November 13th, 2014 at 11:12 AM ^

Does anyone know if the new Prez has ever played organized sports? I'm just curious if he ever played sports in high school or college.

He doesn't seem to have much of an interest in athletics?


November 13th, 2014 at 12:57 PM ^

He seems pretty interested to me.  His first major act as President was to fire the AD.  I believe what he says, that he wants to reevaluate what the culture and purpose of the department going forward and then hire an AD that fits.  Given the circumstances internally and the changing landscape of college athletics, this seems very appropriate.  He also made it clear Hackett can fire Hoke during this process.


November 13th, 2014 at 2:54 PM ^

I'm not sure how old you are but there is a danger that we are going to turn off generations of younger fans if this slide towards mediocrity or worse continues. I became a fan in 2006 which is the last team we were seriously a member of the elite even if those last two games could have gone better. Since then it has been very mediocre and yes eventually people are not going to be so die hard if there isn't a payoff.

There is a danger and I don't want to think about four or five more years of blah.

This next hire needs to be right or else winter could indeed be coming.


November 13th, 2014 at 3:30 PM ^

I'm 46 and became a fan very early, like when I was 8 or 9 yrs old.  I have early memories of watching the game on TV with my dad, the sound turned off and listening to Ufer on the radio.  Across my lifetime, I've seen more ups than downs, but have the benefit of a long fandom to fall back on to over-shadow this dark period. 


November 13th, 2014 at 11:26 AM ^

I like Hoke.  I think he's an above-average coach and I think he'll get better as his key recruits are coming in.  I wish we had a better QB for next year, but I think our OL will start to gel. 

I know everyone assumes we will get Harbaugh or some other big-time coach, but based on Schlissel's focus on academics over athletics, I feel that he'll go with a steady hand that is not a big-name, big-money football coach.  Therefore, I'd rather go with the devil I know than start over again.

I know I'm in the minority in my viewpoint, but after the Carr to RichRod transition and the RichRod to Hoke transition, I'm getting tired of these transition years and I'd rather ride the horse we're on for a while to see if we can turn this thing around organically.


November 13th, 2014 at 11:59 AM ^

That took 5 years to build.  So did Dan Mullen.  I'd rather keep Hoke than take a flyer on an unproven coach.  I have to believe you need the slamdunk hire to keep it all together - recruits, fans in the stands, support of the AD / prez.  If you can't get that - Harbaughs or Mullen - then you should ride with the known quantity.  I think, with talent and schedule, we can hit 10 wins next year.  Remember this is Year 1 of a new offensive coordinator.  Schemes and personnel take time.  I'd hate to do this whole thing over again - Carr to RichRod to Hoke - again and again because we (1) didn't sign the right guy or (2) kept changing for the sake of change. 


November 13th, 2014 at 11:09 PM ^

that will be the first year where his own recruits will be seniors.  (the 2011 class was thrown together late)  Furthermore, Hoke inherited a team with bigger depth chart issues than Dantonio had when he took over State.  Not saying Hoke is doing a great job, but I think its unfair to compare Dantonio's year 4 to Hoke's year 4.  What if this year is more like Dantonio's third year?

Blue Mike

November 14th, 2014 at 1:40 PM ^

How do you figure any of that?  Dantonio took MSU from a spread, finesse team to a traditional, power team (sound familiar?).  Looking at their first classes (2007 for Dantonio, 2011 for Hoke), Rivals put MSU at #42 in 2007 with 3 4-star recruits.  Michigan in 2011 (even with Brady's late arrival) had a #21-ranked class with 6 4-stars.  Doesn't sound like Brady started at a terrible disadvantage to me.


November 13th, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^

A good mentor, yes. What makes you think he's a good leader? What does he lead well? And on being a motivator, he certainly doesn't motivate coaches and players to perform well. I really wish Hoke worked out, but I don't think anyone can reasonably say he's shown he's at all a good head coach. I'm sure it wouldn't happen, but I'd welcome him to be our DL (only) coach next year.


November 13th, 2014 at 11:53 AM ^

there's a big difference between a leader and a manager.  He's a terrible manager, game manager, position coach manager, etc....  A leader motivates and gets people to want to follow him, regardless of the results.  Seeing how the players stick up for him and play hard for him, regardless of the result, suggests to me he can lead...just not in the right direction.  I think we all agree, for the most part, he isn't a good coach.  But a charismatic individual, no doubt. 


November 13th, 2014 at 1:07 PM ^

and if you're forcing me to view his leadership style/accumen based upon the one sample size of that game, then I'd agree with you.  That situation, imho, was overcome by many other factors that built upon the entire year.  I would say that his leadership, as evidenced by the second half of the season (and to a degree the majority of this one) is suffering due to lack of confidence and the fact that he's probably grasping onto his job for dear life.


November 13th, 2014 at 12:09 PM ^

say I think he's a good coach. I just don't think he's a good head coach at this level.

He does a great job and instilling loyalty and motivating.

