Why fire Barwis?

Submitted by bringthewood on January 12th, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Why fire Barwis?  It seems Hoke is intent on doing a complete housecleaning like RR did.  Why not retain someone that seems to be one of the best, that brought Michigan up to date?  It would seem you would like some continuity for the players.  Offense and defense schemes will change completely (again).  We expect all of the defensive coaches to be gone all of the offensive coaches gone (except maybe Fred Jackson).  Ex players seemed to hold Barwis in high regard and he would seem to have relationships with all of the players that might aid in retention.  He seemed to be good for recruiting.

It bugged me when RR fired everyone last time rather than trying to keep some staff to serve as a bridge (in hindsight keeping the defensive staff would have been a good idea).  S&C coach would seem like the least risky (from a scheme standpoint) to retain.



January 12th, 2011 at 9:33 PM ^

That is probably the most logical answer. 

That said, I hope the athletic department creates a position for him.  Director of S&C to oversee all S&C operations.  If a guy is passionate and well liked, might be more beneficial to keep him around in some respect.


January 12th, 2011 at 10:57 PM ^

Actually Brock was driving to U of M 2 -3 days per week.   If Barwis and his staff are dismissed, I am not sure at this point how  Brock will continue the rehab process with Mike.  And, no, working out with the incoming staff would not be the same.  Barwis had a particular protocol that he was utilizing.


January 12th, 2011 at 9:44 PM ^

I can't believe people are still shocked by this. New head coaches mean a new staff. I don't even feel comfortable with the word "fired." He just wasn't retained.

You know why this stuff surprises at Michigan and nowhere else? Because we ran an old boys network for 18 years.


January 12th, 2011 at 9:54 PM ^

I've seen some programs where a few position coaches are retained through HC changes (some through multiple HC changes).  We all point to Iowa for assistant consistency but we have no problem with our 0% retention after 3 years.  For some players this will be their 3rd set of completely new coaches.  I know most had to go but if I was a player I would like to see a few familiar faces and S&C would seem to be easy choice.

It would seem to help diffuse the us vs them that happened when RR took over.  It just seems we are making the same mistakes again.  I'm hopeful a coach or two is retained.  btw I wanted RR to do the same thing.


January 12th, 2011 at 9:57 PM ^

we were an 7-6 team. Hoke has a great strength coordinator that he feels cofortable with. While I like Barwis and don't want him to leave, a strength coach is a strength coach, and the end resultsare all the same. 


January 12th, 2011 at 10:43 PM ^

For those not aware, Barwis is a multiple sport S&C coach at Michigan.  He has to be.  If he’s football only, that gets into that dangerous area of the wrong staff overseeing people (ie why we the program is on probation!)… it’s the reason he can spend the winter/spring conditioning the team.  It just so happens that football is so important, that the head coach often gets to pick his guy.  So Barwis can’t be retained as the overall S&C guy, that’s his job now and the job Wellman would get.  They are both relatively awesome (per internet rumors, though I like Barwis stories and wolves more for entertainment value).  They are both way better than the last guy, which is unfortunate since I met and l tried out for the team with coach gittleson (sp), and he’s a nice guy and gave me a shot, but he wasn’t at the point that Michigan needed to be competitive.



January 12th, 2011 at 11:42 PM ^

He was pretty outstanding developing NFL-type pocket passers... but is he really a good fit for Denard?  I would argue that Tebow was worse under his tutelage while attempting to make him NFL-ready.  Small sample size, I know. 

edit:  Sorry, meant for M-Wolverine way up in the thread.