Brady Hoke BHCC Bits

Submitted by MichiganStudent on March 23rd, 2011 at 12:04 PM

I know I could have put this down in the other thread, but I figured some of you would miss it. 

I commented last night that Brady and Brandon made fun of RR last night. I want to clarify that statement as this, they didn't make fun of RR by name, but they did make references to the old regime and/or previous failures. 

Example 1: Someone asked Brady if he will be bringing back the defensive huddle. Brady responded and said something like, "well I'd like to, but a lot of that is dictated by the offense, especially that up tempo spread joke offense". Now that is not verbatim, and I am trying to remember if he used the word "joke", but he made a comment that was close to that. 

Example 2: Dave Brandon made a comment to the group saying how much he hated last years Illinois game. Would invite anyone to a basketball game next year if thats what they liked watching. This was in reaction to a comment by someone asking about defense and he basically said that we will be playing defense again under Hoke and our last regime didn't know how to. 

 

Other tidbits:

1. Denard and Molk are doing very well. Denard looks comfortable taking snaps from under center because he used to do it in HS a lot. Not as big of a learning curve as some people might have expected. 

2. Denard was never leaving. Hoke didn't even need to talk to him, but he did. Hoke said that Denard was talking to his Dad during the coaching change and Denards Dad told Denard, "listen, you're not leaving Michigan. End of story." Denard agreed with his Dad and told him that he wasn't even thinking about leaving anyways. 

3. Coach Hoke says hello to his players during each meeting by saying these things:

Hoke: "Good Morning" or "Good Afternoon" or "Good evening"

Players: "Good Morning" or "Good Afternoon" or "Good evening"

Hoke: CHAMPIONSHIPS?

Players: 42

Hoke: YEARS?

Players: 132

Hoke: BEAT?

Players: OHIO!!!

...and then they go on with their business for the day. 

4. We will have a kicker...and he will make field goals. 

5. Strike policy that most of you know about is: a strike is academic primarily. If you go to class late, leave early, skip, do something stupid, etc. Then that is a strike.

1 strike = wake up at 5 am and push a 45 pound plate 100 yards 12 times without removing hands from the plate or taking a knee. 

2 strikes = same thing except two days.

3 strikes = you and your position group have to do it one morning. 

4 strikes = the entire side of the ball you play on has to wake up at 5 am and push plates (he said he has never had anyone make it to 4. Either the kid quits or he is held accountable by his teammates and stops making poor decisions). 

 

 

 

Well, thats about all I can think of right now. I'll add more later if I think of anything interesting that I left out. 

Bottom line is that Hoke is a pretty darn good public speaker. He makes people feel comfortable in him as a head football coach, is honest, and shows that he truly cares about the kids more than anything else. There was a lot of laughing, joking, poking fun of different audience members that I found to be hilarious and impressive because he knew so many "Michigan people".

 

 

Comments

Section 1

March 23rd, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^

If Brady Hoke has a policy to push a 45-pound plate as discipline, the fans say, "Ahhh... discipline... toughness... emphasis on classroom attendance... M Man... beat Ohio... "

This is from Michigan's Public Infractions Report, November 4, 2010, pages 5 and 6:

 

"3. Conditioning activities as disciplinary measures. During the summer of 2008 and 2009, strength and conditioning coaches who monitored and conducted some voluntary athletically related activities occasionally used additional conditioning activities as a disciplinary measure when they required football student-athletes to participate in such activities as a punishment for missing class. Offending student-athletes were required to push a 45 pound weight for 200 yards on the football field. This punishment appears to have occurred on a limited basis and lasted anywhere from five to 15 minutes. The committee was concerned that the institution's compliance staff advised the football coaching staff via a memorandum in both March 2008 and March 2009 that such activities were impermissible, yet the strength and conditioning staff conducted them anyway."

 

 

So, there's a whole lot of NCAA techno-speak that made the offseason plate-pushing a technical violation. But the comparison of the two stories really is hilarious.

jg2112

March 23rd, 2011 at 2:42 PM ^

Of course, you are conveniently ignoring the distinction between Hoke's discipline, which is occurring during spring practice and is thus permissible, and RR's discipline, which occurred during the summer and was thus impermissible since summer workouts cannot be mandatory.

But hey, get back on that soapbox from whence you've been whining the past 2 + years.

Section 1

March 23rd, 2011 at 2:52 PM ^

You illiterate jagoff.  I didn't ignore anything.  I specifically mentioned the "offseason" nature of the technical violations.  Did anybody at Barton make that distinction?