He probably is an excellent D line coach.

He did fine at Ball State, and was able to do what appears to be a major turnaround for SDSU. But at Michigan?

I think if I were to characterize his head coaching job at Michigan in one word, it would be 'disorganized'. The team doesn't seem disciplined. They don't have that fire. The things that slip from a coaching perspective (not enough men on the field, the entire Morris incident, the very slow or nonexistent progress of most talent etc.) look to me to be a team that just doesn't have its ducks all in a row. 

Football is a game of integration of talent with a team, and precise timing and positioning. Michigan does none of those things well. And its killing us. 

If, magically, Michigan started making leaps and bounds and started executing and being disciplined, I'd rethink Hoke. If on top of that the players all looked engaged, I'd think about keeping him. But as it is? No way. Winning isn't enough at this stage for me. Its how he wins. I can take a team that has a rough season or  even 3, so long as the machinery of the program looks like its taking everyone in the right direction. This isn't the case here. 

Despite all I've heard of Schlissel being a brilliant man, and he likely is, he'd be making a grave mistake to not address the AD/Hoke situation. You can be a brilliant guy and not get it due to lack of experience. 

All this talk from the Presidents office that makes it sound like he wants to take a nice long time to make sure everythings okay is worrying to me. This is a serious situation for him with a short time table, and he should treat it as such. I'm not saying do short shrift on the process of finding a new AD/Coach. I am saying lets get a move on. That he's a major university President with an interim AD and he 'doesn't know' any of the other AD's who might be possibilities is very, very worrying to me. 

Further, part of fandom is based on hope. Ours is guttering right now. I'd like to see him address the fans. Let us know that he takes this very seriously and that its a real priority for him to get it fixed. Come out and say that he understands the urgency, and is acting to do something post haste.  Something.


November 13th, 2014 at 2:59 PM ^

I'm just not seeing how he's a good leader. I mean maybe he is a lot harder on this team in practice but he literally claps after everything in a game. If we get a first down, if we kick a field goal, if we get a touchdown thats great. If we don't get a first down, miss the field goal, or turn the ball over I'm not expecting to see my leader clapping about it. There's an extreme where you are yelling all the time and are beat red or purple. I'm not saying go there but show some fire like a Harbaugh and get these guys to not accept defeat.

I hate losing more than I like winning. That's a leader. Zach Novak for coach.


November 13th, 2014 at 11:31 AM ^

written on MgoBlog. Hoke is a subpar coach. That is incontestable. His teams have gotten worse, his defenses fail against good teams, he can't win on the road, his offenses are horrendous, and the special teams are not special.

In no way can you logical say that Hoke is a good head coach. He is not. His record proves that.


November 13th, 2014 at 11:57 AM ^

He won two coach of the year awards before coming to Michigan, he had Ball State ranked number 12 and took them to the fifth and sixth bowls in their 82 year history during his six years there. He then went to SDSU and put up a far better W/L record than they had since the early 1990's and won their first bowl game since 1969.

Even if you give him zero credit for 2011 at Michigan he definitely didn't mess up a great season and was awarded coach of the year at the end of the season.


November 13th, 2014 at 12:14 PM ^

five times, winning the division a couple of times, and making a NFC title game. Is he a good coach?

John L. Smith had multiple winning seasons at Idaho and Louisville. Is he a good coach?

Turner Gill led Buffalo to a MAC title. Is he good?

Tyrone Willingham took Stanford to a Rose Bowl. Is he a good coach?

How about George Perles? Darryl Rogers? Steve Mariucci?

BlueSpiceIn SEC.hell

November 13th, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^

Everyone you named is a good coach.  

Not every job and every stop for every coach is a a golden road of success.  And each of them have had their lows.

Any variety of circumstances, personnel, timing come into play.

To say every one of these men who have been picked to lead teams are all bad coaches is horribly misguided.

In making your argument you choose to highlight former coaches and administrators, many of which were part of the Detroit Lions.

If anything,  I think the Detroit Lions organization as a whole might be the problem and not neccessarily the coaches.

 When you consider that premise, perhaps Schlissel is wise to address the environment and culture as he said he would and look for some systemic issues before passing full judgement on a group of coaches whose pedigrees are pretty good.

As I have stated before and you have previously bashed, there are several National championship rings on our current staffs hands.

You have your opinion and I respectfully disagree with it.  

I am a Michigan Alumnus and I am not interested in tearing down anyone for their opinions.

I wish for the same thing I believe you do; success in all avenues that Michigan is represented.

I wish you would respect my and others opinions that differ from yours. 


November 13th, 2014 at 12:25 PM ^

Gene Chizik's is 24-38 as a head coach without paying sixty grand to Cam Newton's father. He had never won a single coaching award before or after 2010 and his only two head coaching jobs were at a Big XII and SEC school.

He also managed to completely lose control of his team and I'll assume Hoke's graduation rate is much higher unless someone wants to show otherwise.