The Triumph of Mediocrity

Submitted by JDM on

The University of Michigan claims to be the leaders and best. Whether it be in the classroom or on the football field the U of M strives for excellence. From the most wins all time, to the hightest winning percentage, to the largest stadium in the country the University of Michigan has staked its claim in the college football world. The football program, however, has failed to evolve with the ever changing college football climate, and nothing proves this more than the hiring of Brady Hoke. This hiring is more a triumph of mediocrity than the pursuit of excellence.

The Bowl Championship Series has forever changed the college football landscape. No longer is it good enough to win the Big Ten and defeat a good team in the Rose Bowl. Now, in order to be called the champions, you must defeat another excellent team - the best of the best if you will. Does this mean that every championship prior to the BCS is worthless? Certainly not, but the method to be considered the champion has changed. In the 13 years of the BCS, Michigan has failed to recognize this change of culture. Sure, Michigan has won their share of Big Ten titles in the BCS era, but they have consistently failed to compete when going up against elite competition in BCS bowl games.

Three years ago, it seemed like the Michigan fanbase had come to recognize that a paradigm shift was necessary with regards to our football program. In other words, we were ready to stop throwing rock on first, second and third down. The fanbase clammored for change and a change was made. We dipped our toe in waters of chage, and many found that it was to cold or to uncomfortable. Instead of being the leaders and best, we have opted for the saftey of the past and the comfort of what was familiar.

Winning the Big Ten championship isn't enough anymore. Or at least it shouldn't be if we consider ourselves the "leaders and best". That is the old way of thinking, and it clearly has not been working in the BCS era. I have no doubt that the current coaching staff can stabilize the program and bring it back to where it was under Lloyd Carr. I am confident they can lead the program to Big Ten championships and even win a bowl game every now and then. But I want more. I expect more. This university and its fans should demand more.

Please don't misinterpret the point I am trying to make here. I don't believe that we should play in the BCS championship game every season. Programs have good years and bad years, injuries take their toll on every team, and sometimes you just aren't lucky. But, there is no reason why the Universy of Michigan cannot compete with the best teams in the country on a consistent basis.

Comments

Mitch Cumstein

January 15th, 2011 at 10:12 AM ^

1)

We dipped our toe in waters of chage, and many found that it was to cold or to uncomfortable. Instead of being the leaders and best, we have opted for the saftey of the past and the comfort of what was familiar.

Winning 2 big ten games a year is uncomfortable, and I'd rather settle for mediocrity than for shatness.

2)

nstead of being the leaders and best, we have opted for the saftey of the past and the comfort of what was familiar.

Brady Hoke was never a head coach here. Most of the coaching staff he brings in haven't been coaches here. Also if I recall the "past" has been pretty damn good to Michigan football. We won a NC less than 15 years ago.

3)

I have no doubt that the current coaching staff can stabilize the program and bring it back to where it was under Lloyd Carr. I am confident they can lead the program to Big Ten championships and even win a bowl game every now and then. But I want more. I expect more.

Lloyd Carr won a national championship. Also, Brady Hoke =/= Lloyd Carr. They are different people and different coaches. This notion that bringing in Hoke means we return to the last years of Carr (where we did win a bowl game mind you) is ridiculous.

bryemye

January 15th, 2011 at 10:34 AM ^

I think the last few years have reminded us that even when our football team is bad we can still be arrogant about how much better our school is than everyone else and so really we're just looking to supplement that with a solid football team. This is the part I didn't realize until I was an alum. It turns out that most of the alumni actually have some perspective and value going to a good school and everything that comes with it (especially in this economy) above Michigan football, even on Saturday (a few hours after the game on Saturday but still). MSC wants us to be at least solid and occasionally beat OSU. She doesn't really care about NC and neither does any of the rest of the leadership. Sorry.

Did Bo win any NCs? No, and that's fine. I don't have the energy to fight for anything more and I don't think many do. At the very least if we win the BIg Ten we will be in with a shout until the bowl game, and who knows then, right?

greg788

January 15th, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^

Here is my opinion from someone who grew up playing football under a father who likewise played football. I'm 37 now and began watching UM in the mid 1980's (my family bleeds maze and blue).

