Michigan's appetite for a 'big name' coach
Realize this may be old news for many, but: After the past three years, and watching today's presser, it dawned on me -- the so-called 'Michigan Man' mythology means a man who is subservient to the program he coaches. When Bo said a "Michigan Man will coach Michigan", he wasn't saying anything about the ancestry of the coach; he was saying he'd only have a coach who didn't think he was bigger than the program. Bill Frieder, by looking outside of Michigan, committed that sin.
Taken in that light, Rodriguez was in deep trouble when he started, precisely because he was incredibly successful outside of the Michigan program. Yes, Michigan has had great coaches -- but they all were great within the context of Michigan. They did not have a 'greatness' outside of Michigan.
Rodriguez, by coming here already successful, disrupted the Michigan space-time continuum. And yes, if he had won more/faster he'd most likely still be here. But when Brandon spoke of the players being first, not the coach, when he spoke of a love of Michigan football above all else, he was speaking about having a coach that was a servant to, but not greater than, the program. The resentment of Rodriguez that many found to be irrational can be traced, in part, to this.
I think Hoke was Brandon's #1 target all along. Harbaugh, pedigreed as he was, had become larger than the Michigan program. Same with Miles. Brandon wanted a servant to the program, and that man is Brady Hoke.
I don't post this to denigrate either Rodriguez or Hoke; it is just the way it is. I'm a fan of Hoke, but I understand completely the frustration of many, and why they think Michigan may never be able to evolve into something else if they only hire 'servants'. I'd argue that a servant of the program does not necessarily need to be a slave to the past; he can innovate -- just as long as the program is always bigger than he is.
EDIT for clarity, stolen from a post below: I'm not saying the "Michigan Man" of myth must have prior ties to Michigan. He just must be subservient to the program. Michigan could have hired a hot coordinator, or somebody from a smaller/less prestigious school. The point is that the Michigan ethos is for Michigan to make the coach famous, and the coach to make Michigan famous. A symbiosis, if you will. If a coach is already famous, the symbiosis is damaged, and that's a partial cause of all this strife in the past few years. Rodriguez was, for better or for worse, bigger than the program, and many people resented it.
Ridiculous? I can certainly see that side. A sign of Michigan's arrogance? For sure. It is what it is; it's part of the Michigan 'tradition'.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:21 AM ^
Rodriguez was in deep trouble when he started, precisely because he was incredibly successful outside of the Michigan program
Are you mad man?
January 13th, 2011 at 12:28 AM ^
This is correct: he was regarded with suspicion because he tore down the 'Michigan way' to reflect his system. It was seen as a repudiation by former coaches and players.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:43 AM ^
And many us us were/are on board with that. We saw the "Michigan way" lose to Appilachian State with half of an NFL team. We saw Oregon literally run circles around us, and afterwards feed quotes to the media like "we knew exactly what they were going to do before they did it". After 35 years, we were tired of calling rock, and wanted a real strategist at the helm.
The "Michigan way" did pretty well in the 70s, 80s and 90s. It had a great run, but I believe those days are over. Football is a game of innovation. It is dynamic and rewards those with the courage to take chances. That is why you see teams like Oregon, Auburn and Florida in the national championship game. Very few programs can get away with calling rock and winning it all these days. I really don't think it will work anymore.
This is why so many of us were behind RichRod and are dissppointed now.
I'll always support the team, but I think our school retreated when they fired RichRod. They admitted defeat. It is a sign of weakness, in my eyes, and it is deeply disappointing.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:52 AM ^
At the time, I believed RR was just what the program needed. I thought RR was the best hire in Michigan history. It was a great idea to hire the originator of the system that had beaten Michigan in the Oregon, App. State, Texas games. I also agree he should have been given another year.
