CC: Chill the heck out, JH is NOT the only option

Submitted by DesHow21 on January 3rd, 2011 at 10:56 AM

and NO, I do not mean Brady Hoke. Hells to the No on that. 

There are plenty of up and coming D1-coordinators we could hire to be our next coach. We tried the whole, lets-hire-the-guy-who-is-hot-right-now thing and it did not work. The big east sucked balls when RR was there and is no different now (Case in point the 2010 Uconn Huskies). I suspect the pac-10 is nominally better than the Big East but not by much. JH does come with some bonafides that make his probability of success here high but he is by no means our ONLY SAVIOR.

I for one would want a careful search conducted by DB even if we can't get JH and not just some panicked declaration of RR being retained because "OMOMG there are no other options out there".

Chill out, yes we will probably suck football dongs in 2011 but that is not going to change one little bit even if RR is kept around (unless of course NCAA changes the rules such that offensive yardage decides the winner of football games, in which case RR will win MNC's from now until the end of times).  


Ted Kaczynski

January 3rd, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^


Mr. McBlue and…

January 3rd, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^

The Ticket just reported that they talked to their sources at M and they make nothing of what is being reported, but, obviously, cannot dismiss it either.  Some are thinking it is a tactic to get more public support and $ in negotiations.


Relax people, this big lead rumor is all pure conjecture.

(sorry to hijack the thread, I don't have enough MGOBLING to post my own topic!)


January 3rd, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^

Why would Gary Patterson want to come to Michigan? WHY WHY WHY?  I know it hurts to say it but TCU is in better shape than we are.  Not to mention Tcu's going to the Big East and they will have a chance to go for the national championship game in a few years.  Sure Michigan would be a great and improved job for a lot of people, but NOT for Gary Patterson.  His team is just coming off of a Rose Bowl win!



January 3rd, 2011 at 1:51 PM ^

Because most fans still don't give a shit about TCU and probably never will. Do most fans even know what town it's in? Do they know the name of a single player? Will TCU ever attract large TV audiences? No. No. No. TCU is a great but obscure program.

Maybe Patterson is the kind of guy who's comfortable where he is. But most coaches want their shot at the "name" programs, with their huge TV deals, giant stadiums, and "branding" opportunities. And all coaches think they're the ones who can lead any team to glory, if given the right resources and setting. Most, except for the top few SEC/B12 guys, would take an M offer pretty seriously, I'm sure.

And enough with the Schiano thing. He turned M down only because he thought he was the heir apparent at another big-name program (PSU). Thank god.


January 3rd, 2011 at 4:51 PM ^

Yeah that doesn't make sense to me at all.  Belotti is the former UO coach who "retired" for Kelly to become head coach, and by retired, I mean strongly suggested to retire and given a cushy AD job for a few months, after which he "resigned" before the start of the next season.  And by resigned I mean took a fat payout so that Oregon could get a real AD in place.

But Belotti is not an assistant.  And at 60 he's not a long-term candidate for any school.  I did hear his name mentioned as a candidate at Washington State, but they're desperate and they need a good coach only if it's only for a stopgap (couple of years).

In reference to Nick Aliotti, I don't think he's really a viable candidate to be honest.  Oregon's calling card is their offense, and their defense is quite frankly, average at best.  I wouldn't group him in the same category as previous and current DCs such as Muschamp and Venerable who seem destined for HC gigs (which materialized for Muschamp).

Jon [sic] Gruden may seem attractive to the masses, but you also have to understand that it's been something like 20 years since he was involved in the college game.  I think I'd rather have someone who's coached much more recently in college football.

MI Expat NY

January 3rd, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^

But not so much for the rest of the states.  A lot of schools dip into California for talent.  That's a poor line of reasoning to declare the Pac Ten better.  The Pac Ten is better this year, and most years, but I'm not sure it's better than the Big East was when WVU and RR were dominating it.  Rutgers, Louisville and WVU were all at a peak and competitive nationally.  USF was at their peak and competitive in the conference.  Pitt was it's typical, talented, but poorly coached self.  It wasn't a great conference then, but I'm not sure it's worse than what the Pac 10 has been with USC fading the last couple of years.


January 3rd, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^

unless they already have an established record of success as a HC somewhere not very long ago. Michigan should not be a training ground for first-year coaches. We got lucky with Lloyd.


January 3rd, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^

So you are saying you would take a untested coordinator over keaping Rich Rod? Please step away from the keyboard!!! There is no nead to share anymore of your thoughts.


January 3rd, 2011 at 11:28 AM ^

Yes your right my bad spelling invalidates my argument. If you want M to turn into the training ground for new head coaches I guess were just not on the same page. My thought is if you can't find a tried and tested head coach you would like to give a shot to it would be better to keap Rich Rod for one more year than bring in the Mike Singletary of college coaches.


January 3rd, 2011 at 12:16 PM ^

Look, the RR years have been the worst 3 in M history.  RR has shown a complete inability to get it done at M.  And, the team COMPLETELY cratered over the last few weeks.  Everyone thought that they would at least show up to this Bowl game with something - anything - new and different to make the game competitive.  Nope.  Same thing.  Come out strong on the first 1-2 drives and once the opposing D makes adjustments, completely fall apart on offense.  Won't even mention the D and ST.