And yeah, if there is a gathering of Michigan people who are taking unfair shots at Rich Rodriguez, I am going to be a gigantic turd in their puchbowl.  I don't give a fuck who they are.

UM4ME

March 23rd, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^

Did I miss something (entirely possible) about the timeframe of Hoke's punishments? If it wasn't clear WHEN this would take place (spring, fall, offseason, etc.), how is this any different than what went on before (and what we got tagged for by the NCAA)? Just curious.

Section 1

March 23rd, 2011 at 3:08 PM ^

jg2112 is exactly right about the timing (during non-countable time periods) that workout punishments were employed for skipping classes.  I knew it, of course.  I'm still not sure why jg thought I didn't.

You can impose these things during spring practices and the regular season.  You can't impose mandatory workout penalties in off-season periods.  I have no doubt that Brady Hoke understands it.  It is ironic, though, isn't it?  A practice that strongly encourages student athletes to faithfully attend their summer-school classes, and does not produce any competitive advantage in the sport.  Whatever.  Everybody now knows what a joke the allegations against Coach Rod were.

Incidentally, the Michigan investigation did not show that Rich Rodriguez was overseeing the off-season penalties.  Graduate assistants and S&C guys were doing it.

Ziff72

March 23rd, 2011 at 3:10 PM ^

So they only give academic punishment during the spring practice period?  

I have no idea what is going on, but I'm sure we are in compliance and as usual Hoke and RR are doing most of the same shit that the other 100 coaches are doing.

Section 1

March 23rd, 2011 at 5:27 PM ^

The team can impose discipline year-round.  The team can monitor classroom attendance however it wants to.

But you can't impose athletic punishments outside of the season(s) (spring and fall).  You can't run steps, push weights, do reps, etc., as a mandatory activity, supervised by coaches or quasi-coaches, unless it is CARA time in-season.

King Douche Ornery

March 23rd, 2011 at 12:18 PM ^

I think that with the high standards this board expects from the MSM, to report an inaccurate quote with the word "joke" inserted without verification is problematic, if not hypocritical.

MichiganStudent

March 23rd, 2011 at 12:22 PM ^

I think its pretty clear that it is not verbatim. He made a comment that was similar to the one I quoted above. So, take it with a grain of salt. 

I did that so people would get an idea of what he was trying to say, i.e. "the spread offense is a little gimmicky, not what we will be doing most of the time, etc". 

 

GoBlueInNYC

March 23rd, 2011 at 12:29 PM ^

Plus, I think it's fair to say you giving the board a recap of Hoke's appearance is hardly the same thing as a professional journalist publishing it in an article. Especially when you specifically state that it's not verbatim and you don't remember if he used the word "joke" or not. I appreciate you giving your thoughts, personally.

As much as I like Hoke and am cautiously optimistic for his tenure (he's basically done everything right a coach can do before actually playing any games), I can't stand the "the spread is a joke/gimmick/dead" mentality. It's the college football equivalent of all those people who used to call rap a "fad." Hopefully Hoke isn't too dismissive of it, because he's sure as hell going to have to face some form of the spread on the field. (And here's hoping he's better than Carr at figuring out how to defend running QBs.)

ironman4579

March 23rd, 2011 at 12:36 PM ^

Um, whether he said "joke" or not is kind of important in the context of the quote (I realize it's not verbatim, but still, contextually it is important).  If all he said was "It'll depend on the tempo, especially that up tempo spread." he's simply saying that the spread is played fast.  You don't see the difference between that and him saying "that up tempo spread joke?"  That completely changes the idea presented from "the spread is fast" to "the spread is a joke" and by implication "RR"s offense was a joke."

Not that I'm really concerned about it.  I'm not an RR apologist.  And thanks for all the other info. 

Mirasola

March 23rd, 2011 at 12:38 PM ^

I was also at the dinner and I don't specifically recall him using the word "joke", but his tone might have suggested that's the way he felt anyway.

And to be clear about that comment, it sounded more like he was commenting only on the TEMPO of the spread, and not spread offenses in general.

justingoblue

March 23rd, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^

Given the audience that he was probably speaking to, it's not all that surprising for him to say something like that. But he should take care not to let people get the wrong ideas.

Imagine him going down to Northwestern or Nebraska or ND after making comments disparaging the spread. Kind of like how Gee looked after TCU convincingly beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.

justingoblue

March 23rd, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^

I was talking more about the defense. The game was close, yes, but TCU held Wisconsin below half of its average scoring total when they were supposed to be run out of the stadium.

I might have oversold it a bit, but TCU was the better team and I felt that was pretty obvious.

jmblue

March 23rd, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^

 Wisconsin outgained TCU 385-301, had two more first downs, and averaged 1.4 more yards per rush.  TCU had the edge in passing YPA.  The box score suggests a competitive game, in which a missed FG and missed 2-point conversion essentially were the difference.  I'm not sure where the "convincing" advantage for TCU lay.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=310012628

justingoblue

March 23rd, 2011 at 2:35 PM ^

Then I guess I remember it a little differently than it happened. What I remember from the lead up to that game was hearing how Wisconsin wasn't going to be stopped. I'll admit that I chose my words poorly in the face of a lot of facts. However, the original point about choosing words carefully, like Gee didn't, I think was a good one.

TCU beat Wisconsin after Gee made some very disrespectful remarks about their schedule, and I don't want to see Hoke have the same target on his back, especially when we play a couple very good spread teams, and a few that we won't be guaranteed to win.

MichiganStudent

March 23rd, 2011 at 12:39 PM ^

Yes, I do understand. I said it was not verbatim. Therefore, do not use my quote as a precise description of his actual words or wording. I put the word "joke" in there because I thought he said that, or something similar to that about the spread. I was giving context, not a script. 

Bottom line: he was making fun of the spread or putting it down as a base offense. That the up-tempo style is way over hyped and kind of a joke. 

He has made similar comments before with regards to the spread, i.e. that spread teams are not tough or make your defense "soft", the spread is not his cup of tea as a base offense, etc. 

 

Do you get what I mean now?

Blazefire

March 23rd, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^

Consider that Brandon has a reason to distance himself from RR as much as possible. RR will not go down in M history as a good coach. He has been other places, and he will be again, and at M, he did some revolutionary things and had certain great statistics. HOWEVA, do you think we'd all remember Crisler as such a great coach if the Mad Magicians had been great for yards but terrible for wins? No. He'd be a poorer version of Bump Elliot. Respected for having been our coach, but his performances mostly forgotten.

Brandon is going to want to work as hard as he can to distance himself from Bill Martin's hire.He will want to be remembered like Don Canham. Not uhh... whoever it was that hired Bump and a few of our other unsucessful coaches. (That may have been Canham too. I'm not sure. But see... we don't remember him for that. We remember him for Bo.)

Blue in Seattle

March 23rd, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^

The similarities between David Brandon and Don Canham are very interesting.  Don Canham was brought in I think in 1966.  He inherited a athletic program, and specifically a football program in the Red financially.  The first thing he did was find a coach who could bring the football team back to being spectacular.  Something people would pay money for.  He tried to hire Joe Paterno.  Paterno recommended Bo.  At the time a pretty good MAC coach who had worked for or associated with many of the present coaching legends.

After bringing Bo in to stimulate the team, he focused on ways to make more money.  Athletic gear merchandizing exploded under Don Canham.  I'm sure there were many maize and blue bloods who shook there heads at the dastardly "money businessman" who was the athletic director.

Brandon is trying to emulate Canham, and even though many don't agree, Hoke is Brandon's Bo.  Time will tell.

 

Ziff72

March 23rd, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^

I think this is just Brandon and Hoke playing to their audience, which is fine. It is what they are supposed to be out there doing,  drumming up interest. 

I

NateVolk

March 23rd, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^

Glad you did this. Great report and thanks for taking your time on it.  I am backing off my 200 responses prediction from the other thread.  You'll just have to settle for really great post, not one that threatens to lock up the site with emotional comment overload.

Don

March 23rd, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^

One of my longtime UM clients (who I trust completely) told me two years ago that apparently at an UM alumni football event (at Weber's, I think it was) either RR himself or one of his staff members was openly dismissing the talents and capabilities of the Carr legacy players that were on the team when RR took over. Apparently, this rubbed many of the alums in the crowd the wrong way, which I can understand. I know that RR himself made comments in other forums essentially saying that he didn't have the players he needed when he got here, so I can believe that opinion was offered at an alumni event as well.

Assuming that account is true, it was an unwise move by RR or his staff, even if they strongly believed it, since Carr was held in great regard by the vast majority of older alums and fans, and criticism of his players seemed to be tantamount to criticizing Lloyd himself. It was the wrong forum.

My personal opinion is that coaches are best advised to just keep their mouths shut in public if they can't say positive things about their predecessors, but essentially Hoke isn't doing anything fundamentally different that what RR and staff apparently did. Frankly, given how bad our defense was, I can understand some ridicule directed at the prior regime.

I'm surprised at Brandon's comments, though. A win is a win, and the fans went home happy that day.