In retrospect, however, it's possible that neither a dramatic schematic overhaul, nor a break from tradition, was what we needed. College football is a physical game, a game of passion. Above all else, you need an enthusiasitc, energetic coach who can connect with players and bring out their best. RR did this on one side of the ball.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:58 AM ^
Eh. I don't buy that. RichRod's failings had nothing to do with enthusiam or scheme, in my opinion. They had everything to do with personnel. He simply couldn't get his guys installed in time to win enough games. Three first year starting QBs in a row led to three years of ridiculous turnover ratios, and attrition and injuries on D killed any hope that we could be compotent on that side of the ball. That, coupled with the disasterous GERG hiring, sunk his ship.
I really believe it would have turned around next season. Which is why this is so frustrating. Because Michigan will never try that again. The Bo bloodline has been restored and I don't think it will ever be broken again.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:52 AM ^
I agree with all this. However, its not Brady Hoke's fault. He's a likeable guy and I hope he succeeds.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
and we just sat through 3 years of pain for nothing....right as we were on the cusp of turning it around. Someone else has already said it, but it bears repeating: 3 years is the new standard. If Hoke doesn't turn it around in 3 years, he's out.
We took a MAJOR step backward . . . thanks, pimp hand.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:05 AM ^
I think, more than anything, that this hire requires an adjustment of expectations. This is Michigan signaling it is not going to try to compete with the Auburn/Alabama/Oregon/USCs of the world. We want someone who makes us feel comfortable, who is not an outsider, who does not bring change (in any meaningful way), and who will re-focus on trying to be competitive with Michigan State and OSU. It's okay if we get embarrassed by Oregon in an OOC game and get creamed by USC in the Rose Bowl if we are competitive with OSU (with an occasional victory of that team in Ohio). Much like the Dantonio hire at MSU or Stewart hire at WVU, the Hoke hire is about lowering expectations and aiming for a quality, regional program. I expect the Alabama game in 2012 to be ugly.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:27 AM ^
I really wish I could get behind this new hire but your post completely expresses why I still have a sick feeling in my stomach. Leaders and the Best though right?
January 13th, 2011 at 4:39 AM ^
M has thrown in the towel on being a nationally elite program, plain and simple, in exchange for getting back to Big10 prominence. I hate that. I live in California and sometimes I think people in Michigan and the Midwest can get a warped view of M on a national basis, as if beating MSU most of the time and OSU some of the time makes them elite. It doesn't, and in the new world of emerging programs and parity across teams like never before, this only makes them a better than average program, more like Wisconsin than OSU.
Here is the rub in that mentality, OSU is an elite program and IS gunning for a national title every year and you will not consistently beat them by aiming at being a force in the Big10. Lloyd was 1-5 aginst OSU and I am very afraid that this trend will continue unless the programs and schemes are modernized to compete. Maybe BH can do that, but replacing your HC and the staff with that of SDSU just isn't the way to do that. Those guys are at SDSU for a reason.
You can Pollyana the 'Hoke is a Michigan Man' thing all you want, but he is a major roll of the dice at best in getting (not returning) Michigan to elite status.
I like Brady Hoke, I like him a LOT. I am extremely glad that we got him over either miles or Harbaugh because he oozes character and affability and I think he will represent M admirably in that respect and in the end, that is more important to me than wins....really. I would rather be northwestern than OSU.
I guess I have to give up the pipe dream of M ever being a national power and settle for going back to the 9-3 seasons with the occasional 10-2 and 8-4 and be happy for that. I will, of course, support Brady Hoke to the fullest, at least until such time as it is clear that the he isn't working out. 3 years, no excuses.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:16 AM ^
If you talk to Tressel, or walk around the Hayes center, you'll see that the #1 thing of concern there is winning the Big 10. The NC's are gravy, and OSU fans will also vent about Tressel being too focused on the Big 10, etc., etc. The point is that if you win the Big 10, you ARE on the national stage, and in a BCS game to boot. If you're undefeated, you're most likely in the title game. What's to complain about that?
FWIW, I think this whole meme also applies to OSU. Tressel is, above all, a servant to the program. I had a chance to tour the Hayes center a few months ago, and the staff raved about how Tressel brought back all these traditions. One cool thing he did was have all these former players write letters on their company letterhead, talking about how OSU made them into the people they are, etc. So right off the practice field is a room with rows and rows of framed letters, talking about how important OSU was to these players, and how lucky they were, etc., etc. Program first.
