Hot Seat

Submitted by A Fan In Fargo on July 29th, 2014 at 3:58 AM

This is my first time doing this and a lot of people don't like my real and sometimes unintelligent posts but isn't this hot seat talk getting carried away? All the Big Ten stuff and then on sportscenter. Then they have the next clip on Braxton the Miller's daughter primed and ready to go. I guess, whatever. Even when you are down they know they must keep you down. Hail! Probably the most worthless post ever but it just bugs the hell out of me. These people who write this stuff, make it televised and keep bringing it up are the ones pouring the gas on the fire. Not that it's a fire though because we going to whoop some ass this year!

Comments

Voltron is Handsome

July 29th, 2014 at 6:54 AM ^

Exactly. The change in offensive coordinator told me that it really wasn't Brady's in deep shit. Remember that Dave is a former player who understands football more than any of us. He knows bad offense when he sees it and Borges was performing terribly. I think this year, the offensive play calling will be much better.

Vengeful Barbarian

July 29th, 2014 at 1:41 PM ^

What's the good play when your interior line can't block anybody? Borges was the scapegoat since there needed to be one after a 7-6 season, but he wasn't the problem. I don't see how Funk kept his job after such terrible offensive line play, and Borges got canned after his QB threw for almost 3000 yards, with no running game and terrible pass protection resulting from that offensive line play. 

Sten Carlson

July 29th, 2014 at 2:04 PM ^

Colonel Angus,

Borges got fired because the running game wasn't up to the standards of the Michigan program.  Now, within that failure (by all accounts of the post mortem) his was a scheme that was constantly changing, was overly complex, at a time when the OL in particular had very little chance of assimilating such complexity. 

To me, its quite obvious that Funk kept his job because when Hoke assessed his performance in 2013 he felt that it was Borges' schemes, and not Funk's lack of technique coaching.  Was he right?  I don't know, and we'll know a lot more during this season.  But, remember that Funk was Borges' subordinate, and although I'd imagine that the two (Borges' and Funk) worked together with the other coaches in schemeing, at the end of the day Borges was telling Funk what he wanted his OLinemen to do.  For all we know, Funk was ready to kick the shit of Borges every week because Borges was (to use a WWI analogy) calling for his guys to go "over the top" and Funk was saying it was suicide. 

getsome

July 29th, 2014 at 4:23 PM ^

sure we can all agree brandon was a member of mich football team and we can all agree he has (or certainly should have)  a better handle of the daily comings and goings of mich football and B1G in general than most here - and thats due to his current job and daily activities at mich, not acting as mich's rudy in 1970.  but id never admit dave brandon "understands football more than any of us" or toss out that type blanket statement....brandon was essentially a cheerleader who never sniffed the field and a member of the program during a totally different age of football.  sure hes got a handle on daily football activities at mich bc hes inside, but indicating brandon understands the game more than everyone here is insane - especially re those who actually played and/or coached and offer insightful football commentary on this forum

Maize and Luke

July 29th, 2014 at 7:56 AM ^

I was thinking the same thing.  A few weeks back I heard an ESPN radio host ask an analyst if Hoke was on the hot seat and he said yes.  I'm not an expert or professional analyst but I keep up on UM sports as much as I can and haven't heard anything about him being on the hot seat.  So what is the basis of this analyst saying he is on the hot seat?  Just pure, blind, speculation?  Or real knowledge?  I would guess the former.  I can't fault someone for assuming he is on the hot seat just due to a couple mediocre seasons but I would expect an "expert analyst" to have some real proof or evidence before making such claims.

MGozer

July 29th, 2014 at 11:21 AM ^

It's idle chatter, fuel for the sports media fire that would otherwise die out during a long offseason.  As long as you have people whose livelihoods depend on sports-talk ratings, you'll have lots of speculative coverage with dead spots that need to be filled.  Just like 24-hour cable news networks and election cycles that last close to two years.

If we win 10 games this year, the narrative changes to Hoke as a program savior, and the pendulum will swing back.  Their hyperbole will focus on "The Renaissance in Ann Arbor" and the "Birth of a New 10-year war."  

Just how it goes -- best not to take it too seriously.

