Bump Elliott, Brady Hoke, And The Next Bo

Submitted by WolverineOptimist on

While all the focus is on which man will take over the Michigan Football program, I am inclined to take just an extra moment to reflect on the recently dismissed Brady Hoke. Usually during struggles the fan base turns on a coach to the point that they celebrate his firing. This was not the usual situation. Almost everyone who has truly supported and cared about Michigan Football for any length of time was not celebratory in the least bit when Hoke was let go. Almost all agreed, however, that it was a move that was necessary for a program that is on a downward trend. Where will Brady Hoke reside in Michigan Football history? This question has nagged me; and while it is still much too early to tell, I would like to believe he will be viewed much in the same light as Bump Elliott. The similarities are striking between two Michigan coaches whose years with the school did not end the way they wanted.... read more: http://uofmdiehards.com/2014/12/12/bump-elliott-brady-hoke-and-the-next-bo/

brewandbluesaturdays

December 12th, 2014 at 4:28 PM ^

I appreciate the work you put in and your love of Michigan and I know you've got your website plugs approved. But, there's something about you advertising on here that makes me feel dirty about it, I dunno.

JHendo

December 12th, 2014 at 4:56 PM ^

Agreed.  Keep your site in your signature and on your site.  Once enough people here trust you and think your content is worthy, they'll head over to your blog on their own terms.  As of right now, him and his multiple MGoPersonalities are struggling to find footing and make friends, and despite the mods' blessing, it's kind of a turn off to open a post that's trying to redirect me to someone's personal site.  There are more tactful ways to build a blog's presence, and this just ain't it.

MGoRob

December 12th, 2014 at 4:28 PM ^

I know this has been touched upon in the past about self promoting one's own site...   There's a big difference between starting a thread topic about something written about someone on another site.  But all this seems is for a click grab.  This is Brian's site and you're basically promoting people click away from his site to read your stuff.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this...

Why don't you post relevant snip-bits from the article here.  Give "us" something to read that contributes to a talking point.  If we like it and want to learn more, we will follow the link to read the rest.  Just posting a link without any actually "information" just seems....  uncouth.

mgoblue78

December 13th, 2014 at 4:43 PM ^

MSU claims titles in 51, when Tennessee was #1 in both AP and UPI, 55, when Oklahoma was #1 in both AP and UPI,. 57, when Auburn and OSU were the AP and UPI #1's and 66, when ND was #1 in both AP and UPI. The 65 season for MSU and ND was like 97 fo UM and Nebraska, with the split in the two major polls.

If we claimed national championships on the basis of the more obscure polls like the Sparties do, Bo would have 2 : 1973  and 1985.

Michigan has more dignity about it and thus doesn't claim those years....and quite a few others..

Yostbound and Down

December 12th, 2014 at 4:51 PM ^

"20 years and zero rings"

Do you know how messed up the rules were for bowl games back in the 70s? Ever heard of Dennis Franklin?

I'm quite honestly fine if we don't win another national championship for some time, IF we can get back to being competitive with our rivals and winning Big Ten titles. I suspect that will get us in the playoff which will allow us to compete for a national championship anyways.

Tater

December 12th, 2014 at 5:35 PM ^

I am 62 years old and went to my first game in 1960, when I was eight years old.  I have been following ever since.  In my lifetime, I have seen the winningest program in college football win one national championship in what was considered one of two "legitimate" polls.

I am not "fine" with it if Michgan can't compete for National Championships soon.  I am guessing I have around 20 years left.  I really don't think another National Championship or two is too much to ask for in a projected 74 years of watching Michigan football.  

I want to see them hire a coach who can win National Championships now.  Florida did it, Bama did it and even Auburn, which is metaphorically the "Sparty of the South," in football, did it.  Florida State crawled out of a fair-sized hole to get back to NC level. 

So can Michigan.

 

Yostbound and Down

December 12th, 2014 at 7:50 PM ^

OK, maybe not fine with it, because I was 8 for the 97 team and I don't even remember all the games that year. I would love to see a national championship team again. I hopefully have about another 30 years tacked on to your 20 (in the sincerest way I echo the words, not the ill will, of our erstwhile AD and say to you Tater, have a happy life) and I would be extremely sad to not see another national championship.