And then my head exploded from seeing so much scarlet and gray (I did, however, make sure I took the time to walk a slow "Go Blue" on the practice field).
January 13th, 2011 at 1:46 PM ^
I think for them, talking about the big10 title is so much lip service and they act much more like a program that wants to compete on the national stage. The coaches and administration talk Big10, however the players very often talk about NCs and the coaches certainly put that forth as a goal behind the scenes. Perhaps M is doing the same, but it would seem to me they are not and are sincere in their comments of that being the goal.
As far as recruiting and scheme go, I think OSU fields a much more viable program on a national level than any other team in the big10 and not just because they have a huge talent advantage over everybody right now, but because they plan to do so. If they were really primarily concerned with the Big10 as a goal, i think you would see a team that was more like Wisconsin in its make up that would allow them to more easily win in the Big10, but expose them in non-conf games aginst elite opponents.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:56 AM ^
The precedent has been set.
January 13th, 2011 at 6:05 AM ^
Hoke is not a signal that we will not compete with the Auburn/Alabama/Oregon/USC's of the world. It defines the context in which we will compete. And that is the student athlete first, not the coach. The program in service of the mission of the University, which is to serve its students. And Michigan has won more games than any other school with this as a bedrock principle. As a alum, I love this. I don't want to oversign and gray shirt. I don't want a coach who signs 35 high school kids and then has to revoke scholarships later. And I especially do not want a coach who cuts a kid via letter and refuses to even see him.
I do not see why the historic values of Michigan have to be tossed overboard in this ESPN crazed, coach celebritized, win at any cost era. We can and will win while maintaining our principles.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:54 AM ^
our last coach was on his way to winning with historic Michigan values: by making the kids work hard and earn everything they got..
January 13th, 2011 at 1:52 AM ^
The "Michigan way" did pretty well in the 70s, 80s and 90s. It had a great run, but I believe those days are over. Football is a game of innovation.
Do not assume that just because we had coaches from the same "tree" over that time that we were running the same offensive and defensive systems. Bo at times ran the veer and wishbone; Moeller had a no-huddle offense; and Carr had a more conservative pro-style with some West Coast tendencies. The defensive side of the ball was every bit as varied. The only real constants in the "Michigan way" were a strong emphasis on fundamentals, on teamwork, and winning with integrity.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:30 AM ^
Or so I think. I'm not saying it makes sense or is reasonable; I'm just saying that's how many folks felt, consciously or subconsciously. The program had to be greater than the coach, and a coach with so much prior success as RR threatened the "program must be greater than the coach" dynamic. That's why there was such keen attention paid to Rodriguez's "honoring" of Michigan traditions -- the more traditions he didn't follow, the more folks felt like he was bigger than the program, and the more threatened they felt. Rational? No. Plausible? Yes.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:35 AM ^
So let's just hire the most unqualified candidates ever! Just like in the waterboy let's promote the towel boy! YEAH THAT'LL WORK!
January 13th, 2011 at 12:42 AM ^
Sometimes the resume is not the most important part of an interview.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:47 AM ^
Not get you the job. Read from that what you will but I'm not going to spell it out because I know I'l get neg banged from here to eternity.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:55 AM ^
He's completely unqualified. Now go away.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:30 AM ^
I think you may be right. I think DB really believes his spiel early in the presser about other coaches being in it for them. DB did not want a coach who thought he was as big as the program. Of course, this only works if you win.
January 13th, 2011 at 4:50 AM ^
Is that a lot of coaches wanted guarantees or huge buyouts to even think about taking on a rebuild project like Michigan. Good career management would look at a job where you may not get any backing, might have a fan base that resents you from day one and you have a very finite amount of time to be successful or you will get run out of town with your rep in tatters.
What coach with a positive career trajectory and a lot of promise would risk that?
