OT: Highlights of SDSU's 35-14 win v. Navy in 2010 Poinsetta Bowl
(posting from iphone so I can't embed)
January 6th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^
SDSU beat two teams with winning records and both were academies, AF and Navy who have one dimensional offenses. The other 7 wins came against teams with a combined record of 46 freaking games below .500. In other words an average record slightly worse than 3-9. Yes they had some close close games against good teams who where probably overlooking them, but if you're implying Brady Hoke is a legitimate candidate please stop posting.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:57 AM ^
He's not implying anything. Brady Hoke is legitimately a coaching candidate, as much as you wish it were not so. Thus, posting video of his team so that we can understand his system, play-calling, etc is relevant.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^
Not sure Hoke is really a candidate other than he once coached at Michigan. If we take what DB said at the press conference as Harbaugh isn't coming, then I interpret the statement that we are going to spend some cash this time, to mean Hoke isn't coming.
You don't roll out an armored van loaded with gold bars to entice Hoke to Michigan. You send him a singing telegram and a bottle of Riunite with a note attached that says get your ass to Ann Harbor.
Harbaugh was the only one who was going to fit the "Michigan man" bill, so now wing swing big. Money can change a lot of people's minds. Candidates that were not even thought of come into play once a big pay day comes into play. At least I sure hope so.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^
Unfortunatly, at this point, he is a legitamate candidate. A good one? No. But we have a good possibility of ending up with him.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^
January 6th, 2011 at 11:15 AM ^
In my defense, I never said I wouldn't support him if he became our head coach. I would support overweight Russian guy who lives in the apartment next to me if he were Michigan's head coach. But until that happens, I stand by my opinion that Brady Hoke (as well as the fat Russian guy who lives in the apartment next to me) are not the greatest options. If either one of them does become head coach, I hope they become the winningest head coach in school history.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
The spread runs you!
January 6th, 2011 at 11:45 AM ^
January 6th, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^
I've been under the mistaken impression that this was Brady Hoke.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:43 AM ^
What Brady Hoke's actual record ends up being at Michigan is beside the point. When you hire a coach, you're basically just getting a probability of future success. Sometimes a high-probability guy doesn't work out (everything in Rich Rod's past suggested he'd be very successful at Michigan) and sometimes a low probability guy ends up doing very well (Gene Chizik has worked out better than Auburn fans ever could have hoped for, though whether that lasts past Malzahn is an open question).
Brady Hoke might end up being very successful at Michigan, but there's little in his current coaching career to suggest that's particularly likely. That means hiring Brady Hoke would be a terrible decision.
January 6th, 2011 at 1:46 PM ^
What Brady Hoke's actual record ends up being at Michigan is beside the point
This is about the strangest thing I've read. How could that be beside the point?
January 6th, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^
is an excellent way to go broke in the long run. Stupid, low probability decisions work all the time. That's why they're "low probability" and not "zero probability."
Based on the available evidence so far, running a million trials hiring guys with Brady Hoke's resume is highly unlikely to lead to good results. Even if Hoke ended up working brilliantly in this one case, it still wouldn't mean Brandon's thought process or decision making made any sense, or that he had done something wise. It'd probably mean he just got really lucky.
I don't want the success of our next hire to depend on getting lucky.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:47 AM ^
or perhaps you are Dave? You might want to get used to the idea that Coach Hoke is in the upper echelon of candidates. That's the boat we're in, that's where the carousel is currently rotating. This is our new Maize and Blue reality. It doesn't help to get all venomous because you don't approve of his candidacy; let's just stick with the facts, this situation sucks as it is.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
Hoke is a legitimate candidate, which leaves me feeling like David After Dentist asking "Is this real life?"
January 6th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^
Well, FWIW, we only beat one more team that finished the regular season with a winning record (UConn, ND, Ill)
And two of those wins came by a combined total of 6 points. So we were really close to only beating ONE winning team this year (UConn).
January 6th, 2011 at 11:16 AM ^
So you're saying we had a bad season, only slightly better (by this meausre) than SDSU under Brady Hoke. If we fired a coach with a better season, should we hire a coach coming off of a worse season?
And the coach/architect of the season in your post is not a candidate for the Michigan head coaching job.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:34 AM ^
I'm not saying we should hire anyone in particular, nor am I defending Hoke. I was just pointing out that wins vs. teams with winning records is an incomplete measure to evaluate the effectiveness of a HC candidate. If one person wanted to keep Rodriguez but say that Hoke was terrible, by using the above method of reasoning, Rodriguez couldn't have been much better.
I'm more protesting the nit-picking of stats to justify a preconceived opinion than anything. Especially because the person I was originally replying to was using this method to validate that Hoke cannot be a legitimate HC candidate and it's ridiculous to think so based off of success with a weaker schedule.
Stanford got Harbaugh coming from a team that played a weaker schedule. Same with Tressel at Ohio State. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^
That's fair, but you should at least acknowledge that Hoke took over a program that has posted 3 winning seasons in the past 2 decades, the last one being back in 1998 (7-5).
<br>
<br>I'm not saying this qualifies him to be the next M coach, but turning two losing programs into winners in the past 8 years is impressive.
