Michigan not an elite position?

Donate To GopherHole
4

4four4

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
69
Points
48
I am home sick and watching the Hoke new conference and a reporter mentioned there are people who feel the Michigan job isn't an elite position anymore. If that is the case maybe the Big Ten as a whole isn't elite as it used to be. Not to put down the SEC but they don't really care about academics like the Big Ten and I feel that has something to do with the elite tag.
 


Michigan is in serious trouble. Hoke was their only option and will fail.
 

gopherjay said:
Michigan is in serious trouble. Hoke was their only option and will fail.
Click to expand...

Brady Hoke is a well respected coach around the NCAA. I don't see why everyone on this Board thinks so little of him. In the big picture of the Big 10 TV, it is important for Michigan to do well ( IMHO). I hope we get the brown jug back this year, but I think Hoke will do a good job there.
 

You can put down SEC academics all you want. If you look at the Times Higher Education rankings (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/north-america.html) all 11 Big Ten schools are present on the Top Universities in North America list. The SEC has 1 (Vanderbilt.)

Michigan is an elite job and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to get a rise out of the fan base. It's a top notch school that is loaded with football history, has a massive fan base and has had a tremendous run of success that only trailed off after an ill-fitting coaching hire.

Michigan was going to go with somebody with experience playing or coaching in Ann Arbor. That pretty much left them with Harbaugh, Miles and Hoke. Les Miles has made so many boneheaded coaching moves over the past decade, but still manages to win game after game. Would that magic have continued in the Big Ten with "northern athletes?" I'm not sure about that. In my mind, Hoke is the best fit for the job. Harbaugh was not going to be coaching in college next year regardless of the Michigan job opening.

Does anybody else notice that this "SEC is unstoppable" barrage is all coming from ESPN? Don't forget that the network signed the SEC to a fat contract to keep them from going off and forming their own network. They have a vested interest in keeping the SEC on top.

Prior to this current 5 year run, the SEC only had two titles in the first eight years of the BCS. The sport is cyclical.
 


Defending the Big 10 (or Michigan, in this case) doesn't require denigrating other conferences - and I doubt the "elite" yardstick the reporter was applying had anything to do with academics. Especially when, as your post indicates, the reporter's comment was directed to the head coaching job at the University of Michigan, not the quality of a Michigan education.

As far as whether Michigan is presently "elite" - clearly the days of "The Big Two and Little Eight" have passed. Ohio State remains at the top and there's a good argument Michigan has been surpassed by Wisconsin (at least).

Especially when Michigan has gotten its clock cleaned by Ohio State the way it has recently.
 

Michigan is still a elite program, but of course there are some in the media that like to stir the pot. We live in a what have you done for me lately world. A few down years doesn't erase that type of tradition and potential.
 

BradDad said:
Defending the Big 10 (or Michigan, in this case) doesn't require denigrating other conferences - and I doubt the "elite" yardstick the reporter was applying had anything to do with academics. Especially when, as your post indicates, the reporter's comment was directed to the head coaching job at the University of Michigan, not the quality of a Michigan education.

As far as whether Michigan is presently "elite" - clearly the days of "The Big Two and Little Eight" have passed. Ohio State remains at the top and there's a good argument Michigan has been surpassed by Wisconsin (at least).

Especially when Michigan has gotten its clock cleaned by Ohio State the way it has recently.
Click to expand...

Although an admitted Wisconsin fan, I think Michigan has more history and juice behind it than the Badgers, although in the past 5-10 years you can make an argument that Wisky is the 2nd best team in the B10, but well behind OSU
 

gopherbadgerman said:
Although an admitted Wisconsin fan, I think Michigan has more history and juice behind it than the Badgers, although in the past 5-10 years you can make an argument that Wisky is the 2nd best team in the B10, but well behind OSU
Click to expand...

Wisky is not in the same stratosphere as Michigan in terms of history...ZERO national titles.
 



I am a MN native but an Mich alum and people need to understand that the Michigan program is still epically large. The size and money of the program does not mean that it is immune to bad seasons or in RR's case 3 bad seasons. But eventually, the program returns to the top of the Big Ten.

