HS Coaching perspective on Hoke

Submitted by JJB2 on January 19th, 2011 at 11:29 PM

When it comes to recruiting, other than the recruit, who is most important to keep positive relations with? ... High School coaches.  The kids look to their coaches for advice on schools.  

This brief article gives a sense of what the in-state coaches are thinking, so far, about the Hoke hire, and what they thought of RR.  Should be a big recruiting positive.





January 19th, 2011 at 11:33 PM ^

This is just one dude's perspective, and I don't really believe what he is frothing. RR didn't have a Midwestern vibe? Give me a break.


January 20th, 2011 at 7:49 AM ^

It is a limited perspective and only two (?) people are referenced.  The sample size seems skewed towards those coaches where RR regime did not actively recruit, so it is in their best interest to see a new Michigan coach.  Regardless, the article exhibits how the "writing was o the wall" for RR as every aspect about his Program was being ridiculed.  

OT: I love this reference in the article:


Kevin Langs is a diehard U-M fan — so much so, he changed Climax-Scotts’ helmet design to the Wolverines-style winged look when he took over the Panthers program in 1999.

He and wife Kim even named their son, Beau, in honor of Schembechler. He could not convince her to spell it “Bo,” however."


January 19th, 2011 at 11:35 PM ^

Nice, hopefully this ends the dumb "Michigan can't recruit instate" meme. It would be tremendous if we could start making inroads into schools like Renaissance.


January 19th, 2011 at 11:46 PM ^

with RR's recruiting class.  RR takes just as many instate players, if not more than, Carr would take on an average recruiting class.  The only reason why "Michigan can't recruit instate" meme is the MSM made the fans think that Michigan can't recruit instate players and MSU is winning the recruiting battle.  In reality, Michigan didn't offer half of the players that MSU landed.  Sure some players like Lawerence Thomas, Chris Norman picked MSU over Michigan but that's the exception.

Michigan is not a good recruiting hotbed.  Of course there are exceptions like LaMarr Woodley who is a stud.  Hoke shouldn't rely on instate recruitng in order to be successful.


January 20th, 2011 at 5:27 PM ^

I disagree, having also seen Harris and the other Grand Rapids/West Michigan guys play in HS (Obi Ezeh, Rueben Riley, etc.), he was very good, maybe not the greatest, but very good. Now granted, I wasn't even in HS when Harris (and Riley) played HS ball, so that could have an impact on my evaluation. I didn't think Obi was good enough to go to Michigan on a scholarship, but to his credit he worked extremely hard to not only go to Michigan, but to play early.


I don't give the article too much weight. It only listed the thoughts of a couple coaches, with only one having sent guys to Michigan (or anywhere else, according to one of the other posters). I would have been much more interested to here from coaches in Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, Grand Rapids, Muskegon, etc. 


January 19th, 2011 at 11:44 PM ^

So these are the kinds of guys holding the fates of potential recruits in their hands? Good God maybe RR had it harder than we thought.


January 20th, 2011 at 12:01 AM ^

Present company not included.  Still, not sure what RR did that was so bad for the in staters.  I know he didn't win but didn't he attend all the coaching clinics.  Is it just the yelling, I am sure Hoke and the boys do that as well.  It's part of football, isn't it.


January 20th, 2011 at 1:17 PM ^

I think the problem was mostly that he was an outsider.  The problem was compounded by the fact that he let all of Carr's assistants go except Jackson.  Carr's staff had been in place forever and high school coaches all over the state knew them very well.  A big part of recruiting is building connections to HS coaches, who can then put in a good word for you to the players.  When you bring in a bunch of coaches who have never worked in this state, you have to rebuild those connections from scratch.

Clarence Beeks

January 20th, 2011 at 12:12 AM ^

I'm not really sure what either of these coaches, but especially Schermerhorn, said in that article that would make you call him a "dumbass coach[]".  All he said is that the level of communication changed.  This is from a coach who has sent several players to Michigan.  He's exactly the type of coach Michigan needs in its corner and who the coaches should be in contact with regularly.


January 19th, 2011 at 11:46 PM ^

While I am getting extremely agitated at every article about the coaching change having some kind of a gratuitous and classless slap at RR, I am happy that Hoke is getting positive press.  The pettiness really needs to stop, but I am thankful for any MSM articles that may help Michigan recruit now. 