<br>
January 6th, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^
I worry that the powers that be won't be willing to give him the time to rebuild the program. Heck, we didn't give it RR. But we are bringing back a lot of starters, so I think that whoever is coach will have some success as long as they can field a competent defense.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
I don't think it was the amount of time so much as the appearance of incompetence. A HC is responsible for getting the right people in place on his staff. Shaffer, Hopson, and GERG were catastrophic failures. The fact that they were forced to run a defense that none of them had experience running is a secondary issue.
We will always wonder what could have been, but one good hire on RR's part and we wouldnt be having ANY of these discussions.
I'm more than willing to give Hoke the benefit. Harbaugh's 3 year stint at San Diego wouldn't have been enough for this board either if that's all he had, but now there are plenty that would provide him "oral pleasure" for the duration of his stay at AA if he would come since he has done well at Stanford.
This bickering is NOT good. Hoke isn't my 1st choice (I'm firmly Patterson) but we're already on option #2 and last time it took until option #3 to get someone to say "yes" and that was doomed from the start because of these same divisions.
Signing day is about a month away and if we have anyone left willing to sign by then I'll be overjoyed.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
Our definition of winner must be different. Yes, if your being literal, he made Ball State and SDSU "winners" in that in his last or latest season they won more than they lost. By this logic, Rich Rodriguez also turned the corner at Michigan this year and recreated a winner. I'm not all that impressed by a 12-1 season in the MAC or a 9-4 season in the MWC.
Has he had winning seasons? Yes. Has he built winning programs? The answer is either no or remains to be seen
January 6th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^
That's a 12-0 season, not 12-1. Hoke left before the loss. The moment he left campus and Stan Parrish took over the team's performance level dropped several touchdowns.
Though in Stan's defense on the bowl loss - the way BSU's prez treated Hoke probably affected the players in a bad, bad way. Then the next season Stan affected them in a bad, bad way.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:42 PM ^
He was coaching when they lost the MAC championship game to Turner GIll and Buffalo
January 6th, 2011 at 11:50 AM ^
but apparently at the risk of self annihilation that ability has been removed from us?
January 6th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
I live in the San Diego area and have exposure to San Diego State games. Their performance against top 25 teams is better than you think.
Against Missouri (which looked better and should have beat Iowa) they actually won the game BUT for a missed call by officials which they later admitted to missing.
Against BYU again they would have won BUT for a failure for officials to review the replay which was investigated by the conference. Against TCU the game was very competitive until the final quarter when SD made uncommon errors.
In all these games Hoke refused to blame poor officiating but instead stated we should not have placed ourselves in that position. He is a tough nose coach that believes fundamentals will trump schemes on the football field.
In two years he has made this team VERY competitive whereas in prior years they were a joke.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^
perhaps it's a sign of how desperate I feel for good news, but that info made me feel the best I've had in days...not that I'm a Hoke guy, but it's good to hear good news about a candidate that really wants us.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^
Thx for the insight. I wasnt aware of any of that (blown calls and such).
January 6th, 2011 at 1:04 PM ^
"...and should have beat Iowa." What about GARY PINKEL??!? I'm shocked that even the most expansive coach-candidate lists have not included him. He's run a decent, winning program that should have been in the BCS instead of Kansas in '07; his offense would be a good "transitional" system for UM's current talent and he's been 150-86-3 in 20 years in the FBS -- 10 years at Toledo, 10 years at Missouri (so yes, he's a little on the old side). Plus for good measure he was the OC for Don James and Washington during their 1990-91 MNC runs.
January 6th, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^
I second the notion of giving him a look. As you mention, age is a draw-back.
January 6th, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^
I think you hit it dead on. I checked out a SDSU message board yesterday and found most of the fans either terrified of losing Hoke or incredulous that we wouldn't want Hoke. Seems like SDSU fans are quite happy with their coach.
January 6th, 2011 at 1:29 PM ^
Yeah, I have a buddy out here who went to SDSU and follows football very closely, thought about walking on at SDSU, guy knows his stuff. He has been texting me the terrible things he'll do to me if we take Hoke. He's convinced Hoke is the real deal.
Maybe it's because SDSU has been bad forever, or maybe it's because he's watched all of their games under Hoke and truly thinks he's legit. We'll see I guess, but I don't see all the Hoke hate, I just think he's not my top option.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^
SDSU beat up on a Navy team that you already know beat up on Notre Dame. Yes the same Notre Dame team that Michigan barely beat.
I was impressed with SDSU vs Navy
January 6th, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^
The ND vs Navy score is thrown around an awful lot. Nobody seems to remember that ND beat a Utah team by four scores. That team went on to beat SDSU the very next week. ND losing to Navy had more to do with a bad game plan from ND than Navy being some sort of mythical team that SDSU should get tons of credit for beating. ND seemed to figure out the veer the next time they played against it. SDSU also had a month to prepare for the triple option instead of a week.
January 6th, 2011 at 1:42 PM ^
You do realize we are talking about taking SDSfuckingU to 9-4, and having 4 losses by a total of 15 points right? Their biggest loss was to TCU by 5 points, and they sure as hell are not fielding the kind of talent Michigan has.