My point is we still have to focus on the same things Bo preached...Big Ten Championship and trip to the Rose Bowl...precisely because doing that is how you get into the playoff now and put yourself in contention. We haven't had a Big Ten championship team in a decade. I would certainly like to change that first as it is a big stepping stone to a national title. If we can kill two birds with one stone even better.

But I don't expect national championships consistently from Michigan...hell, Carr got the first one in 50 years and Bump, Bo, Mo and the two most recent coaches couldn't get it done. We have to get to OSU's level first and that means not being a doormat like the rest of the Big Ten.

M-Dog

December 13th, 2014 at 2:38 AM ^

The good news is that we will be going to a 6 or 8 team Playoff very soon.  This means that winning the Big Ten will now be synonymous with playing for a National Championship.  It's not an either-or situation.

Part of the reason that Bo never won a National Championship is that he never played for a National Championship.  He was never in a position where if he won his bowl game, he would be National Champion.  It was already pre-decided by the AP poll by time he got there that he was out of the picture.

Compare that to Paterno, who as an Independent was able to align his teams to play anywhere.  He played in four "National Championship" games and was able to win two of them.

Bo's teams in '73, '80, '85, and '88 could have easily won "National Championship" games, if they were allowed to play in one.
 

FatGuyLittleCoat

December 12th, 2014 at 4:56 PM ^

We shouldn't be aspiring for the next Bo. Dude was successful, won a lot of games, and is a Michigan legend. However, Bo's been gone a long time. Why doesn't Michigan enter this century and find the best coach who will win lots of games. Why is there this nostaglic wish to return to the 1970s and 1980s? The national championship is the only thing that matters. Rose Bowls  were a huge deal 10-20 years ago but in this modern college football environment, nobody cares about a trip to the Rose Bowl. Michigan needs a cutthroat coach to take the program to an elite level-anything less than this is a failure. National championships are the standard by which a program is measured, not Rose Bowl appearances and conference championships.

UMxWolverines

December 12th, 2014 at 9:25 PM ^

No they're not. They're realists. I don't want to get out of this current funk we're in only to go 9-3 every year again. 9-3 won't win you any big ten titles now that they can't be shared, get you into any high profile bowls, and definitely not the playoffs. Nebraska just fired their coach for going 9-3 every year. When is the last time OSU went 9-3 not counting the year Fickell coached them? 

Why should Michigan's ceiling be 9-3 given the resources we have? 

lunchboxthegoat

December 12th, 2014 at 11:25 PM ^

It's leaders and the best not "pretty good with a chance at being best once a decade." Lloyd was a very good coach, Lloyd was the coach for most of my youth. That's not what the high point of Michigan football should be. There's not a single reason why we shouldn't be doing 9-3 in a down year and better than that every other. Enjoy Michigan however you want, I won't toss water on your enjoyment. I just think we're capable of much more than competing for big ten titles.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

mgoblue78

December 12th, 2014 at 4:31 PM ^

built it into the 64 team that was one failed conversion against Bob Griese's Purdue from winning a national championship, and then rebuilt to a 8-2 1968 team that, notwithstanding the infamous "because I couldn't go for three" season ender, finished 12/15 in the polls and was the foundation of Bo's early years.

Bump's tenure had exactly the opposite trajectory of Brady's.

GoBLUinTX

December 12th, 2014 at 5:40 PM ^

Because Elliot was allowed six more years after his 2-7 fourth season.  

4-5, 5-4, 6-3, 2-7.  Had Those been Hoke's first four years, he still wouldn't see his fifth.  But let's say he does get a fifth and it turned out to be 3-4-2.  Are you seriously suggesting Brady Hoke would have survived three losing seasons in five with the last two seasons being consecutive losing seasons?  What kind of trajectory is that?  Let's be honest about things, shall we?  Elliot's sixth season, 9-1, and his tenth, 8-2, were utter outliers much like Hoke's first season of 11-2.