DB took a month and did a search and the Fitzeralds, Pattersons, Pinkels....and yes, Harbaughs and miles of the world said thanks, but no thanks. now DB is smart enough to create a PR storm to support his new hires and he has done that and so far it seems to work for some. DB isn't stupid, he is trying to make the best out of a bad situation.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:43 AM ^
whether you love Hoke or hate him, and loved RR or hated him, that this Michigan Man thing sucks and needs to go away. It has forced a "national coaching search" to be limited to three people. Now Hoke might actually be a great hire, but it'll be because he's a good coach, not because he knows the Victors. A guy's ability to coach a football team has ZERO to do with his ties to this school.
I see the point of this post, of trying to guess at what other people mean when they say this term even if you don't believe it in, but it's so illogical and moronic, it frustrates me to hear it anymore.
I feel like this is arguing with a guy who picks his Cy Young winner based on pitcher wins. You can present rational arguments to someone for only so long until you realize that the other person can't really rebut the logic, but you'll still never convince them to change their irrational thinking.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:12 AM ^
It's subservience to the program. Michigan could have hired a hot coordinator, or somebody from a smaller/less prestigious school. The point is that the Michigan ethos is for Michigan to make the coach famous, and the coach to make Michigan famous. A symbiosis, if you will. If a coach is already famous, the symbiosis is damaged, and that's a partial cause of all this strife in the past few years. Rodriguez was, for better or for worse, bigger than the program, and many people resented it.
Ridiculous? I can certainly see that side. A sign of Michigan's arrogance? For sure. It is what it is; it's part of the Michigan 'tradition'.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:56 AM ^
Didn't know if you saw but your idea led me to post about the history of your whole theme. It's really crazy (don't know if it's good or bad crazy) how much this makes sense looking at the numbers backing it up historically.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:56 AM ^
This is probably the most interesting thread I have seen in quite a while. That's a really unique insight. After reading this I thought that Michigan loves to claim success as it's own, without outside influence.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:52 AM ^
January 13th, 2011 at 1:32 AM ^
a self-referential post?
January 13th, 2011 at 1:02 AM ^
You might be right. In Bo's famous speech, "The Team," Bo states that no coach is bigger than the team and that the team wins for Michigan. Thus, by extension, the coach is not bigger than Michigan.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:05 AM ^
Bo's statement was about a coach who had searched for a job elsewhere. Then before finishing the season he told his team that he was no longer their coach, that he wanted to work somewhere else.
Bo's statement probably wouldn't have grown into a legend if he has stated, "A Michigan Employee will coach a Michigan team, not an employee of Arizona State"
from Wikipedia - Bo Schembechler
Schembechler was also the athletic director at Michigan from 1988 until early 1990. Just before the 1989 NCAA basketball tournament, men's basketball head coach Bill Friederannounced that he was taking the head coach position at Arizona State University, effective at the end of the season. Insisting on those in the program being dedicated to the school, Schembechler immediately fired Frieder and appointed assistant basketball coach Steve Fisher as interim head coach, while famously announcing that "a Michigan man is going to coach a Michigan team" in the NCAA tournament. Ironically, Frieder was an alumnus of Michigan, while Fisher was not. Fisher led Michigan to six straight victories in the tournament and the 1989 national championship.
That is all that Bo meant. He didn't want Michigan players to be coached by someone who had already found a job elsewhere and thus clearly no longer cared about what happened to those players.
David Brandon did the exact opposite of what Bill Frieder did. He let the Michigan Football team get coached by the Michigan Football coach before he even started his final review of the coaches performance. If you accept that Brady Hoke was "plan A" all along, then Brady Hoke wasn't going anywhere this year or next with respect to Michigan. He would have jumped at the chance to coach here no matter the time nor the place.
Your statement is without foundation. But even as speculation it is way off. I have definitely wondered if firing Rich Rodriguez now was too early. I am definitely not completely sure if Brady Hoke can change the performance in the Win-Loss columns, but I'm pretty confident that David Brandon, or anyone else hired by the University of Michigan, would be selecting someone to be part of the Leaders and Best culture and specifically choose someone who is "subservient".
And to actually link this aberrant thought to what Bo Schembechler meant can only be done with complete ignorance of what Bo stood for and taught into everyone of his players or employees.
