ranking coaching hires - Brady Hoke
by Jay 
, San Diego, Tuesday, April 05, 2011, 11:37 (5096 days ago)
Remember this exercise? Where would you put Michigan hiring Hoke on this list?
4.93 Alabama hires Nick Saban - met
4.50 Florida hires Urban Meyer - met; possibly exceeded
4.37 Arkansas hires Bobby Petrino - in progress, but looking good
4.13 ND hires Brian Kelly - in progress
3.87 Ole Miss hires Houston Nutt - incomplete, probably a bit under
3.83 Georgia Tech hires Paul Johnson - underperformed
3.53 Michigan hires Rich Rodriguez - severely underperformed
3.27 Colorado hires Dan Hawkins - severely underperformed; fired
3.23 Michigan State hires Mark Dantonio - exceeded expectations
3.00 Nebraska hires Bo Pelini - incomplete, but seems to be working out
2.90 Miami hires Al Golden - ask again later
2.86 Ohio State hires Jim Tressel - exceeded expectations
2.73 Oregon hires Chip Kelly - exceeded expectations
2.70 Florida State hires Jimbo Fisher - looks promising
2.54 Stanford hires Jim Harbaugh - exceeded by a longshot
2.47 Miami hires Randy Shannon - underperformed; fired
2.43 Florida hires Will Muschamp - ask again later
2.43 ND hires Charlie Weis - underperformed; fired
2.43 USC hires Pete Carroll - exceeded by a mile
2.33 Washington hires Steve Sarkisian - in progress, but slightly under
1.77 Auburn hires Gene Chizik - exceeded
1.77 Tennessee hires Lane Kiffin - probably met expectations given how low they were
1.67 USC hires Lane Kiffin - in progress, will be tempered by sanctions
1.00 Washington hires Ty Willingham - underperformed even these abysmal expectations
a couple of nits
by HumanRobot , Cybertron, Tuesday, April 05, 2011, 12:04 (5096 days ago) @ Jay
Did Willingham, Weis, and Shannon really underperform?
Willingham unilaterally received the worst possible grade and produced the worst possible result.
Weis basically got a 50%. He produced 1 awesome, 1 good, 2 average, and 1 terrible season. Isn't that more or less the expectation for the middle grade on your scale? Same argument for Shannon.
Even the most ardent Willingham hater
couldn't have predicted the loss to hapless WSU in 2008 that clinched Washington's winless Season on the Stink.
Also, I think calling the 2008 and 2009 seasons average is generous.
I meant average about as literally as possible
by HumanRobot , Cybertron, Tuesday, April 05, 2011, 14:32 (5096 days ago) @ Mike
I'd imagine 13-12 over 2 years against Div I teams is literally average (or very close).
On an ND scale, those seasons were failures.
The Stanford loss was worse
by CW (Rakes) , Harlan County, Tuesday, April 05, 2011, 12:32 (5096 days ago) @ Mike
The Cardinal were 0-11 outside of playing Washington that season, and the Willingham offense earned 161 yards and 12 first downs.
If you all don't mind a little self-promotion, a summary of the Willingham Era at UW: http://www.rakesofmallow.com/2008/10/23/640829/a-brief-history-of-ty-will
I have him as a 3
by HumanRobot , Cybertron, Tuesday, April 05, 2011, 11:46 (5096 days ago) @ Jay
I had put most guys with coaching experience as a 3. Tempted to downgrade Hoke since I don't think he's a good fit for existing talent.
I think I'd put him around Dantonio to MSU
by Jay , San Diego, Tuesday, April 05, 2011, 12:29 (5096 days ago) @ HumanRobot
- No text -
He may not be a good fit for existing talent
But it seems like he's a good fit for what Michigan wants to do, long-term (ie, build up the defense, return to recruiting the Midwest, play a more blue-collar type of football). Provided he's given a long enough leash, I think he'll work out OK (particularly if the NCAA craters OSU over the next few seasons).
Exactly, which is why I think it's a point in his favor
by Jack , Tuesday, April 05, 2011, 13:34 (5096 days ago) @ Jeremy (WeIsND)
I take the view that they hired him precisely because he's not a fit with the existing offensive talent. Michigan fans had had quite enough of the RichRod style offense and want to go back to the Bo-Moeller-Carr model, and are willing to endure some short term pain to get back to that.