Now that we're getting a new head coach can we get fully behind the program again?

Dave Brandon did much more to erode the fan experience than Brady Hoke did.  It was his policies, his micromanagement and his bumbling that alienated the fanbase the most.  I think most people here have been behind the program all along.  They were just pissed off at the person running the program.

I think it's important for everyone to support the coach, even those who don't see Michigan hire the coach they wanted.  If Hackett cleans house and hires an outsider, we don't need another cabal sabotaging the new coach.  Hackett was right about retiring the "Michigan Man" meme.  It was subverted and turned into "code" for the opposite of what Michigan athletics has long represented.

I want a spread guy and don't want Miles, but I will be supportive of whoever they hire until he proves that it isn't going to work, as Hoke finally did this year.

Most of all, I hope those in a position to influence the program don't act like petty, vindictive assholes if they don't get who they want this time.  It isn't going to work unless everyone pulls together and decides that the University of Michigan is more important than their own agenda or opinion.

I don't think we really know who Plan A is. The fans certainly have ideas, but I doubt we really know how interested somebody really is. For all we know Fuente or Fleck could be Plan C and McElwain is Plan A.

even if it is Harbaugh, there will be people who are not behind the program.  And yet, they will continue to call themselves Michigan fans.

I think you mean "WTF out-of-nowhere former Miami (NTM) head coach."  That was Bo's job before coming to Michigan.  And I assume No. 5 is supposed to say "(Carr)".  Edit: You already fixed Carr between my reading and posting.

compare past hires to Hackett, since Hackett is new and an outsider.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.  The people who made the past hiring decisions are long gone.

8. Former Michigan Quarterback (Harbaugh)

Let's have some clarity on how good these guys were:

1. Oosterbaan won a national championship his first year, and 3 big ten championships in 10 years. He was also a great player at Michigan. So that was a damn fine hire.

2. Elliott won only one B1G championship, but was a former star player and an excellent AD at Iowa, where he hired Hayden Fry who turned that program around. He was also a college football Hall of Famer. He was a great AD, a less great coach.

3. Bo was...well...Bo.

4. Moeller went .758 during his tenure and won/shared 3 conference titles in 5 years. Not a bad run.

5. Carr won a national title and had a .753 win percentage. His teams went to 4 Rose Bowls. How anyone can criticize this hire strikes me as wrongheadedness.

So your point about the Michigan Men being evidence of not "nailing" a hire just doesn't make sense to me. Until RR and Hoke we've had exemplary hires in nearly every way during the post WW2 era.

And Bump was not disliked even though he wasn't a big time winner here.

1. In sports, hope springs eternal and a new guy means new hope.

2. Just took a gander at the candidates list by USA Today. Now, yes, I know the national outlets don't follow it as closely as we do. But it says something about the enduring luster of Michigan that the list is full of terrific candidates. The only two guys on it that I'd be skeptical about from the get go are Schiano (please no) and Miles (purely an age thing). 

If UM, not able to get Harbaugh, brought in a David Shaw, Gary Patterson, Dan Mullen - how can you not be geeked? If those are the second tier guys on your list, you've got one hell of a list.