 

Felix.M.Blue

July 29th, 2014 at 4:57 AM ^

I think it was Doyle on CBS a few years back that said Beilein was on the hotseat as well.

It's an overused term by writers that don't have any other thoughts.

 

APBlue

July 29th, 2014 at 8:51 AM ^

I'm not sure that these talking heads don't have any other thoughts.  I think because they have so much airtime to fill they're not going to let the facts get in the way of a good story.  

quiverfull

July 29th, 2014 at 5:53 AM ^

meaning, only in the highly unlikely state of affairs of, say, another season like last and where we lose all of the 'big 3' in some pretty ugly fashion.  in other words, hoke would have to go down like rich rod did in his last season and quite frankly that is extremely unlikely.

so, no more 'hot seat' b.s., football cometh, and that right soon.   go blue!

Prince Lover

July 29th, 2014 at 6:17 AM ^

But it's the same as any sports writers trying to sell their stories. People love turmoil and not everybody is as big of fans as this blog's viewership. So the casual fans will see the headline of "hot seat" and be more likely to click on the story because they'll want the inside scoop, thinking that it is an actual scoop and not just fluffy garbage.

I could be way off on this, but that's just like, my opinion, man.

xxxxNateDaGreat

July 29th, 2014 at 10:15 AM ^

I agree. And the sad part is that it's not like ESPN needs the scandalous headlines and controversial topics to get page views and mentions. They used to be the best at delivering sports news and highlights, but now every minute topic needs to have two polar opinions that are to be intensely debated. And even if it is not a debate, everything needs an opinion now, "What do you think of..."

I guess any attention is still attention, though.

gustave ferbert

July 29th, 2014 at 6:28 AM ^

of the program since Bo died.  Yesterday's detnews article with Brandon is an example.  General apathy among the students the aggravated fan base that feels compelled to take a second mortgage on their houses to finance a football season of going to games.   With nothing to show for it but a 7-6 season and not very good success in the "red letter games".

chatster

July 29th, 2014 at 6:36 AM ^

The pressures of life can be cruel, and they’ve been magnified and intensified by modern social media.  Commentators throughout history have been taking shots at the person on top.
 
You don’t often hear about the “hot seat” when long-time, winning performers have an off year or two, but when a “losing pattern” starts to emerge, the critics intensify their calls for change at the top.  Unfortunately, that’s what Brady Hoke faces as he enters his fourth year in his “dream job” as Michigan’s head football coach.
 
Another college football team I’ve followed had a long-time head football coach who’d led his team to a 107–59–1 record (73-34 in conference games; 6–3 in bowl games) during his 14-year career.  Through most of his tenure, his teams were among the top 25 in the country.  His only losing season was in 2002 with a 4–8 record, and that put the coach on the “hot seat.”  Consecutive seasons afterwards with 6-6 records led to his ouster.
 
The coach who replaced him was welcomed as a defensive guru and an innovator who’d been an NFL assistant coach on a couple of Super Bowl winning teams.  He was expected to restore the school’s glory years.  That coach lasted four seasons during which he led the team to a 10-37 record (3-25 in conference games), including the only two double-digit loss seasons in the school’s long football history.  When he was fired, he publicly (and embarrassingly) begged for one more year to continue his reign of disaster.  The school that offered him his next job, overseeing its football team’s defense, experienced the worst two-year performance by its defense in its long and storied history.
 
If you root for the University of Michigan to succeed in anything, you probably want the person in charge to be successful each and every day.  But that’s not realistic.  Ask the recent inductees into the Baseball Hall of Fame how often they experienced failure.  Fail almost seven out of every ten times you get up to hit and you, too, can be a Baseball Hall of Famer.
 
More than anyone, Brady Hoke must understand that his “dream job” is in some jeopardy if he doesn’t succeed beyond expectations this year.  His career head coaching record is 73-63 (45-38 in conference games; 2-3 in bowl games) in eleven seasons.  His teams have won more than seven games in only four of those seasons, and he’s experiencing a downward trend at Michigan, compared to the upward trend he enjoyed at Ball State and San Diego State.  
 
