumped up that we got him. This guy is no back-up prize. He is the real deal, bleads our colors and loves Michigan.
Go Blue! Welcome back, Coach Hoke.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:06 PM ^
Yes, RR got a raw deal. Yes, people didn't flock to support him. However, in having a ready comparison of how Hoke "gets it" and gets people re-excited about Michigan that RR didn't: OSU. Compare
RR - "Well, it is a big game, because it is a big rivalry. Rivalries are important, but it is one of 12 games you need to win."
Hoke - Yes the other rivalries have their place, but when playing that school in Ohio...*with tears welling up in his eyes* "It's personal."
Game. Set. Match. No comparison. None. Hoke doesn't need to read a book or two to figure out his place in the Michigan scheme of things. It is dripping in Hoke's sweat and pumping through his veins.
As long as we hire great assistants for Hoke, he will win at Michigan.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:14 PM ^
it IS just another game. I mean, it means more because it's a rivalry, but it's no different than Bama-Auburn, Texas-Oklahoma, or even WVU-Pitt. The only reason it feels different to us is because we're Michigan fans, not Bama fans. And a myopic focus on one rivalry over everything else in the world hasn't really helped MSU all that much over the years.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:17 PM ^
The only reason it feels different to us is because we're Michigan fans, not Bama fans.What team was he coaching? Michigan or Bama?
January 12th, 2011 at 11:19 PM ^
No. It is THE GAME, but I never held Rich Rod's comments about it against him. Just win the damn game and everything will be alright.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:20 PM ^
The game you cited are not "just another game" either. Those are big rivalry games for those schools and I imagine that if the coaches of those schools said "just another game" or "at least we're fun to watch" that the alumni would not be too pleased.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:23 PM ^
"I don't care about beating Ohio State," it was "I don't care about beating Ohio State nearly as much as I care about winning every single game on my schedule." In my view, that's the only sensible attitude to have.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:37 PM ^
He didn't come close to either goal.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:39 PM ^
The difference is though, you can win every game except OSU and it was a "disappointing season". On the flip side, you can lose to Iowa and Penn State, but beat OSU and the fans will say "not a bad year"
The OSU game matters at least twice as much as any other game on the schedule, and that is the one that can't be lost if you want the fanbase to be happy with the results for the year.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:41 PM ^
but I kinda think the people who actually think that an 11-1 season is a failure because we lost to OSU (or that a 6-6 season is a success as long as we beat OSU) are fools.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:03 AM ^
It's foolish beyond comprehension. No argument at all in that regard. That is the way things work at Michigan, though, and understanding that is part of the whole "understanding Michigan" concept.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:22 PM ^
January 12th, 2011 at 11:32 PM ^
He was wrong on so many levels. It's a season defining game, it's a career defining series, it's typically a step to the Big Ten championship, it's the in-season motivator to continue to improve, it's about regiional recruiting and on and on. And unlike State our obsession with our chief rival is wrapped around another objective, winning the Big Ten Championship.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:53 PM ^
Understanding the rivalry does not win the rivalry games....just ask Lloyd.