Loeffler Called It - OSU
Scott Loeffler used to say "I don't negative recruit, except for one school.... Because they f***ing cheat... He wears a sweater vest."
He would mention that the dude is basically a phony. The sweater vest, WWJD bracelet, clean cut thing was a big front. I think when you hear it from someone that recruits against him, is part of the whole coaching network, there's some juice to it (rival school or not).
I was hearing the same type of stuff about fulmer. Talking to some of his employees and former recruits, it turned out to be legit. His recruiting pitch was to ask players what their favorite car was.
So no, it wasn't all tin-foil conspiracy theorists down on Tressel.
Anyway, I think Brady Hoke is one lucky guy. I don't think he was going to have a winning record against Tressel. I don't think it's going to happen against Kelly either. But hey, we may have a shot at OSU now.
Why will he not have a winning record against Kelly? Please explain...
He cleans up wherever he goes. Anyway, not important. Time will tell if I'm right. Hope that I am wrong.
"Anyway, not important."
I feel like you need to substantiate your claim that Kelly is a better coach than Hoke via evidence, or you're going to get a lot of shit from the board. Also, owning the Big East doesn't mean you're going to dominate elsewhere....
No kidding. One could argue (rather convincingly I think) that Hoke has cleaned up wherever he's gone, and done so more impressively by taking bottom-of-the-barrel teams to dream seasons.
GVSU and Cinci were top-of-the-barrel? Who knew?
No, but BSU had been at the bottom of the MAC for years and SDSU hadn't been to a bowl in 30 years. So GVSU and Cinci look pretty good compared to those.
GVSU was a pretty dominant DII team in the years before Kelly and remained so afterword. Not a knock on Kelly's coaching ability, but I wouldn't say he recesistated a barrel scraper with them either. He is got the makings of a great elite program coach, but we would have said the same of RR before his struggles in Ann Arbor. I think both coaches are really too new as head coaches for elite teams to make that comparison.
but they didn't become a powerhouse until Kelly came along. They won their 1st national championship under Kelly.
i happen to agree with you though, in part. as of right now, i would say kelly is a better coach than hoke (x and o-wise). but the key to being a great head coach is also hiring good competent assistant coaches. i'm much more confident right now (knowing the asst coaches) then when hoke was first hired.
i like our chances against ND and OSU in the short-term, as long as mattison stays. i've been a big supporter of him since his days here, and was very sad to see him go to ND.
i also think RR was a much better x and o coach then kelly or hoke, but we've already gone down that road...
I agree I would like to hear your logic on that one? I think Hoke has a great shot at both OSU and Notre Dame this year and in to the future. Notre Dame isn't the powerhouse you make it out to be.
Kelly brings a modern offense into the rivalry. Until Michigan proves they can stop a team with elite personnel and a spread offense, and do it on a regular basis, I will not believe that they can beat Kelly often. Also, Kelly won't use the academic requirements at ND as an excuse; he will get elite players to play at ND.
I hate to say it, but I think ND will win another NC before Michigan will. And if Urban Meyer ends up at TSIO, the last decade will look like a stroll in the part compared to this one.
I love how confident you are. Wouldn't have a winning record against Tressel, and won't against Kelly? For all the success he's had so far?
We usually say that we're waiting to praise him until he's coached a game (or a season) but you can't possibly find anything wrong with what he's done so far.
The original poster was being honest and frank. Despite the great things he has done during his tenure as the head coach of Michigan (recruiting), Hoke still does not have a winning record overall as a head coach for his whole career. Tressel had one of the best winning percentage of any coach. It wasn't that preposterous for the original poster to think that Hoke, while achieving success at Michigan, would not win more times than lose against a coach like Tressel.
I'm trying not to look at Hoke from a sheers number perspective anymore, because that is the mistake a lot of people made immediately after the hire. Sure he is 47-50, but consider the programs he did that at and how. It is clear that he has put together a staff that is going to help him get things moving in the right direction... and I'd be willing to bet on gameday Borges and Mattison will be just as vital to the coaching as Hoke.
His opinion may have validity. Even if others around here don't agree, it still may have validity. Either way, neither side knows they are right, so it's just speculation, but that isn't the point.