Call it the “hot seat” or just the “pressures of life chair,” but that’s where Brady Hoke is sitting today.  When he’s not preparing for this coming season, he might be advised to take some encouragement from the Chairman of the Board. Go (Old) Blue (Eyes)!

Hannibal.

July 29th, 2014 at 12:06 PM ^

I think that the story is a bit misleading on Pasqualoni.  Almost all of his big successes came in his first 8 years.  Outside of 2001, his last 6 years sucked ass.  In those years he went 7-5, 6-5, 10-3, 4-8, 6-6, and 6-6.  The Big East was generally pretty weak, so the schedules weren't that tough.  In that stretch they lost 62-0 to Va Tech, 34-17 to East Carolina, 59-0 to Miami, 51-7 to Va Tech, 51-0 to Purdue and 51-14 to Georgia Tech, and they had virtually no quality wins.  Syracuse was right to get rid of him.  Robinson wasn't the answer, but neither was Pasqualoni.  Syracuse should expecty better.

I agree though that Hoke's seat is definitely hot this year.

chatster

July 29th, 2014 at 1:25 PM ^

I agree with your analysis.  Paul Pasqualoni’s star faded at Syracuse over his last six years as head coach, and the school that gave us Jim Brown, Ernie Davis, Floyd Little and Larry Csonka should have expected better after the rebound 10-3 season of 2001.
 
I drew the comparison between Pasqualoni's situation and Hoke's current situation only to show how the “iron throne” quickly can turn into the “hot seat” for the person at the top after two or three down years.
 
Syracuse still hasn’t recovered from the last three years of Pasqualoni’s regime and the utter disaster that was the four-season Gergian Error.  They’re also hurt by playing in an economically depressed small city and in the sterile Carrier Dome that, despite its naming sponsor, has no air conditioning.  It’s not unusual in recent seasons  for there to be more people in the stands at a Syracuse basketball game than at a Syracuse football game.
 
Syracue doesn't have many players in the NFL these days, and Carmelo Anthony isn’t bringing any big-time football recruits into Onondaga County.  At this stage of its football history, Syracuse probably has to be resigned to scoring wins in minor bowl games (as they’ve done in three of the past four seasons) and having the occasional eight-win season.

JTrain

July 29th, 2014 at 6:53 AM ^

The only way hoke gets fired this season is if he TOTALLY drops the ball coaching-wise. If we lose 6-plus games, the team self-implodes, there's too much off-field-drama, AND some super attractive "Michigan man" coaching candidate (harbaugh-ish) becomes readily available providing Dave Brandon with a fresh , new, popular outlook for a few more years. I really, REALLY, don't see any of the above happening.

GO BLUE!!

Side note: I really like Brady hoke and the person he appears to be. I hope he succeeds. If he were to get canned it would be a HUGE opportunity for the next guy in line. Hoke has done a great job of getting all the tools..the foundation in place...we just have to get some momentum now and hang onto it. That's my only worry about him thus far is he can't ignite that winning formula. Hoping for a season of exceeded expectations in Ann Arbor.

The Baughz

July 29th, 2014 at 9:42 AM ^

I always listen to the college sports station on siriusxm radio in the mornings. Former Bama QB Greg McElroy has a new show on there called The First Team. I forget the co-hosts name, but last week I caught a segment where they were discussing coaches who were on the hot seat. The first two guys they mentioned were Hoke and Muschamp. McElroy went on to say emphatically that this will be Brady Hoke's last year in AA and that the team will go 6-6, and losing every road game. Now I must say that McElroy does a great job, and he is entitled to his opinion, but 6-6 is mind boggling. Brady has to go if they end up 6-6, but i do not forsee that happening.

On the other hand, McElroy's co-host predicted Michigan to go 10-2 with losses to Sparty and OSU. Im  not sure if I see 10-2, but I like this prediction a little better than 6-6. It is funny to see the disparity between these guys when it comes to predicting Michigan football. Im going with 10-3 after you can the bowl win, and a new contract extension for Hoke.

