Arguments against Arguments against Hoke

Submitted by Blazefire on January 13th, 2011 at 10:24 PM

I have seen a variety of arguments against Hoke being the best possible coach for the job, etcetera, and I wanted to take just a minute to go over a few that stood out to me and see what you all thought as well.

1) Dave Brandon's choosing of Hoke was specifically related to him being a "Michigan Man" and not to whom was the best coach for the job.

 We do not know what Brandon’s method for choosing was.  How can one imply that “Michigan Man” was of vital importance when Brandon specifically said he was referred to Hoke by MANY people, inside and outside the program?

2) Michigan is an arrogant program for choosing from their past, assuming that will work out best for their future.

Again, the impression that this is an arrogant program assumes that Brady Hoke was hired PRIMARILY for his experience at Michigan, rather than that being, as Brian said he thought/hoped, a relevant bullet point. Keep in mind, if recent performance is much more important than past, as Brian said specifically, then Brady’s recent, excellent outcome years at Ball State and SDSU should have much more relevance on his selection than past years. Likewise, Rodriguez recent failure years should have much more impact than his past major successes.

3) The hiring of Hoke to take Michigan football back to being "Michigan football" means a return to the Carr era way of things.

Because he was an assistant under Carr does not mean he does everything the way Carr does. He has been stated several times seems to have a variety of flexibility Carr never did.

4) Hoke will attempt to out execute without out recruiting.

The premise that Hoke will not recruit well enough to compete with the major programs is ridiculous. What is the basis for that? His recruiting at Ball State and SDSU? Not relevant. Recruiting at those institutions is difficult because of the lower tier of the schools themselves. Because he’s not a big name? As I recall, Jim Tressel fresh out of YSU recruited VERY well.

5) Michigan's goals are returning to the Carr area orientation.

You have a short memory. Michigan had other coaches before Lloyd Carr and getting back to Michigan football does NOT mean raising the ghost of Carr.

These are some of the primary arguments I've seen against Hoke, and they all seem to be full of holes and assumptions. Hiring Brady Hoke does NOT mean rehiring Lloyd Carr. He's not the same guy, even if he did work under him.



January 13th, 2011 at 10:26 PM ^

I'm really sick of people getting down on Hoke.  He hasn't even moved to Ann Arbor yet.  Let him get settled and build his team.  He hasn't done a single thing wrong yet.


January 13th, 2011 at 10:48 PM ^

...Ball STate (Pre-Hoke: possibly the only school  that could challenge Eastern Michigan for worst Post-1990 program in the MAC) and San Diego State University (which didn't have a truly winning record in the last 10 years pre-Hoke).  Hoke was a guy who was willing to earn his stripes as a head coach the *hard* way (by taking on jobs that almost nobody wanted) and trying to make things better.


January 13th, 2011 at 10:55 PM ^

Exactly.  We could have brought in a Miles type guy who has been successful at a big time program, but we decided to get a Michigan man.  I don't care that Miles played here, that doesn't necessarily make you a so called "Michigan Man."  Brandon did exactly what he said he would do, and he got a guy that cares more about the team and creating a successful program.  He will turn young men into successful adults, no matter where they end up.  Brandon said thats what a Michigan man is, and that is what we need.


January 13th, 2011 at 11:03 PM ^

Were NOT at a lower tier mac school or lower tier wac school. His last 10 years were at a premier athletic factory which has given its players such benefits as cars and tattoos. Hoke's schools had no such ability to reward its athletes and as a result had no ability to acquire them in the first place. The comparison is NOT valid.

His Dudeness

January 13th, 2011 at 10:29 PM ^

A) Brandon seemed really happy that Hoke didn't want to talk about money. I think it is weird, but Brandon seemed to be really tickled by it.

B) Carr isn't dead. (ghost?)


January 13th, 2011 at 10:31 PM ^

I think the primary "argument against hoke" is that he has a losing record as a head coach. As has been stated before, we're all basically hoping he's a three star recruit who turns into an all-american. fingers crossed.


January 14th, 2011 at 1:54 PM ^

Football is not a simple game.  You cannot evaluate a coach simply by wins and losses.  I would wager that Tressel would not have much better a record if he started his coaching career under the circumstances Hoke did.  Again, it's impossible to compare, but taking two programs that are perennially horrible and molding them into solid teams is not something to be laughed at.  I know it's been covered, but I still think it's a more solid argument than purely looking at 47-50.