There is an incredible amount of politics behind Michigan football, Les Miles wasn't given a real offer. His Mich offer was $3 million a year, and he currently makes $3.75 or something. Brady Hoke was option 2 after Harbaugh, everyone in the athletic department loves him and by all accounts he is a heck of a coach.

I do not think Wisconsin has been better the last 10 years. Since 2000, I believe Wisco has only beaten Michigan the last two years. And Michigan has been in the Top 20 7 times and Wisco only 5.

Any way...don't sleep on Hoke. Hutchinson, Brady, Woodson, etc. all are giving ringing endorsements, certainly should not hurt.
 

gopherbadgerman said:
Although an admitted Wisconsin fan, I think Michigan has more history and juice behind it than the Badgers, although in the past 5-10 years you can make an argument that Wisky is the 2nd best team in the B10, but well behind OSU
Click to expand...


You "think" Michigan has more history than the Badgers? Bro, your biggest tradition is a rap song from the mid-90s. C'mon man.
 

So they flew down to Baton rouge to explain to Les Miles why he should take less money to coach the good old maize and blue. You can buy that if it makes you feel better. Michigan is a great job, but if you like to win LSU is a better one. LSU fans think they deserve a NC every other year, Michigan fans know deserve one.
Brady will do fine, Michigan still is an easy place to recruit to, but I don't think the days of the BigTwo will ever come back.
 

corcoran1 said:
but I don't think the days of the BigTwo will ever come back.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they won't ever come back, but IMO what they need to do is start recruiting Ohio again, thus weakening tOSU if they ever want to compete with them again. The problem is that tOSU now has all the momentum with their recent successes. What Ohio kid, if offered a tOSU scholarship would turn it down (pending examples where parents were alums of other schools and such)? Not many. Once Michigan starts winning though, this will become a lot easier, obviously, but how long, if ever, will it take them to start winning to out-recruit in Ohio? My guess it would at least be a few years.
 



NateDawgUM said:
You can put down SEC academics all you want. If you look at the Times Higher Education rankings (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/north-america.html) all 11 Big Ten schools are present on the Top Universities in North America list. The SEC has 1 (Vanderbilt.)

Michigan is an elite job and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to get a rise out of the fan base. It's a top notch school that is loaded with football history, has a massive fan base and has had a tremendous run of success that only trailed off after an ill-fitting coaching hire.

Michigan was going to go with somebody with experience playing or coaching in Ann Arbor. That pretty much left them with Harbaugh, Miles and Hoke. Les Miles has made so many boneheaded coaching moves over the past decade, but still manages to win game after game. Would that magic have continued in the Big Ten with "northern athletes?" I'm not sure about that. In my mind, Hoke is the best fit for the job. Harbaugh was not going to be coaching in college next year regardless of the Michigan job opening.

Does anybody else notice that this "SEC is unstoppable" barrage is all coming from ESPN? Don't forget that the network signed the SEC to a fat contract to keep them from going off and forming their own network. They have a vested interest in keeping the SEC on top.

Prior to this current 5 year run, the SEC only had two titles in the first eight years of the BCS. The sport is cyclical.
Click to expand...

Not do discredit your United Kingdom ranking of North American Schools, but most everyone can agree that the University of Texas (not in the SEC I know) is a top 20 school. It is most certainly in the Top 81.
 

gopherbadgerman said:
Although an admitted Wisconsin fan, I think Michigan has more history and juice behind it than the Badgers, although in the past 5-10 years you can make an argument that Wisky is the 2nd best team in the B10, but well behind OSU
Click to expand...

In the last 10 years Michigan went to 3 Rose Bowls. Are people so short sighted that they can't see that Michigan's woes are limited to RR, and pretty much RR alone? The year before RR showed up they beat Meyer and Tebow in whatever bowl. Carr went to 13 bowls, won a natl championship, won 5 bt titles and won bt games at a 78% clip.
 



Memories are very short. Michigan is an elite program. It happens to be one that is currently down. This isn't the first time Michigan has had a dry spell. They have a 113,000 seat stadium that fills up AND has just been remodeled in a BIG way. They have second to none facilities (anyone see the pictures and/or video of the new indoor facility and posh locker rooms)? The Big 10 has (as a whole) stacked up very well against the SEC in bowl games. ESPN has long been on the SEC bandwagon and the new financial arrangement with the SEC has made it near unbearable. Some people just choose to soak that in and believe it (including a lot of fellow Gopherholers). Three bad years and Michigan is suddenly a MAC school.