It seems most at this website support Rodriguez. I did as well initially. However, the overwhelming evidence pointed to a lack of emphasis on good fundamentals (blocking, tackling, toughness, attitude, playing smart, not fumbling, etc.).

Most fans get consumed by the schemes. Regardless of whether it's a single wing, wing-T, spread, pro-set or option, football remains, to paraphrase Lombardi, blocking and tackling. Without that, you're screwed.

We have the raw talent. In my opinion, Rodriguez didn't stress the fundamentals enough. He seemed to concentrate too much on the schematic aspects, as they would in the NFL. These are not NFL players.

I think Hoke is a good hire, all things considered. He harkens back to the days (Bo, Moeller, early Carr) when these fundamentals were highly emphasized. Given time, they will lead to bigger things than conference championships. The offense they ran at SDSU is hardly "three yards and a cloud of dust then get out-coached in a bowl." Remember Weiss and his top 10 recruiting classes and "schematic advantage"? How far did that get him when his teams could not block and tackle?

El Jeffe

January 15th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^

First of all, how are "attitude, toughness, and playing smart" fundamentals? Second, did you really get the sense that RR didn't teach attitude and toughness? I'm not sure about the "playing smart" part--how would you measure that?

Second, the best unit on our team was the O-line, so I don't see how you can criticize RR for not teaching good blocking.

Finally, on the tackling and fumbling bit. I will go to my grave with pictures in my head of non-freshman, non-sophomore versions of the entire defensive backfield, Denard, Vincent Smith, Jeremy Gallon, etc. playing under Rich Rodriguez. I think you'd have seen much better tackling and not fumbling.

Brandon pulled the plug for understandable reasons, but he pulled the plug preposterously early. You simply cannot evaluate the performance of a big-time D-1 HC when a large proportion of his players are freshmen and sophomores. This is why I could be critical of Lloyd ca. 2007 in a way that I was not of RichRod.

Senior-laden teams need to win or the coach goes (looking at you, Charlie, miss you big guy xoxoxo). Freshman and sophomore-laden teams, particularly at quarterback and all but the d-line, have a hard time winning.

bryemye

January 15th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^

Yeah, I agree that the plug was pulled early. However, Rodriguez did absolutely nothing to help himself on the defensive side of the ball by insisting on the god damn 3-3-5 mutant that they were running. Watching Demens line up 2 yards off Martin's ass was enough to tell me that the man had to be out of his mind.

If there's a fault you can have of the man it's that he's too stubborn about his schemes and it sure did cost him his job and a lot of sanity these past few years.

As I said above, Michigan really just wants a solid team capable of competing for Big Ten titles. Anything beyond that really is gravy.

greg788

January 15th, 2011 at 3:30 PM ^

Let me preface this by saying I'm still on the fence with Hoke. If he wins, great. If not, I won't be surprised given his lack of resume and, well, sophistication.

Yes, I did get the sense that Rodriguez did not emphasize attitude, toughness and playing smart. Our 2010 O-line, the so-called strength of last year's team, got manhandled against every good team. We got totally manhandled in the bowl game as well -- no push, no holes, no protection. With the exception of Demens, Kovacs and Vinopal, tacking was a luxury, not the norm. Tackling is about technique and grit. You either have the desire to take that pain and go low with a good angle or you don't. These guys should have been tested and culled from the beginning on that. I got no indication that the majority of our defense wanted to tackle. That has nothing to do with class status (freshman to senior). I've seen teams, even Carr teams, full of seniors that couldn't tackle.

Playing sophomores and freshman was not an acceptable excuse for total defensive ineptitude. Yes, Carr was responsible for some of that but Rodriguez lost way too many players to "attrition" than is normal and acceptable. I suspect his ego (i.e., "my way or the highway") was above the interests of the program. While it is too early to know, contrast Hoke's initial actions thus far to those of Rodriguez. Hoke (although certainly driven in part by Branon) seems to be doing everything possible to mend fences with the fans, media and, especially, the players. I believe he realizes he needs every player.