The MSM has been pretty much trying to hand-deliver instate recruits to Saint Dantonio ever since RR got to Ann Arbor.  If they start trying to send them back to Michigan now, it can only help.


January 19th, 2011 at 11:47 PM ^

Good to see Hoke being endorsed across the state.  I don't blame the top local kids for looking past Michigan before.  I wouldn't want my kid playing for RichRod, he's a yeller.  Nobody ever got better by being berated and cussed out on the sidelines.  Studies on negative incentives and learning have shown this.


January 20th, 2011 at 12:01 AM ^

Different kids respond to different types of coaching.  Besides that, could it be possible that perhaps, just a little bit, the ESPN cameras were always focused on Rich Rod because his name was constantly being brought up for being on the "hot seat" so while pretty much every coach yells at a couple players every game, you say Rich Rod doing it more?

Also, I wouldn't call you a bad parent for understanding what coaching style is best for your kid.  At the same time though, you don't really get to be all defensive about someone suggesting you are a bad parent and then, literally in the same sentence, imply that bad parents let their kids be coached by Rich Rod.


January 20th, 2011 at 12:02 AM ^

I played hockey and soccer growing up.  I never had coaches scream at me for making a mistake on the ice, because I was always trying.  In soccer I had a yeller, and it never made me correct my mistakes or aim to play harder, it just made me want to shove my foot up his ass and think about ways to get him back for being a dick.

I have to imagine there are lots of kids who would respond that way.


January 20th, 2011 at 12:10 AM ^

I have a question...do you or did you play any sport at the collegiate level? If the answer is no, then you playing hockey and soccer growing up is irrelevant. The kids who make it to this level and have intentions to continue onto the professional ranks understand this is a part of the game and that if the yelling isn't naturally a motivating tool, they learn to make it one.


January 20th, 2011 at 12:28 AM ^

that's an interesting response.  i did not play collegiate hockey, but did play at the highest level of travel and was an all-stater in high school.

why do you suppose at some arbitrary level, yelling becomes a motivational tool?  if we look at education in grade school, high school, college, grad school, etc, yelling is never used to motivate or reinforce, and i dont think a parent would support a teacher who chewed a student out for making a mistake.

if we dont allow this sort of motivation in purely didactic situations, why do we then permit and even glorify a coaches use of such motivation?


January 20th, 2011 at 1:06 AM ^

Did you perhaps consider that in the culture of football, this technique....works? Do you think men in this field consistently employ it because of mere tradition? Cut out the bs psychology lesson. Just because it didn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work for the vast majority of successful athletes who not only tolerate but, dare I suggest, welcome it as a part of their growth as an athlete. If by didactic you are referring to a student learning in a classroom, you're talking a completely different ballgame. A classroom is not an emotionally charged, physically intense playing field. Coaches often use intensity and emotion to get those exact things back from their players.

These things don't persist based merely on tradition. Some coaches yell more or less than others. Some players are motivated by it more than others. All in all, it persists in this sport at its highest levels. If it didn't work, somebody somewhere would've had success doing it another way (i.e. the "copy cat" reference given to the NFL).  I mention sports at their highest levels (collegiate and professional), because in these ranks lie many, many entitled players who think nobody is better than they are. A coach does not break this cycle of entitlement by enabling entitled behavior. Instead, he must break a guy down before he can build back him up. That's probably one of the main uses for the yelling and heehawing many coaches employ.


January 20th, 2011 at 12:15 AM ^

No one liked that Bill Cower guy. He would yell and then when he was yellin sometimes he'd spit and I wasnt sure it was an accident spit either. Then the spit would get in their eye and that would make us sad panda x3 because they were bad words, spit, and he was mean. Football players arent supposed to be mean.


January 20th, 2011 at 10:22 PM ^

"Nobody ever got better by being berated and cussed out on the sidelines.  Studies on negative incentives and learning have shown this."

Yes, if you're reading the first chapter to an introductory behavioral science book, you might come away thinking that.

On average, yes, test subjects tend to better respond to positive reinforcement than they do to positive punishment.  This doesn't have anything to do with multiple forms of reinforcement and punishment used in tandem, though, and completely eliminates the bevy of real-world situations in which either or both are used with varying success.  Nevermind that what studies show is a composite of average reactions from people of all different types -- different people react differently to different types of stimuli.

Short version:  Bo yelled a lot, and Carr yelled a lot too, and I don't think most people would call them "bad" coaches.  Greg Robinson is not a yeller by any stretch.  You get the picture.