January 13th, 2011 at 10:32 PM ^

somebody will probably have replied with this title before i do, and i'm not even interested in the arguments the title promises, but i guess i should say something to make this worth reading (like whatever else you're supposed to be doing, dear reader, would be more fun).

1) & 2) rely on essentially the same point, but we can all repeat the "we can't know" vs "sure seems that way" thing more times than it's fun to type "Arguments against ..." 

3) since i have no rebuttal i will just note that your last sentence under 3) isn't a there!

4) i have a real argument for this one! ...well, i have a rhetorical question. what would be relevant? Hoke's history sure seems more relevant than an analogy with the vest.

5) i don't even know what the argument against Hoke is supposed to be here. carr seems to have had ok goals...

ego exeunt.


January 13th, 2011 at 10:31 PM ^

Recruits read blogs and messages boards. It's time we stop being idiots and just root for Michigan. We can have our disagreements and we can have our opinions, but can we just keep the crap to a minimum for like a day?


January 13th, 2011 at 10:32 PM ^

but now I am coming around. I spoke with one of the position coaches at Wake Forest tonight and he thought Hoke was a great hire. He had no reason to feed me a line of bull. Hoke also seems to be rallying the former and current players. 

My main concern is now that we have heard that Denard will return (thank god) will Hoke and company use him effectively?


January 13th, 2011 at 10:40 PM ^

I think most of the sound you are hearing is not anti-Hoke but reaction to the way things transpired and expectations not met. It is a very important distinction to understand. I think most will be able to get behind Hoke, especially if Denard does, in fact, stay and the recruiting class solidifies. But the problem is to overcome the hurt feelings and anger of some die-hard fans about what transpired the past 6+ weeks. Only time can heal that.


January 13th, 2011 at 11:49 PM ^

I agree that people should be pissed about the last 6+ weeks, but most anger is being directed at db and hoke.
RR should share in that because for 2+ years he acted like a glorified oc, focusing on one aspect of the team while the other two aspects turned into a national laughingstock.
I think RR should have gotten more time, but only based on the idea he hired a new dc and didn't interfere. There was a story going around that he was given this ultimatum and his only response was to attempt to hire casteel again. If this is true, he deserved to be canned. Unfortunately, I believe the story could have had some truth. RR didn't seem to be too willing to let someone else have full control of the d and take it in another direction (see shafer, scott and gerg)


January 13th, 2011 at 10:34 PM ^

I have no issue with Hoke as a person.   My concern is that i find it very hard to believe that he is the best candidate for the job save his "qualifications" as an ex Michigan coach. 

I mean if he hadn't coached here would he even be in the top 50 people we'd talk to?  Would any other big name school put him on their short list?

Dont think so.  And that doesnt make me a hater.  It makes me a skeptic.


January 13th, 2011 at 10:43 PM ^

...if you use your "Would any other big name school put him on their short list" criteria, everyone of the Michigan head coaches in my lifetime (save Rodriquez) would not have been hired.  Think about it (and note this is an attempt to create the mindset of what would be said if the internet had been around/as popular as it is now back when they were hired, I think the world of both coaches):

Bo Schembechler-a MAC winning coach from Miami of OH when the MAC wasn't nearly as respected as it is now.  A former OSU assistant.  No big name profile.

Gary Moeller-Mostly a career assistant with a disasterous run at Illinois (6 wins in 3 seasons).

Just think at where the program would be if we didn't make those hires.  Bo's a legend and Mo stood a good chance at it if it hadn't been for...the incident.


January 13th, 2011 at 10:52 PM ^

Actually the Bo hire supports my arguement IMO, not yours, for the following reasons:

1. He was a hot coach at smaller school looking to move up into a larger program

     Patterson maybe?

2. He had no connection to Michigan prior to his hire

     Gus Malzahn submitted for your approval

3. Don Canham had no stipulations that his next coach have any Michigan background and simply sought out the best candidate

     Bo was connected to Woody for Gods sake - our mortal enemy



January 13th, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^

...if Bo was such a hot coach people would not have been as critical of the hire as they were (with I believe one wit asking why DC had hired a "German Butched" to coach, though someone correct me if my historical quote is inaccurate or urban legend).  And the MAC did not truly get respected until the the time that started in the 80s (and continuing to today).  IF memory serves, Bo was primarily contacted because Joe Paterno had recommended him to Canham (at least according to the legend that my older M-Fans tell me...).  If the internet was around then (assuming the Paterno story is true) Canham would be getting lambasted for not bringing in JoePa.