Wendyk5

January 15th, 2011 at 4:15 PM ^

Rodriguez over and over again, at every press conference, said, "We just didn't execute."  Isn't executing part of - a big part of, maybe the biggest part of - fundamentals? If he's saying we're not winning because we're not executing, doesn't that suggest that some piece of coaching is missing?

stevedore

January 15th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^

I second this statement. The arrogance I've seen out of some alumni with regards to the University of Michigan is astounding. What's really so good about the undergraduate education that is so much better than everyone else? And all the tradition in the world that the football program has isn't helping anyone today. Simply put, what is so SPECIAL about the University of Michigan football program? I unconditionally support the football program regardless of who they hire because I choose to, but I don't delusionally elevate the programs that I associate with in order to falsely elevate myself. I'd say our reputation for being an arrogant fanbase and alumni group is well-deserved. There is a big gap between pride and arrogance.

Feel free to neg away.

bryemye

January 15th, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^

I'm not really sure you're seconding my point. When I said we can be arrogant about our school even with a bad football team, I meant it in a "we have good jobs, friends, and lives" way more than a "we have a god given right to be better than this" way.

Put another way: we want our footballl team to not embarrass us and occasionally be sweet. Further, we want them to be sweet by taking their territory by force because that's just how these things are done. This isn't basketball, nor is it the god damn Ivy League.

GPCharles

January 15th, 2011 at 11:03 AM ^

How about if we play at least one game before we condemn ourselves to a life of mediocrity?

Goals can be changed and upgraded as time marches on.  Did you really expect the newest coach in the Big Ten (Eleven or Twelve) to say at his introductory press conference, "Screw the Big Ten, we are aiming at bigger fish?"

People, take a chill pill and let us all get to September and game time.

Monk

January 15th, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^

you're saying you don't like the Hoke hire, fine.  But then are you implying RR should have been given a fourth year?  If not, then you're saying UM should have gotten a coach with a more proven track record (JH, LM et al.).

As for your main goal around UM football, my guess is that it's not shared by the athletic dept, sure they'd love to win national championships and play in bcs bowl games every year, but they know what corners you have to cut to do that, and they're not going to do it.  And Brandon as we know played for Bo, so the big-10 championship is the ultimate goal, if it leads to a NC, fine.

nickb

January 15th, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^

or Farley would have been admitted to Michigan. Both are junior college transfers with incredible football skills. Had they played elsewhere, Auburn would probably have not won enough games to be eligible for a bowl game.

As an alum, sometime ago I recognized Michigan is no longer in the upper tier of football powers. All one can do is hope they have an occasional outlier season as Stanford had this year.

StephenRKass

January 15th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^

on this post, and on Michigan Football. I am very dubious about Hoke, as is Brian. Of course, Hoke needs to be given a chance. Sadly, I don't think RR was given that chance, but whatever. Having said that, I think many tOSU fans are not thrilled with Tressel, because it is questionable how much he "really" is in the hunt for the NC. The thought there is that if OSU faces the highest level of competition, (Oregon, Auburn, Alabama, Stanford, maybe TCU?) they will lose and quite possibly be embarassed.

At this point, the first step is to be competitive in the Big 10. After that, we can talk about National Championships.

I'm also tired of the Michigan Academics meme. Yes, Michigan is a great school, and I'm proud to be a graduate. Yes, you can point to outliers at every school (think:  Andrew Luck, etc.) But the reality is that the vast majority of the team cannot compete with the general academic body in a full slate of academic classes. I don't have a problem with this, but I daresay that many football players would not do well in 4 terms of calculus, or in chemistry, organic chem, p chem, etc., or in 4 terms of foreign language, or in physics, or in statistics, or in biology, or in economics, or in logic, or in philosophy, or in higher level psych or poli sci coursework.

My issue with the OP:  we just don't know the answer yet. Hoke's background and assumptions do not encourage me, but we'll have to see.