The reason that the OP is getting negged is because the comment was off topic and irrelevent to what he was claiming. I also don't like the fact that he just randomly quoted a person that used to coach at Michigan. Obviously there won't be a link to a coach saying something like that, but he didn't even claim to know him, if it was a second hand source, or whatever.
Those are the 2 bigger issues with the OP.
Believe what you want.
mean continued losses and gradual improvement. Urban Meyer took Bowling Green from 2-9 the year before he arrived to 8-3 his first year and 9-3 the second. Just sayin'. I do however agree with your point on Mattison/Borges.
Depends why the team is 2-9. If it is a schematics/motivation problem, you can whip the crop you have into good shape and start dominating. If it is a talent problem, it takes a couple years of rough records to turn a ship around. Props to guys like Meyer for being able to make the most out of what they have, but BGSU is going to attract more talent than Ball State.
this board is ridiculous. You can't state an opinion contrary to popular opinion, without your comment getting shit upon, minimized, etc.
Brian, I think you've gone too far with the mod power. Let people disagree for f***s sake.
I agree with the first paragraph 100%.
I don't think Hoke will win based on evidence A, B and C = neg-pocalypse.
I think hoke will win because he eats Lucky Charms = posbang.
This board is stupid as shit now.
EDIT: Yea I am a troll because I said Cinci and GVSU were terrible and Kelly made them contenders. Yep, very trollish of me.
Yeah man, stop trying to instigate with people. You are being such a troll.
Listing Kelly's credentials = Troll
How about going on a UM website and trash talking our current head coach without providing a good argument as to why = trolling.
EDIT: And stop bitching that you can't say what you think on this board. We are all very clearly saying what we think. The majority disagrees with you, tough shit.
He said " I don't think he was going to have a winning record against Tressel. I don't think it's going to happen against Kelly either. But hey, we may have a shot at OSU now."
You call that trash talking? It might be wrong, but I'd hardly call it trash talking.
to start an argument or get a reaction. I don't give a f*** that people disagree with me. That's not why I stated my opinion. So no, I am not a troll you retard.
I do care that I can't say it on the same platform, because it is unpopular.
"I do care that I can't say it on the same platform, because it is unpopular."
That's called life. Get used to it. Keep up with the name calling. That's popular around here too.
I'll continue to look for your wisdom on the board of hard knocks.
You're missing the point. One of the best things about internet forums is that anyone can state their opinion. You can be anonymous. No matter who you are, how tongue tied your job, family life, etc. makes you, you can be brutally honest.
This board continues to move in the direction of being a like-minded machine (with the aforementioned comment moderation). Talk about boring and close-minded.
So outside of Brian's articles (very well done, btw) there is less reason to visit this site.
Edit: Not to mention, people are abusing this system anyway. If they so much as disagree with a comment, or don't like what someone has to say, they'll mislabel it. Apparently most unpopular comments are just trolls.
tl;dr - The board regulations suck. Brian went too far with it. Scale it back.
The plus/minus people give doesn't really count against you in any meaningful way, correct? I just set my viewer to read all the neg'd posts so I don't miss anyone's opinion.
Yes, it's hard to say anything remotely critical without being neg'd and there is probably a bit too much over-modding going on, but there are those of us reading everyone's opinion anyway.
Back when any criticism of Rich in any way resulted in a neg-bomb? Now that the shoe's on the other foot, it's a problem? Man up, it's just imaginary points. None of your posts have been deleted or censored.
My complaint is that unpopular posts get minimized, and improperly moderated. I never had a problem with the negging. I have a long history of many people not liking what I have to say. I'm ok with that.
Me simply stating an opinion that Hoke will not have a winning record against ND is not an attempt to troll... yet it will be labeled as such.
in b4 "trolling" or "flamebait"
the default mechanism on the board is to hide posts that don't have at least 1 point. I realize you can change that, but some people don't or aren't aware how to. So if someone negs a post, many people don't even see it. The impact is a soft kind of censorship/deletion.
But it's not really "popular opinion" although sometimes that's true--people now just simply neg if they don't agree with a point someone made. Which is ridiculous. Negging should be reserved for people being dicks, being rude, actual trolling/flamebait or perhaps making outlandish judgements (The guy who called all OSU coaches "filth" in another thread today). I didn't agree with your POV, but you weren't a dick about either, so there was no reason to neg.
EDIT: and with two people negging an innocuous listing of non-offensive opinion here, and labeling it "trolling," my point is made quite nicely
What makes you so sure Kelly is going to beat the snot out of Hoke? What do they have going for them that they haven't had for the last 20 yrs?
EDIT: Sorry, slow on the draw, but still...
because I wanted to.
Posters are negging you because they want to.
Kelly's claim to fame is a Cinnci team that got trounced by a good Florida team. I'm so done with Big east coaches , but seriously how about you let Hoke coach a game at U of M before you start condeming him to failure
Don't sit there and act like Kelly has done one thing with his career. He turned CMU into a very respectable and conference championship winner, which it still was until Butch rode that into the ground and moved on to to Cinci where he will do the same there. But hey, he's made a great career off of doing worse than his predecessor.
Kelly also won a lot at GVSU. Kelly is a good coach. He's also a weasel. It should be an interesting match up with ND and Michigan going forward though.
OK, I need some assistance here. By no means am I defending Kelly or criticizing you, but I don't get this weasel talk and I've never really heard people justify these claims with any specifics or anecdotes. If there's a reason for it or just because he's ND's coach, then that's perfectly fine. I grew up in the Grand Rapids area, met BK through a former player of his from my HS alma mater and he was always gracious and genuine to me.
I do disagree with the OP's comment about Hoke not beating Kelly head-to-head. Maybe I'm just experiencing a high from the recruiting success we've had, but I think we'll do well.
[Also, can we please avoid the Declan Sullivan incident because a.) people said BK was a weasel/jerk long before this happened so it can't really be said after the fact as THE reason and b.) I think there were multiple layers of failure at ND and don't want this to turn into a debate about whether DS should or shouldn't have been in the lift (he shouldn't).]
Kelly grew up in a family of politicians, and he is very much one himself (I think he majored in some sort of political thing). Politicians often have that outward goodness but behind closed doors aren't as good. That's not why I think he's a weasel, just throwing that out there.
The way he left UC was bad. He lied to his players and then darted on them. He did something similar at CMU (though not under as big of a spot light). I don't hold him taking either jobs he took, because obviously they are better jobs, but the way he handled it was bad.
I've heard a lot of second hand stuff about him from people around his programs and there hasn't been many positives. I think he is a good football coach and does a good job developing talent, but some evidence suggest there is something a bit more shady behind that.
Got ya, thanks.
It was probably not wise for him to have that student filming his practice in the gale.
He said don't include that for several reasons, most importantly because people thought negatively of him even before that happened, which didn't help Kelly's perseption.
I've heard lots of unconfirmed rumours of shadiness while at CMU, but since thats what they are, its probably worth leaving them unsaid.
Something like, he was really evasive with his players. Didn't clue them in on the fact that he was leaving. He didn't even address them, when he left for Notre Dame.
I've heard numerous accounts portray that he is an asshole.
All i know is the guy wins wherever he goes. I think Notre Dame will be tough to beat now that he's in charge.
I know someone who played for him his last season in Cinci and he said it was damn near impossible to even get a meeting with him (and he played on scholarship and contributed regularly). This player did not in the least bit care for Kelly, even before he up and left the program (which I don't necessarily hold against him, but a player inherently would most likely).
They couldn't get a meeting with him because he was out at the bar getting ham-boned.
You can't really say Kelly's team lost to Florida. Ya it was his team, but he left for ND before the game. One of the obvious reasons UC was beaten so bad by Florida was because Kelly left, and the team was in a bit of a mess. Sure, WV still beat Oklahoma after Rich Rod left, but I don't think it's fair to judge that UC team for their loss against Florida. I agree that the Big East is way overrated, but I don't think that was a fair assessment of the Cincinnati team in their bowl game.
I guess I could use the double post to also tell you that it's condemning, not condeming.