January 6th, 2011 at 2:06 PM ^
I hope he isn't one of the first options, but he may end up as our best remaining option so he's absolutely a candidate.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:49 AM ^
Look, it is hard to deduce much about a coach's ability from watching a bowl game of his current team. However, some of that is pretty impressive, especially scheme wise. I am specifically looking at the unreal play-action pass which IMO must be nearly 100% coaching. Would that work against Big 10 Defenses with future NFL players on it? Maybe not but still impressive.
January 6th, 2011 at 1:54 PM ^
I have followed this blog for a long time. I very rarely write (obviously). This place has become so negative, and is filled with so many self proclaimed experts that I really wonder what has come of Michigan fans. Unfortunately, I attribute a fair amount of this to Brian. Hoke and Miles are obviously legitimate coaching prospects with strengths and weaknesses. Yet he has virtually written them off. Brandon had a hugely difficult task in dealing with Coach Rodriguez, yet Brian says he has botched it into oblivion. It is so thoroughly negative and in my opinion unbalanced and unfair.
In reality, we know only so much about any of the candidates. We also know very, very little about what Dave Brandon's reasons for waiting were (possibilities include Harbaugh and Miles asked him to, Rodriguez was thought to be entitled to put his team on the field for the bowl game, etc.).
If we are fans, why not talk about candidates we would like to see considered, and identify their strengths rather than defame or disparage potential coaches - who, by the way, may very well end up here, have to recruit student atheletes and have to unite the fan base?
January 6th, 2011 at 3:50 PM ^
Completely agree with you. We will not decide the coach, so why not learn about each potential candidate, and remain optimistic in our analysis. I, for one, just listening to the pressor, find Hoke a straight talking and interesting coach. I don't think we would get anymore vague references about execution with him. To dismiss a coach based on numbers is bonkers, because as we all know RR brought more than numbers during his tenure, but if he is judged solely on his numbers it would seem RR had no redeeming qualities, which is not the case.
January 6th, 2011 at 2:09 PM ^
"Hoke and Miles are obviously legitimate coaching prospects..."
This is not the case. Hoke, with a losing record in eight seasons as a head coach, no conference championships, and a bowl win at home against Navy, is not a legitimate coaching prospect for the University of Michigan. He wasn't a legitimate prospect for Minnesota or Indiana. If jobs came open at Texas, Alabama, USC, Florida, Miami, Ohio State (and some did just this year), you would never hear Hoke's name mentioned.
But when Michigan needs a coach, cronyism reigns supreme. Hopefully Dave Brandon is opening the door on a new day, but don't blame those who realize what it would mean if he chooses not to (i.e. that Michigan football has definitively become a backward, inbred program where a tenuous prior association with the football program outweighs any and all other aspects of a hiring evaluation).
January 6th, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^
Miles is someone I have follwed for years since I live in the middle of SEC country. I first thought that the way the locals treated him was "because he's not from around here" thinking. We went to the same school. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is a good recruiter and apparently a pretty good motivator. However, he is one of the worst game coaches I have ever seen. His clock management debacles are legendary. And while he has a good record, he is widely perceived to have done less with more talent than any coach in the SEC in the past decade. He is very fortunate to be in the only major school in a state with as many good high school players per capita as any in the country. And as the face of your program, let's just say that Les will not be any more impressive than Rich was. He is widely perceived, I think fairly to some extent, to be a joke in this part of the country.
January 6th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^
so a three star or even a two star who comes in and by their junior/senior season are up for all major awards at their position should never have been offered because non of the schools you mentioned recruited them??!! stats can be made up, some stats that are not made up can be made to fit anything anyone wants them to fit. some coaches rise from complete anonymity, some from decent backrounds, some from great pedigrees, some even rise from the ashes of failures from the past!
i am sure you or anyone else will be able to find coaches in each category who were complete successes/failures. the point is you won't have a say so in who comes here. i know this is a blog and you can voice opinions, that is what this is for. my opinion is i am almost speechless when any conversation comes up about M football and this fiasco!
i dont know who might be brought in and what they will do with our current players, which is more important than who they recruit in the next month! this alone has me more worried than getting top recruits, because i believe that whatever system is brought in we can and will be successful mainly because most or our starters will have two three and four years of experience. not so if our key players transfer!
what i do know is that it hursts when the people around me that root for other teams are laughing at the school that i grew up rooting for and i am remaining quiet for now! someday Michigan football will be back on top!
GO BLUE! GO WOLVERINES!!!!!
January 6th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
January 6th, 2011 at 11:03 AM ^
In the interest of grammar, I think we should start referring to the LSU coach/ UM coach candidate as "Fewer Miles"
January 6th, 2011 at 2:14 PM ^
Loose Morals, which he's been called on here many times.
I am trying to be optimistic about everything but I feel our next coach could be anyone of a dozen guys. Is Vegas setting up betting lines?
January 6th, 2011 at 2:14 PM ^
Maybe if we actually offered him the job this time around, he would accept it. Whatever personal issues former staff members and/or coaches may have had with him, I think he should get a look.
January 6th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^