UMSwoosh

January 15th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^

The early years when he was fighting to prove he could coach and the product on the field reflected that. (Good record against OSU, NC season)

The later years when he had paid his dues and knew they wouldn't push him out. (The Horror, Bad record against OSU)

One thing we can say about Hoke is that he seems hungry, not just for food, but for Michigan Football. I think a lot of people on here think Rich should have gotten a fourth year. Not necessarily because he deserved it, or earned it, but because it would have at least put a lot of questions to rest. At this point its not about being right or wrong about Rich, it's the fact that we will never know if the system would have worked here, and maybe a fourth year would have answered that.

phil.hersey

January 15th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^

Thinking, I suppose, he could get Harbaugh who would have been ok even if we didn't give Rich enough time to develop some upperclassmen starters. We just have to _____'n live with it now. I continue to eat David Brandon's head. This is a short-term and long-term program setback ...

jg2112

January 15th, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^

It's quite tiresome and ridiculous that the people who are against the Brady Hoke hire are creating and believing in memes every bit as cliched, ridiculous, and void of any analytical reason as those memes created about Rodriguez.

Try harder.

LatinForLiar

January 15th, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^

What is tiresome/ridiculous/cliched/void of analytical reason about the fact that the man has a career LOSING record in two below-average conferences? I think it speaks far more clearly than anything else ever could. Any argument that he is a top 20 or even top 50 coach in the country is simply pie-in-the-sky dreaming.

Summoner10

January 15th, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^

He has a losing record because he took over two anemic and destitute programs and through his own coaching and recruiting made them viable again.  WHy this is too difficult for people to comprehend is beyond me.  It shows that he knows how to rebuild and stabalize programs and knows how to raise their profile.  A monkey could coach at alot of top programs and get 8-9  wins a year but it takes a REAL coach to be able to turn middle level programs that have one foot in the grave of relevancy into winners.

Bluebeard

January 15th, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^

Brandon clearly stated for the football program  it should be 1) turning out young men with character, education, and the ability to excel by winning Big 10 Championships 2) Honoring the University of Michigan community.   If that's achieved - is that mediocrity? Would you prioiritize a more frequent shot at a national championship over those two goals?   I wouldn't - that's not the U of M I attended.  And stating this doesn't  imply that RR wasn't working for those two goals - no need to go into the bad space. I also can't help but believe it's a bit premature to assume that Brady Hoke isn't going to recruit and coach the right young men to gain us a national championship.  Or that they aren't already here.   Put the mediocrity paint brush away and cheer up big bird.   

gobluesasquatch

January 15th, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^

I've already commented on the argument of winning a national title as a goal vs. what Brady Hoke said at his conference so I'll repeat this here in a quick summary:

Since 1998 - 13 games, 26 teams

Of the 26 teams, only 2 have NOT won conference titles: 2001 Nebraska, 2003 Oklahoma (8% - none in 7 years)

Of the 26 teams, only 2 BCS conference champs have been undefeated/untied and NOT played in the game: 2004 Auburn and 2009 Cincinnati. (2004 involved the defending AP champion playing the loser from the BCS title game the year before, so hard to argue against Auburn exclusion - at least before the game. 2009 - see the Big East)

Of the 26 teams, 9 have had at least one loss: 35%. 

Big Ten and Pac 10/12 teams have a pretty assured destination when they win their conference - Rose Bowl. This is historical and again - ITS THE ROSE BOWL. The Sugar Bowl has the next strongest historical tie, but that involves only one conference, the SEC. 

So the Hoke hiring and his goal of Big Ten title and national championship isn't a sign of settling for mediocrity. Nor is his 47-50 career record (we're talking about Ball State - a mismanaged athletic department, and SDSU which hadn't been good since they were printing HeisTHEman t-shirts for Marshall Faulk's candidacy). 

The major complaint about Carr was after 1997, we got out of September undefeated only twice (1999 and 2006). As for conference dominance, Ohio State has played in 3 BCS title games during their dominating run of the Big Ten. They've also been ranked in the top 5 pretty consistently, giving them shots to play for the title.

So apparently the goals of Big Ten/Rose Bowl aren't too shabby after all. 