The slanted coverage regarding both Michigan AND the SEC on ESPN just makes me shake my head. They were going on and on after Michigan got blown out by Mississippi State. They went on an on about how Michigan is something like 1-10 against its last 11 ranked opponents. The part they keep leaving out is nearly all those games were against OTHER BIG 10 TEAMS. The way it is reported, it leaves the viewer assuming Michigan can only win against the soft Big 10.

Anyway, Michigan will be back at some point (probably under Hoke) and the Big 10 will go on playing at or near the .500 level with its head to head matchups with the SEC. Meanwhile, ESPN viewers will continue to get the the impression Michigan is gone forever and the Big 10 can't compete with the SEC.
 

Yeah, I agree with with those who've said that Michigan is still an elite program, but those who say it is only the past 3 years with RR are overstating it a little bit, IMHO. Ohio State has beaten Michigan for 7 years in a row now, and 9 out of 10. Prior to that Michigan had their own streak, winning 5 out of 6 and going 12-3-1 between 1985 and 2000. Now, Carr had some good seasons there, but they lost to OSU his last 4 years, so the impression is that he wasn't great, even though he had good teams.

BTW, Michigan has the most wins and highest winning percentage of any college football program.
 

Silvio said:
Not do discredit your United Kingdom ranking of North American Schools, but most everyone can agree that the University of Texas (not in the SEC I know) is a top 20 school. It is most certainly in the Top 81.
Click to expand...

I've never seen UT in the top 20 of any ranking. Not even US New and World Report which uses incredibly flawed methodology.

But yes, it's a good school and it wouldn't be surprising on any rankings list of top schools.
 

Golden Elephant said:
Yeah, I agree with with those who've said that Michigan is still an elite program, but those who say it is only the past 3 years with RR are overstating it a little bit, IMHO. Ohio State has beaten Michigan for 7 years in a row now, and 9 out of 10. Prior to that Michigan had their own streak, winning 5 out of 6 and going 12-3-1 between 1985 and 2000. Now, Carr had some good seasons there, but they lost to OSU his last 4 years, so the impression is that he wasn't great, even though he had good teams.
Click to expand...

Michigan went to the Rose Bowl three times in Carr's final five seasons. That is not too shabby.
 

One also has to remember that the Michigan vs. Ohio State series has gone back and forth through the years. Sure Ohio State has won the last 7 or so, but before Tressel got there, Michigan was owning Cooper big time. Very possibly Hoke will start owning Tressel?

Another thing to remember about Hoke at Michigan is how he is going to approach recruiting and building his program. Rich-Rod was trying to build a program that was built to beat the SEC schools (speed). Hoke has already hinted he is going to go back to the standard BIG 10/Michigan line of thinking that you build your roster to win the BIG 10 first and foremost. There are some fans that get pissy that he states their goal is to win the BIG 10 and says nothing about a National Title. In reality it goes hand and hand... you win the BIG 10, the possibility for the National Title follows. Case in point, look at Ohio State. As most know, the Michigan way of doing things from a philosophy perspective worked pretty darn well for for 40+ years. lol
 

Michigan has more titles in the past 14 seasons than they did in the 45 years before 1997.
 




Wishful thinking on the part of people who live in other parts of the country. The leaders of the SEC and Big Ten are in a whole different weight-class than those in other conferences. (Texas and Oklahoma are notable exceptions).

People desperately want to believe that there is parity among the conferences. And it just isn't there. As bad as Michigan was this year, they proved in their non-conference that could have waltzed through lesser-BCS conferences. And the last few years have been one of the worst periods in their history.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Just curious...why did you arbitrarily pick 45? You could've said 49 and it would still be true.
Click to expand...

Because I was just glancing at wikipedia to see when it'd last been. I saw I couldn't say 50 so I moved to a lower year. If I had been thinking in 1's at the time I'd have said 49…I'f I'd been thinking in 10s I woulda said 40
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom