January 6th, 2011 at 9:25 AM ^
Good for Brian, couldn't agree more.
January 6th, 2011 at 9:27 AM ^
Hope he's keeping a lid on the Hoke hate, or perhaps gobbled some Xanax for breakfast. If you've been reading this blog long, you can see he's learned a lot about the nuts and bolts of football, but it's not clear to me that he's ever seen the game from the inside of a helmet at any level, while a lot of actual football people regard Hoke highly.
January 6th, 2011 at 9:30 AM ^
I for one don't see the Hoke hate. Sure, he isn't the most qualified candidate around, but he has had multiple head coaching jobs (experience is a good thing). He has improved from job to job. And the number one reason I don't hate the idea of him coming is that he really wants the job. I think there is something to him wanting to be the Michigan coach that takes us to the top rather than someone that needs to be coaxed here with some extra coin.
If anything I see Hoke's lack of credentials as more of an unknown than as a negative. Who really knows if he will succeed or not?January 6th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
All job applicants will really want the job, so I think by "really wants the job" you mean "is a Michigan man". If that's your number one reason then, to be consistent, Ron English would be on your short list too. Is he?
It matters, but I rank it lower than experience and results.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
"Won't leave us for the NFL in 5 years, so we're doing this all over again." Which with Harbaugh, or some other candidates who don't see Michigan as the ultimate job, isn't a sure thing. Anyone would want it. But want it over ANY other, versus just taking it because it's a better job? Smaller pool. Maybe not just "Michigan Men" (or that even all of them feel that way; see: JH). But it probably doesn't hurt. But it's not a requirement (see: Bo).
January 6th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^
Dear Lord, I hate the "Michigan Man" term. Didn't it come up with Bo's comment about a specific former basketball coach? I don't think it was intended to be included in football coaching job descriptions for all eternity.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:01 PM ^
weren't "Michigan Men". They were pretty damn successful though.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
“But do let me reiterate the spirit of Michigan. It is based upon a deathless loyalty to Michigan and all her ways; an enthusiasm that makes it second nature for Michigan men to spread the gospel of their university to the world's distant outposts; a conviction that nowhere is there a better university, in any way, than this Michigan of ours.” (Bacon)
January 6th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
is that maybe Harbaugh or some higher profile candidates might leave us with a staff where we can hire from within. Obviously the only way anyone is going from Michigan to the NFL is with major success, so if even they left they might also leave us with a future head coach on board.
I don't have anything to base this on, but I just don't see a Brady Hoke staff being composed of anything more than career position coaches.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^
Is the most overused term out there. That is not at all what I meant. I meant that he sees Michigan as the ultimate destination. As apposed to a candidate that has been around a few BCS schools and had some success and some failure who would only take this job if he was given a massive pay raise. There is a big difference. Hoke would probably take this job without getting a dime more than he is earning now. He wants this job. I'm not saying that is a reason to hire him, but I'm saying that is a positive from where I am sitting. Also, if Hoke is unqualified, English is massively unqualified.
I just hope Hoke isn't vilified the second he gets here if he is hired. After all, once he is hired, we're stuck with him for at least 3 years and complaining about it and predicting massive failure won't help anything.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^
Hoke may very well be vilified if he gets hired, if only because I think there are a lot of us that feel that if Rodriguez was fired then Michigan better go out and get a proven entity to lead the team. Hoke is by no means proven and if he is hired its because either someone thinks he's great or partly because he coached at Michigan previously. I can't help but believe that Brandon is being pressured by outside (or internal) sources to bring in someone with a Michigan pedigree. I'm not sure that is a good thing or a bad thing, especially given the reception Rodriguez got on day one by some.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^
I sincerely Hoke is not the choice. I would not have considered firing RR to replace him with Hoke. However, I agree with you about him being vilified. If he is the choice, I want to be proven completely wrong.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
I agree to disagree. Put it this way: would you take expected wins of 9/year for 20 years or 10/year for 5 years? I'd take the latter and then worry about the next coach in 2016.
Nobody that Michigan is considering is going to be the next Bobby Petrino or Lane Kiffin, who would leave the team in shambles a year after they were hired. Most coaches in CFB will stick around at least until their first contract expires. And frankly, if they make the team better and earn the right to a pay raise in the NFL in a few years, there are worse problems. That's why I still consider proven success more important than desire to stick around for life. And maybe they change their level of desire once they come on board. Has any coach ever left Michigan for another job in its history?
Regardless, if Hoke is the coach I'm not going to do what all the old timers did to RichRod.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:20 PM ^
it won't bother me. Anyone who comes here and truly wants to coach Michigan will end up as a Michigan Man whether they want to be or not, assuming some success.
At this point, I don't really care who the coach is. What I do know, is that if the same actions occur again, the results can't be much different. I made the mistake of looking at some of the comments on the Michigan FB page. If they are typical of the fan base outside MGoBlog, I am very afraid.
Handcuffed and Paralyzed by the 70s
January 6th, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
I don't understand the Hoke LOVE, actually. No one would be talking about him if he wasn't a position coach for Michigan way back when.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:18 AM ^
And no one would believe Harbaugh would ever come here if he hadn't played QB here. The whole idea of someone having connections with the program being a candidate is that it increases the chances they would want to come here, as well as increasing the chances of success as they understand the culture they will be moving into. It isn't the end all be all, but it can be part of the picture.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^
Maybe no one would believe Harbaugh would come here, but he would definitely still be at the top of the list. Like Desmond Howard said after the presser, Jim Harbaugh could have been QB at Minnesota and he'd still be a desireable coach here and at other programs.
I think you overstate the increased "chances of success" by someone who coaches at their alma mater.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^
What will you do if Hoke is the next coach?
January 6th, 2011 at 11:07 AM ^
Suffer temporary frustration, try not to freak out, pray for the team, and attend every game next season.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^
I think you'll find that a lot of the people who were RR supporters are the kinds of people who are particularly unnerved by the thought of Hoke getting hired (for the simple fact that we feel RR is a better option).
And those very same people who were RR supporters will support whoever the new coach is, because the love is for the school, not the man, not some mysterious ethos about how the offense runs, not whether the guy is a hillbilly.
It's the anti-RR crowd who never "accepted" the coach that they didn't like, and didn't fully support him the moment he set foot on campus.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^
No one would be talking about the hottest college coaching prospect going to the highest profile college opening? They're not speculating at Patterson because he was a QB for Bo.
January 6th, 2011 at 9:41 AM ^
The meme of having to have played football to "really" understand it is total bullshit.
January 6th, 2011 at 9:29 AM ^
I've had a ton of trouble loggin in the last two days, and I finally got it to recognize me. The login at the top still looks like I'm not signed in, but I am. Wierd. Maybe the system can't handle the press conference yesterday and is experiencing a Y2K kind of glitch.
Can anybody cut out the Brian interview and post it streaming from this site? I am working and this is the only site that I'm allowed to surf besides espn and work crap...
January 6th, 2011 at 9:33 AM ^
"I think they could get Fitzgerald or Mullen, but the other guys, I don't know"
"peterson, patterson, and whittingham are all about the same guy" - we read about this yesterday. Brian thinks Patterson is probably the strongest of the 3 due to defense.
"I'd roll those dice (on Strong from Louisville despite only 1 year of head coaching experience).
now taking calls.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
January 6th, 2011 at 9:38 AM ^
On Fitz and Mullen. I'd be thrilled to get either of them - really don't think we could do any better.
January 6th, 2011 at 9:55 AM ^
He has a worse resume than Hoke, that everyone hates.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:08 AM ^
Biggest thing is he could keep Denard and salvage this class. On top of that he's got Midwestern recruiting ties, and his unimpressive record comes at the smallest fish in one of the biggest and most competitive conferences. Yes, his record's not impressive, but he's exceeded expectations for his school over an extended time period. He has made them a perennial bowl team.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^
Except the big conference. And Northwestern is a far better program than any Hoke took over. NW has been middle of the pack going on 2 decades now, and have had 2 coaches who had a lot of success before him (one Fitzgerald played for, the other he coached for). He hasn't really limited the program much, and certainly hadn't reached new highs for it.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:38 AM ^
Is that bringing in Fitz wouldn't take us back to square one, whereas bringing in Hoke would. I'm not as down on Hoke as Brian is, but I'd rather have given Rod another year than completely start over for someone with as little track record as either of these guys. Since Fitz could come in and keep some grease on the spread n' shred wheels, I think he's a better fit.
I know Hoke is a defensive guy, so I'd be really happy if he brings in a spread run OC. Just because I really hope we don't have three more years of, well, the Rich Rod era (and I don't mean that as a knock against him).
January 6th, 2011 at 11:15 AM ^
Fitzgerald has outperformed Randy Walker, the second coach you claim had "a lot of success."
January 6th, 2011 at 12:07 PM ^
Has he won?
January 6th, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^
Fitzgerald took over a team that was basically hitting .500 and occasionally making it to a bowl game; after 5 seasons, he has them a step higher (almost always hitting .500 and making it to a bowl game). Neither Walker nor Barnett had "a lot of success" at Northwestern. Walker's best season was 8-4, and three of his seven seasons ended with 4 wins or fewer. Barnett had the back-to-back bowl years, but didn't break .500 once aside from that. In any event, I think at this point it's safe to give Fitzgerald credit for where the program is.
At Ball State, Hoke took over a program "expertly" piloted by Bill Lynch to the six-loss level (fill in IU joke here) and took five seasons to get it back to that point. He had one mediocre season (7-6, bowl loss) and then the 12-1 part of their 12-2 season. It's possible that he would have continued to succeed there, and that the combination of decommits and inept coaching buried the Cardinals, but it's also possible that he got really lucky and got out before that was recognized.
At SDSU, Hoke took over from Chuck "can't chuck long, can't chuck short, can't chuck over the middle" and got some pretty good results after only two seasons, better than his BSU career and something Fitzgerald didn't do ... but there's nothing yet that tells whether or not that will also be a one-year wonder.
I think it's a mistake to dismiss the "big conference" part ... one of the questions about coaches at non-elite schools is whether or not they can recruit in an AQ conference. (See Hawkins, Dan.) Fitzgerald, after all, is already doing that; Hoke has yet to try. A better question would be "Can he recruit at elite levels in an AQ conference?" Barnett went to Colorado and had about the same level of success he'd had at Northwestern (which for some reason got him fired at CU; they may have regretted that once Hawkins came in). Obviously if Fitzgerald were hired and did that here, he wouldn't last much longer than RR.
Peterson and Patterson look better because they've had significant success at non-AQ schools, including bowl wins, but that still doesn't mean they'd win at the same level here, and besides IME it's irrelevant: Patterson's going to be coaching an AQ school and Peterson, as said elsewhere, doesn't seem interested in coaching anywhere else. (That may change if the MWC loses any more schools.)
I guess it's all the same thing. All available candidates are flawed ... the trick is figuring out which flaws won't matter.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
A one year wonder. Does that make him a two year wonder? Because that's all the Northwestern coaches have had. Two particularly good years, and a lot of mediocre one's (like Hoke). The difference is that Barnett had much higher highs (Rose Bowl and Championship) after building it from the worst team historically in the Big Ten, and Walker, who also won a championship, did it while instituting the system that Fitzgerald runs today (which is apparently very hard if the last 3 years here are any sign). Championship results while doing more heavy lifting.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
a perennial bowl team?
January 6th, 2011 at 12:11 PM ^
Than Fitzgerald has. And taken teams to one less. Yes, huge difference.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^
He took Ball State twice. So he's been in as many bowls the last 4 years as Fitzgerald. But not 0-3., 1-1.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:11 AM ^
If this site were not broken, I would +1 that. Why does Brian like Firz but not Hoke? Hoke has a better resume, does have Michigan ties (which I actually think are important to connect the hot mess that is currently Michigan football with the storied past) and looks to this job as his ultimate career dream.
January 7th, 2011 at 8:08 AM ^
Except that Brady Hoke has a losing record over his career while Pat Fitzgerald's is the opposite. Except that Hoke's losing record comes from schools in the mid majors while Fitz's comes from the Big 10.
I'm not saying that Fitzgerald is an ideal hire but if we're going to hire somebody without experience in an AQ conference at the very least they should have a career record with more wins than losses.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:51 AM ^
Push Charlie Strong! Best candidate available that we have a realistic chance of getting, if you ask me.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:28 AM ^
I would be shocked if Strong left Louisville. Louisville can and will pay him, for one. It's a very profitable department with deep pockets. For two, at Louisville, he works for one of the best AD's in the nation in Tom Jurich. If DB turns out to be half the AD Jurich is then UM is in better shape than it looks. Third, all reports state that Strong is very appreciative to Louisville for giving him the chance to coach, finally, and in the (kinda) South. It is widely believed, especially by Charlie Strong, that as a successful DC for one of the best football teams in the nation for seven years, he was passed over for numerous coaching jobs because he's black (and, more to the point, because he's black and has a white wife). The Louisville community has embraced CS and he's done so back. I think, at this point, having CS on that list is probably Brian being delusional, perhaps even moreso than Petersen et al. I'm not saying CS is necessarily a Louisville lifer, but he's not leaving now.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:42 PM ^
I've seen this elsewhere, but I'm not sure about the idea that Charlie Strong has pledged undying devotion to Louisville just because other southern schools had their heads in their asses. It might be true that he wouldn't come, but the fact that he's only been there a year cuts both ways - he may feel worse about leaving the place that gave him a big break so early into his contract, or he may not have had that much time to put down roots there. And, while Louisville's athletic department has a suprisingly large budget - around $50M in 2009 - that's still a little more than half what UM's athletic revenues were in 2009. Also, the athletic department apparently had to donate 250k to the university's general fund a couple of years ago, which makes you wonder exactly what kind of shape Louisville is in as a whole.
Again, maybe he won't come, but I think it's worth seeing what a few million dollars a year would do to his opinion.
January 6th, 2011 at 1:54 PM ^
Again, I have no idea about Charlie Strong's undying devotion, either. It's just a hunch. And, admittedly, Louisville's "surprisingly large" (why surprising?) budget also reflects down numbers on football, as brought upon by the entire fanbase losing faith in the terrible, terrible coach CS replaced. I'm sure the revenues will be up now that Krag has been "Bagged" and replaced with a competent coach. For Jurich's part, it's unlikely that he lets another good coach leave. He will pay whatever Michigan will, within reason. Also, if I'm CS, it would be hard, after the past three years, to not think of the Michigan environment as somewhat toxic. Not when he has a job wherein the fans and administration love him already. Why would he take the job in this environment, given that he'd know that a good portion of the fanbase would hate him coming in and that he'd have to struggle early on, most likely?
I guess you can say that about any of the names on the list, though.
Also, the athletic department apparently had to donate 250k to the university's general fund a couple of years ago, which makes you wonder exactly what kind of shape Louisville is in as a whole.
January 6th, 2011 at 9:33 AM ^
has Brian discussed the state of mgoblog.com? I've not been able to fully sign in for two days now -- and I'm going through withdrawal. For some reason I can post comments, but I can't start threads -- wanted to post something about the Daily's article on Denard: http://michigandaily.com/content/former-coaches-weigh-possibility-transfer-michigans-speedy-quarterback-robinson. Also the only way I can access mgoboard content is via the right column -- otherwise I'm going back to the page as it stood late Sunday or early Monday. I've tried three different computers and different browsers so that's not the issue.
January 6th, 2011 at 9:39 AM ^
much of the site due to volume - seems this CC stuff is a hot topic :-)
not sure but seems he's trickling the access back in to not crater the server farm in his basement
January 6th, 2011 at 9:59 AM ^
Love that the volume is so high because this is where the most reliable information is coming from.
Also, didn't Brian say there were 5000 people in the liveblog during the press conference? My guess is that at least double that are viewing this site over the course of the day and most of us are addicts that refresh the page 5 times a minute as well.
Maybe the lock downs can be turned into beveled guilt to help buy some better mgoservers?
January 6th, 2011 at 12:49 PM ^
I wouldn't say most of the info here is reliable.
January 6th, 2011 at 9:45 AM ^
Been stated elsewhere, but the board functionality is limited due to the number of hits it is taking since the entire community is looking for coach search info
January 6th, 2011 at 9:48 AM ^
Is from the App, and due to things they need to fix in the off-season, things posted from the App appear in the right column, but not on the MGoBoard.
<br>
<br>Patience grasshopper.
January 6th, 2011 at 9:58 AM ^
An HTTP 403 error occurred. Your vote was not submitted!
January 6th, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^