LatinForLiar

January 15th, 2011 at 2:17 PM ^

Given your willingness to massage statistics until they are almost meaningless (as with your glossing over Hoke's career 47/50 record) I'm curious if there was any coach in the country you wouldn't have found reason to fall in love with?

mikoyan

January 16th, 2011 at 12:58 AM ^

To me it's alot more impressive to take a team that traditionally does not win to winning seasons than it is to take a traditional powerhouse to a winning record.   In the case of Hoke's 47-50 record, he inherited two dogs of teams, so I suspect if you discount the first couple of seasons of those teams when he coached, you might have something.

WolverBean

January 15th, 2011 at 1:47 PM ^

It seems this thread has generated some good discussion, and about  a topic that clearly a lot of our fans need some time to work through.  So I suppose that's all to the good.

 -- However --

Does anyone remember a time when MGoBlog Diaries were for statistical analysis of turnovers, TomVH interviews of recruits, and heroic works of MGoFiction?  I fail to see how one poster's opinion on the coaching change merits diaryhood.  I'm not saying I either agree nor disagree with the opinions expressed here.  My point is only to ask the question: isn't the point of the MGoBoard to provide a forum for just this sort of discussion?  And aren't there already dozens of threads there with exactly this conversation already taking place?  I don't know if the coaching change has brought in a lot of new readers who aren't yet acquainted with the culture here, or if the emotion of the past few weeks has caused people to lose their sense of perspective.  And I'm not at all trying to stop the conversation -- as I said, a lot of good points have been raised in this thread, and it's important that we as a fanbase work through our differences of opinion.  But seriously (and this isn't directed only at the OP), stop filling the Diaries with your soapbox jeremiads!  This isn't the place for it.

/get-off-my-lawn

Qonas

January 15th, 2011 at 2:09 PM ^

One of the best summaries yet that encapsulates my immense feelings of disappointment over this whole coaching debacle. Michigan has chosen mediocrity and clinging to the past like a safety blanket, instead of maturing and growing and adapting to the landscape.

It is also an admission of defeat, both to Ohio State and Michigan State. Michigan has just told Ohio State "You guys go on ahead and be a national program; we prefer being regional," and we gave Michigan State a green light for their Big 10 power aspirations, instead of smacking them back down into their agricultural college place.

Brady Hoke's a good man and a decent coach. But he isn't a national championship coach.

Marc 71

January 15th, 2011 at 3:30 PM ^

there were the same doubts about Tresell when he was hired by Ohio State.  He proved the doubters wrong by alot.  Brady Hoke has the opportunity to do the same and nobody can doubt his desire.

JBE

January 15th, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^

I am going to read some twilight instead, because this post is a factual as sparkling vampire abs.  "This is Michigan, ra, ra , ra."  Bologna.  Personally, I loved the Michigan under Bo, where we dominated to some degree the B10, and struggled in bowl games.  At least we dominated something.  No particular coach hire would ensure a "National Program" where we consistently won National Championships.  Hoke is as good as any.  By the way, Napoleon really wasn't as short as is commonly understood.  Leaders and best are just words.

Fuzzy Dunlop

January 15th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^

As others have said . . .

The stupidity of this post is heightened exponentially by the author's thought that it was somehow worthy of a diary entry.  There is nothing of value here.  It is conclusory, unoriginal, and uninteresting.  If it was on the message board it would be just an easily ignored pebble in an avalanche, but it takes a special kind of hubris to think that this mental vomit is special enough to warrant a diary.

NateVolk

January 15th, 2011 at 2:54 PM ^

 

Thank you for pointing this out. I am saddened by how the standards of Michigan have fallen. This sorry fact was apparent at the Brady Hoke press conference that everyone thought was so great.

The record of mediocrity that Hoke brings to the table scares me every bit as much as when they brought that middler Pete Carroll to USC, Gene Chizik to Auburn, Gary Moeller to Michigan, Don James to Washington, Mack Brown to Texas (slightly over 500 in two stops at Tulane and North Carolina), Ara Parseghian to Notre Dame (.500 over 8 seasons at Northwestern) Gene Stallings to Alabama, and Jimmie Johnson to Miami.   .500 coaches at those wimpy regional programs are just trash. 

We need more guys here like Rich Rodriguez who clean up and go national with his schematic advantage. Guys like him leapfrog past the need to win those dull old conference titles, and right on to the big time.

Great Point,

Sincerely

Drew Sharp