So no, Elliot's tenure didn't have the exact opposite trajectory, not when you compare like years.

sierragold

December 12th, 2014 at 4:41 PM ^

I haven't clicked over to read the article about the simulaties, but I really like Brady Hoke. I think it is a shame that it didn't work out for hime at Michigan. I know that he loves Michigan, everyone know that. He's a great guy with a great personality.

I don't think he will be remembered as the greatest coach from the U of M, but he was thereon the defense in 1997/1998 when Michigan Football won the National Title. He's such a great defensive guy I wish there was a way that he could coach defense for the U of M. Since he is a head coach I don't think this will ever happen.

Brady Hoke as a former player/coach will always have a legacy with the University of Michigan.

cigol

December 12th, 2014 at 4:56 PM ^

We need to stop the Bo crap.  He's a guy in history who forged where the program/university is, but that needs to be dropped when applying to the modern day.  When we start looking for that, we get annoyed when someone doesn't run a style of offense that has been deemed nearly obsolete in the college game (save that NFL team in Alabama) or speaks with a slightly unfamiliar twang.   

Personally, I'd rather see the team win football games with a coach in a clown suit who speaks in fart noises than the embarrassment that this program has been lately.

FatGuyLittleCoat

December 12th, 2014 at 5:03 PM ^

Woody Hayes is an Ohio State icon and yet the Ohio State fanbase has never looked for "the next Woody Hayes." Ohio State has won a lot of football games, competed (and won one) in national championships, and unquestionably is an elite job. Ohio State has consistently had winners and, in my lifetime, has never wished the next Ohio State coach to be a Woody Hayes reincarnation. I'd gladly take Ohio State's attitude over Michigan's; I'd sure as hell take Ohio State's successes over Michigan's in the past 15 years.

Brodie

December 13th, 2014 at 2:33 AM ^

an Ohio State coach doesn't have to be Woody, but he sure as hell has to know all about him and revere him. Of Ohio State's coaches since... Earle Bruce was a Woody acolyte and was well liked even whilst being fired, John Cooper was an outsider who initially didn't make much of an effort to marry himself to the past and is still reviled for it, Jim Tressel was an Ohio lifer and ex-OSU assistant who played up OSU lore at every turn and Urban Meyer is another former OSU assistant who has had a picture of Woody on his mantle since he was in 20's

.

Yostbound and Down

December 12th, 2014 at 5:05 PM ^

Alabama is incredibly spoiled to have had both Bear Bryant and Saban in their primes, dominating the SEC, winning national championships. How often do Saban's formations and schemes get overanalyzed and compared to Bear's? I'm not a regular listener to Feinbaum so I don't know for sure, but I'd guess much less than Rodriguez's and Hoke's offenses were compared to Bo's.

Which is stupid because Bo didn't have one offense. In the 70s he was triple-option; Leach, Franklin etc. With Wangler, Harbaugh, Steve Smith he started to open up passing a lot more and move towards pro-style but you could still see the option all the time.

There's no right way, the right way is the way that wins games. I don't care if we run goal-line with 3 TEs every play next season or if we are shotgun 5 wide, I just want to win the game.

jmdblue

December 12th, 2014 at 5:08 PM ^

and we tried 3 Bo disciples who worked with varying levels of success.  We need a fresh start.  That said, RR came off like an idiot and got pissed when he couldn't get Demar Dorsey in.  I'm not saying he wasn't smart and I don't give a shit about an accent, but class and integrity and an understanding of "shenanigans" is pretty damned important to this job.  I don't care what offense we run.  I do care about how the guy who represents the university represents himself.  Neg away.

Mr Miggle

December 12th, 2014 at 6:03 PM ^

who were still mad at admissions years later that Dorsey couldn't get in. And that was after it was obvious he couldn't get in anywhere else in Division 1. There were obviously some communication problems between RR and admissions, but I never saw him acting like an idiot about it. I can imagine how frustrated he was not to get in players he thought he could while hearing all the complaints about his record. While far from a perfect coach, I would not criticize him for the way he represented this university.