I guess I shouldn't be stunned that someone so ignorant could form such a thought, but I am shocked that it appeared here.
Clearly Brian's EMO Melancholy has cultivated a community with which I cannot identify.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:08 AM ^
I get it. He's fat. Great. Fat jokes. Great. You people make me sick!
January 13th, 2011 at 1:14 AM ^
… and insightful. This is the sort of thing that I think about when I think about sports.
I'll carry this with me for a while. You may or may not be "correct" but the point is that this is an original insight, for which I'm thankful. Haters gonna hate, though. I did all I could do with a +1.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:23 AM ^
I get what the OP was saying. There are some programs where devotion to the school and program have created such a tradition - and in this case it truly is one of excellence - that enthusiasm and loyalty to the school and its tradition trump a lot of things.
I started Michigan in the fall of 1967. And I still remember my orientation and first few weeks on campus with crystal clarity, because I was so thrilled to have made it; so happy to be in Ann Arbor as a Michigan student. I don't think I ever got over that feeling of excitement about the school. Michigan, and all it represents, gave me so much.
It's why I try to give back to the school, as a guest lecturer in my field, donate when possible, etc. I love Michigan. I married a Michigan woman, and two of my three kids became Michigan grads (OK, one was a turncoat and went to U of California, but it wasn't my fault, I swear!).
Sure, the Michigan Way is about winning , but it's also about a lot of other things. Excellence in the kids that get selected, excellence the classroom, excellence in the facilities, a great attitude by the administration, a sense of the Midwest - yes, the many strengths of our region are still there and still important, and the strength of the many friendships we all made.
At orientation, the guy who was assigned to mentor our little group said, "If you don't get a lump in your throat four years from now when you hear "The Yellow and the Blue," I would be very surprised, because you would be the only one."
I can tell you that hearing "The Yellow and the Blue" at my kids' UM graduations put a lump in my throat the size of a football.
So I get this coaching hire. I get it really well.
January 13th, 2011 at 6:10 AM ^
I agree 100%
January 13th, 2011 at 3:33 AM ^
David Brandon is a huge fucking prick. That's all I have to say.
January 13th, 2011 at 6:12 AM ^
Wow man. You should be on some cable news channel. Such insight! Such articulation!
January 13th, 2011 at 8:06 AM ^
You're going to be popular around here, I can feel it.
January 13th, 2011 at 4:43 AM ^
and then is not successful at running the country, and hasn't consolidated the military or security services solidly in his favor while in power. Eventually the power structure that was displaced will rise up in anger (angar?), and with the military and security forces behind it, will throw out the revolutionary government and replace it with a restored monarchy or autocracy. Frequently, the revolutionary will be executed and his head will be placed on a pike in the public square as a warning to all other would-be troublemakers.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:04 AM ^
I think you are right, more or less.
It does limit the number of people one would consider for the job, for better or worse.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:09 AM ^
even those I may disagree with. Everyone knows that professional programs intentionally hire from the outside--the Dean of the U of M Medical School is rarely a U of M Medical school grad--in order to keep a program vital with new ideas and perspectives flowing. Not quite sure why an athletic department or football program would be different--other than the grads of a football program--former players and coaches--are maybe a little too fratty and not quite as open-minded.
That said, RichRod made significant mistakes from the outset as he miscalculated the environment and his role. Mallett, perhaps, not keeping more existing coaches, probably, not reaching out to the football family enough, almost certainly.
And for that, Martin has to take significant blame. He could and should have counseled RichRod and even insisted on some of these things. But instead, he was sailing....a rudderless ship.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:28 AM ^
The game is passing us by, and the people at the top(DB, LC, MSC, LC Cronies) are holding us back. Until these people are gone we will just stay the same. It is very sad and frustrating. Meanwhile the SEC will own the B10 and we will continue to be pissed off. This way they keep things the way they want it to be, reminds me of North Korea, the way we are held hostage and not allowed to change.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:43 AM ^
Yost wasn't a nobody when we brought him in, neither was Crisler. Unless we are starting the tradition w/ Bo.