LSAClassOf2000

July 29th, 2014 at 7:00 AM ^

I believe I see where the OP is coming from here and I tend to agree at present. While I believe a good performance this year is important for maintaining some of the recruiting momentum as well as for other reasons, I wouldn't think that Brady Hoke is on the "hot seat" by even most media standards. The person whose evaluation would make the determination, if you will, has said that he is not even in the same neighborhood right now as the so-called "hot seat", so that's perhaps the word we must accept right now. So, to answer - is there drama being created around Michigan where there likely is none? I would say, right now, "yes".

BlueinLansing

July 29th, 2014 at 7:02 AM ^

some people are truly forgettting how just god awful Michigan was last year.  Michigan was a complete miracle kick play against NW from losing its last 6 games of the year and 7 of its last 8.

Another season like that and it could become untennable for Hoke very easily.

unWavering

July 29th, 2014 at 7:09 AM ^

Yes, we were god awful, but arguably for reasons out of Hoke's control. Fix the offensive line, get a viable run game, and that's a pretty decent team. We had (someone correct me if I'm wrong here) a total of 6 scholarship OL on the roster, due to You Know Who's recruiting failures.

Sure, it's easy to blame Rich Rod, but Hoke sure isn't the reason the offensive line was so shorthanded last year.

hfhmilkman

July 29th, 2014 at 10:00 AM ^

Hoke chose to keep Borges as his Ocoordinator despite the evidence he had no clue what he was doing.  Borges did not just suddenly begin stinking up the joint last year.  Every year including 2011 there were games that you could point to where his patholocial logic cost us victories.  He has a long tract record of being unable to sustain success and being unable to develop young talent.  Borges ultimately is a Weis 2.0 who is more interesting in drawing up plays than teaching.  Hoke could not see this when many of us saw this in 2011.

Tactically Hoke did not step up as a coach and insist on moving Scofield to guard.  If this were done we might have had a run offense simliar to 2007 where we ran 90% of the time behind Long/Kraus.  But it would have been okay.  This topic was brought up multiple times as many could see that the young line was going to be a problem.  Instead our NFL talent at tackle was completely wasted.  Maybe it would not work against an elite defense.  But the Nebraska's and Iowas would not have absolutely shut us down.  Gardner has the atheltisim to run away from a DE.  There is little he can do when preasure comes right up the middle.

 

Maize and Blue…

July 29th, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^

Lewan, Barnum, Molk, Hugye, Omameh, Schofield, Mealer, Khoury, Glasgow, Burzynski. Recruits included Posada, Miller, and, Bryant.  Jake Fisher was committed before RR was let go. Christian Pace was medicalled and QWash was switched to D.  I would prefer this to what LC left RR anyday.

Hoke saw the roster but did he bring in any OL in the class before his first year? Granted he was hamstrung by DB's process.

unWavering

July 29th, 2014 at 11:33 AM ^

Molk and Huyge were holdovers from Carr, but point taken. However, there was not much Hoke could do about the OL in 2013. He has been recruiting OL like mad but we won't see the true benefit of that until next year since they take so long to develop. Besides, what Carr left RR is irrelevant in terms of what RR left Hoke on the offensive line, unless you count Molk and Huyge, which should be credited to Carr.

Maize and Blue…

July 29th, 2014 at 1:34 PM ^

as they had two freshman, a soph, rs soph and jr start on the OL last year.  Alex Kozan disagrees as he played in the NC game.  There are plenty of 2012 recruited OL that are making significant contributions as starters so don't give me that so long to develop BS.  USC has a projected starting OL with two freshman, two RS freshman and a true sophomore for the upcomimg year.

 

unWavering

July 29th, 2014 at 2:10 PM ^

Was UCLAs OL any good? Just because there are a couple of good freshman and sophomore linemen across the country does not mean it's a common phenomenon. We shouldn't have to rely on true freshman and sophomore OL to fill the starting spots in our OL. The reason we had to in 2013 is solely because of Rich Rod.

pescadero

July 29th, 2014 at 2:51 PM ^

Not great, but significantly better than Michigan was...

 

UCLA -

2556 rushing yards (#34)

4.5 yards per carry average (#52)

203 Sack yards lost  (#89)

 

 

Michigan -

1634 rushing yards (#103)

3.3 yards per carry average (#116)

268 Sack yards lost  (#120)