I like RR as a person, but he has completely failed since he came here.  Sometimes, things just don't work out.  I would take just about any decent coach over RR at this point because with RR, the media circus, hot seat, speculation, instability will continue for another year.  What we need now is a clean break.


January 3rd, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^

The idea that M just goes out and takes anybody that isn't Rich Rod leads you down the road to a Detriot Lions like coaching carousel. If DB pulls in Harbough great. I just can't get behind the idea of bringing in someone that has never been a head coach to get there feat wet at M.


January 3rd, 2011 at 1:05 PM ^

Horsecrap. Actual UM football history says you're wrong. I agree the RR years have been tremendously disappointing, but look at these three seasons under Kipke.

1934  1-7  shut out 5 times, scoring 21 pts the entire season

1935  4-4  shut out 5 times

1936  1-7  shut out 3 times, scoring 36 pts for the entire season.

That's a winning percentage of 25% over three years, and in over half your games you don't score a single point. Somewhat hard to win when you don't score.

In RR's three years, the winning percentage is 40%. I'm not trying to paint lipstick on the ugly pig of the last three seasons, but don't exaggerate the nature of what's gone on, relative to the entire history of Michigan football.


January 3rd, 2011 at 3:00 PM ^

What I was directly responding to was the statement that RR's years have been the worst three years in history. The years preceding or following '34-'35-'36 have no bearing on how bad those three seasons were. You are right that Kipke's earlier UM teams bought him a few years, but that's completely irrelevant to the assertion I was responding to, which was that 2008-2010 are the worst three seasons in Michigan history. I don't know how anybody could objectively compare the two three-season sets and declare RR's worse. They stunk, but they weren't worse than Kipke's miserable stretch.


January 3rd, 2011 at 5:09 PM ^

As your point is only directed towards that specific statement and the 3 year stretch, it is nonetheless correct.  However, from a big picture view, it's obvious that Kipke had a much more successful tenure than RR has at Michigan.  In fairness, to your post though, you did not actually contend that Kipke had a worst tenure than RR, just a worst period of 3 years (so I guess the following is not really directed out you, but me talking out loud).

In terms of winning percentage, no one has been close to as abysmal as RR has been at Michigan.  Even Elliott, the least successful coach of the past 50 years had a winning percentage of .547. 

One can't compare current programs now to the 20s or before, but even if you consider Wieman or Murphy/Crawford (the latter were the first actual head coaches so it's really unfair to include them here from what they did in 1891), RR's tenure is still the worst of them all. 


January 3rd, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^

Brian said last week that schools don't start coaching searches on Jan 2.  I'm sure they could find several great candidates, but it would be pretty damaging if it takes a few weeks.

Bando Calrissian

January 3rd, 2011 at 11:07 AM ^

There's no way David Brandon doesn't have in mind where he wants to go with this.  This isn't going to be Bill Martin grasping at straws and going on sea cruises until RR's agent called him up.  "Coaching search" will be a series of phone calls to well-vetted candidates if JH says no.  

Also, seems Ohio State was quite successful with hiring a coach in the middle of January after a fortnight coaching search...


January 3rd, 2011 at 1:33 PM ^

Correct. The alternative would mean DB is, for all intents, incompetent to the point of madness. He would be setting himself up for disaster. And he doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who does that. He's known to be extremely calculating. DB already knows who his guy is. I suppose there's always a possibility that his guy double-deals him. Presumably, though, DB would have taken that into account, too. Presumably.


January 3rd, 2011 at 3:27 PM ^

While I am in favor of JH I have some concerns - what I'd like most is a coach that will win and stay for the long haul. Someone that will be satisfied building on the winning tradition at Michigan and won't have an eye or agent searching for the right opportunity to spring board to the NFL.

Dammit, I want Bo back.....or a younger version of Lloyd Carr.....sigh.


January 3rd, 2011 at 11:05 AM ^

Brian cited the Cal source the other day that it was known december 17 that Jim is coming here and Tedford was interested in poaching the Stanford O line coach.

I'll tell you what, that is as firm a piece of info that is out there anywhere.  The discussion between the two main players has been lock down.  I haven't seen any NFL insider, college insider, or blogger trump it. The best they can give us is that an NFL team has interest.  We've known that for quite a while.

If it somehow falls through, Rich is your next best choice. Problem is Michigan probably doesn't think so at this point.  He's most likely done at Michigan. 

Not sure who they have up their sleeves beyond that.


January 3rd, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^

JH is in fact the only option. This thing has gotten to a point to where JH is the only desirable outcome. This would appease the great majority of the fan base.  IF it's anybody else, the RR crowd(myself included) will probably think "we got rid of RR for who?...what!" and the pro JH crowd will not be happy either and we'll have the same infighting/backstabbing we've had the last 3 years. Of course there are other options, but really there aren't any other options.