January 13th, 2011 at 11:09 PM ^

Not true and look at my name and you'll know that I'm closer to that event than you.  Bo interviewed for the Wisconsin head coaching job in 1967 and turned it down because reportedly one of the elderly regents fell asleep during the interview and nobody woke him up. 

So he was pretty highly thought of in the Big Ten by those in the know and not a nobody at all.  Just not a household name.....yet.

Section 1

January 13th, 2011 at 11:13 PM ^

Schembechler was a notoriously hot property from Miami.  Where he was the latest in a long line of hot properties -- Paul Brown, Wayne Woodrow Hayes, Ara Parseghian, Johnny Pont, etc.  And Bo had been interviewed by Wisconsin before we got him.

Moeller's career with the Illini was so notorious that Bo could hardly stand it.  Moeller was Bo's assistant before going to Illinois, and could have gone to a lot of other places.  Moeller was a "career assistant" only to Bo Schembechler.  The other Schembeclhler assistants were Jack Harbaugh, Don Nehlen, Bill McCartney, etc.

I think it is a valid point.  Would Brady Hoke be a candidate for any SEC job?  For any other Big Ten job?  For any Pac 10 job? 


January 13th, 2011 at 11:30 PM ^

...In 1967 (when Bo was supposed considered) Wisconsin was coming off something like 3 consecutive 7th place (tied for 7th, so it was actually lower) finishes in the Big 10 with the team not winning more than 2 conference games each time.  Michigan, in its last season under Bump Elliot, was 8-2 and coming off a second place finish in the Big 10. 


As for the SEC or Pac-10 jobs (if memory serves Hoke was considered, at least briefly, for the Minnesota job):  Tennessee hired Derek Dooley who had a *worse* track record (other than the fact that being a position coach for Nick Saban is more prestigious than being a position coach to Lloyd Carr by the groupthink definition) and Washington hired STeve Sarkisian (albeit after Ty Willingham had gutted the program). 


January 13th, 2011 at 10:37 PM ^

Two things -
1. If "Michigan Man" wasn't (one of) the top criteria, why did DB mainly seek out Harbaugh, Miles, and Hoke in his "nationwide" search? Are those the best three candidates in the nation?
2. I have hope for Hoke's recruiting ability but if you compare his recruiting classes at Ball State and SDSU relative to the years before and after, there's basically no difference, maybe a slight uptick. Better record yes, but better recruiting classes... not significantly.


January 13th, 2011 at 10:52 PM ^

1.  According to the Detroit News (official motto "Hey, at least we aren't the Freep) U of M also talked to Pat Fitzgerald.  Local media apparently were claiming awhile ago that Brandon met with Gruden (no idea how likely this was).  And apparently Gary Pinkel (of Mizzou) was contacted but didn't want to meet (unconfirmed, but not as outlandish as some stories so...).  So there were other names contacted, at least according to some reports.



January 13th, 2011 at 10:37 PM ^

Taking a shot at #1 - DB made it a pretty clear point of emphasis in the press conference about Hoke knowing his way around Michigan, knowing The Victors, etc. I mean, it was really hard to miss.


January 13th, 2011 at 10:50 PM ^

its been said already but michigan football is stuck in neutral until the old guard dies off or becomes too senile to realize whats going on. only then will we have the possibility to see a true nationwide search for the actual best candidate available. i am very much looking forward to that day but its going to be a long time.


January 13th, 2011 at 10:38 PM ^

I think I'd like to get this recruiting class wrapped up and start debating about what kind of formations we're going to run, depth charts, players, games, etc. 

I guess I am ready to talk about anything except whether hiring Brady Hoke is a good idea. Because we won't know anything until we start playing the game. Ya know, football? It's crazy that this blog is so intense that the pros and cons of hiring a new coach can be beaten to death so quickly. Impressive I suppose...


January 13th, 2011 at 10:41 PM ^

I'll support the guy.. I'm just emotionally getting over the loss of RR.  I posted in another thread but basically I feel like the adults just took the program back... telling us kids the party is over, go to bed.

No one on this board can deny... that offense was fucking fun to watch.  Yes, there were many frustrating parts of the season, but I still really bought into the spread offense and it was awesome seeing it in our backyard for once.  It's too bad it was so short lived.