Question relating to the possible coaching change.
November 4th, 2014 at 5:33 PM ^
Sam Webb mentioned that yesterday.
November 4th, 2014 at 5:40 PM ^
Of course he did.
November 4th, 2014 at 5:44 PM ^
Do you think Sam is pushing someone's agenda? If so, whose agenda?
November 4th, 2014 at 5:49 PM ^
Sam Webb makes a living because people pay to read his information (that he posts minutes before the twittersphere) that is fed to him from individuals in the Athletic Department/on the coaching staff.
What do you think?
November 4th, 2014 at 5:52 PM ^
It's not like him putting that stuff out is going to change the tide on things so if it proves to be bad info also it does is damage his credibility.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 4th, 2014 at 6:32 PM ^
I'm not sure that it damages his credibility because he hasn't said anything outright. Sam relies on inside information from people who are likely to get fired very soon. So it's unlikely he'll ever openly criticize those people. At least not while they're here. If they do end up staying, who will he get inside info from?
Also, I think the upheaval in the athletic department is a bit over his head. I trust Sam when it comes to personnel and recruiting, but he's said some really dumb things regarding the AD. I don't think he really knows what he's talking about when it comes to administrative issues.
November 4th, 2014 at 7:27 PM ^
November 4th, 2014 at 6:04 PM ^
...have questions about his position. I would normally simply defend Sam, because I really like him and have perceived him as trustworthy for a long time. His assertions yesterday, though, seemed somewhat odd.
It seems like he and others were genuinely reminded of Michigan's president from the late '80s/early '90's (I can't remember the name), who (at least per Sam) wanted to scale back athletics at Michigan, when Schlissel talked on Friday. I'm willing to believe Sam thinks this, though I didn't take that from Schlissel's comments.
What doesn' t make sense to me is this: Schlissel wants to scale back athletics, so Hoke might stay? The Hoke staff is not cheap.
You'd have to buy the Hoke staff out to get in a new staff, sure, but we're probably only talking about buyout money and a big-but-not-giagantic increase in pay to a new staff to get a top group. It seems unlikely to me that Schlissel will demand saving, say, $4 million up front and $2 million per year in coaching salaries given what the failure to bring in a top group would likely mean for the athletic department's bottom line (and the school's).
November 4th, 2014 at 6:20 PM ^
I believe you're remembering James Duderstadt, and as I recall, he was not the biggest sports person on Earth (he was a nuclear engineer by trade, if I remember correctly), so that might be the one. In any case, I definitely don't get that same vibe from Schlissel, who has been rather clear - I believe - that we can be excellent both on and off the field.
November 4th, 2014 at 6:31 PM ^
Duderstadt was the name Sam mentioned.
November 4th, 2014 at 8:14 PM ^
We should note that Duderstadt did not succeed in his goal of de-emphasizing sports - at all.
November 5th, 2014 at 9:21 AM ^
If Michigan sports in the '80s and '90s is the result of de-emphasis, then bring it on.
November 4th, 2014 at 5:56 PM ^
They can use part of the proceeds from David Brandon's gross over-commercialization of Michigan athletics to pay off the coaches. If Brandon micromanaged even half as bad as we have heard, they have all more than earned their extra year's pay.
November 4th, 2014 at 5:35 PM ^
Does the Pope shit in the woods?
November 4th, 2014 at 5:40 PM ^
Okay. That was ONE TIME, people!
November 4th, 2014 at 6:51 PM ^
What does that have to do with closet communists?
November 4th, 2014 at 5:41 PM ^
Like a lead balloon in church.
November 4th, 2014 at 5:44 PM ^
Before we answer that, are you Catholic?
November 4th, 2014 at 5:35 PM ^
They get pair their salary for however many years are left on the contract.
November 4th, 2014 at 5:36 PM ^
If it's in there contract.
November 4th, 2014 at 5:39 PM ^
strong taek
November 4th, 2014 at 5:49 PM ^
stronk
November 4th, 2014 at 5:57 PM ^
only if there contract has a byout claws or any xtra years
November 4th, 2014 at 6:16 PM ^
Amazing. It even takes less time to read that.
November 4th, 2014 at 5:38 PM ^
Clearly, this is not an issue since Jim doesn't need coordinators.
November 4th, 2014 at 5:41 PM ^
the remaining length of Hoke's contract?
It doesn't seem to make sense to me to sign the assistants to a term beyond that of the head coach.
But that's just me
November 4th, 2014 at 6:07 PM ^
getting more than a two year contract. I think their buyouts are generally reduced if they take another job in the next season.
November 4th, 2014 at 6:49 PM ^
I thought most buyouts these days are predicated upon the person being unemployed. If Hoke, Mattison, Nuss and the assistants get jobs at other schools Michigan would no longer be required to pay their remaining salary, unless of course they have/had a kickass lawyer who got that negotiated in their contract.
With the exception of Mattison and Jackson, I'm guessing most of these guys would rather be coaching next year then sitting at home doing nothing. Maybe even Mattison and Jackson would prefer to coach but I'm just assuming that inJackson's case with his age and long tenure at UM, he'd probably retire and with Mattison, he might think about retirement too.
November 4th, 2014 at 7:28 PM ^
When Borges was let go his contract in part stated that were he to take another job at a lower scale, Michigan would foot the difference for the duration of the contract. Which I believe was only through the 2014 season.
November 4th, 2014 at 7:30 PM ^
That's the norm for coaching contracts.
November 4th, 2014 at 5:44 PM ^
I could see an offensive-minded HC keeping Mattison - would be great for next year's defense and for recruiting too
November 4th, 2014 at 5:57 PM ^
November 4th, 2014 at 6:01 PM ^
I'd explain to you how a shitty offense and turnovers can affect a defense...but if you haven't already gotten that much, eh, probably a waste of my time. On to more important things...like '15-'16 depth charts.
La-de-daa-de-daa
November 4th, 2014 at 6:01 PM ^
November 4th, 2014 at 6:02 PM ^
November 4th, 2014 at 6:51 PM ^
want a head coach who puts a heavy emphasis on winning the time of possession. If we get a head coach with a quick strike offense, the defense could be on the field as much as they are this year.
November 4th, 2014 at 11:01 PM ^
November 4th, 2014 at 6:05 PM ^
November 4th, 2014 at 6:18 PM ^
Same thing can be said for the offense if the defense can never get off the field.
Right now we probably have around the 25th - 30th best defense. This is not good enough when the offense is around 90th. If we had two units that were both around 25th we'd probably be very good assuming the special teams is not quite so special and we're not using archaic punting formations.
/steps off pulpit
November 4th, 2014 at 6:07 PM ^
November 4th, 2014 at 6:34 PM ^
Bites all of us in the butt sooner or later, but mostly sooner.
November 4th, 2014 at 6:28 PM ^
I will bite. Going backward:
Utah - Scored one offensive touchdown (one was a punt return). Had points because we gave them the ball in good field position. Only 286 yards of total offense.
Rutgers - No great defense here. Rutgers was all about big plays in that game, and if we stop one or two of those, we give up <20 pts.
Minnesota - They only scored 23 points on offense (plus the pick 6). Because of our offensive screw ups, they had 4 straight drives that started in Michigan territory, and got 13 points off of those. So 20 of their 30 points directly or indirectly resulted from our problems on offense. 373 total yards isn't bad.
MSU - They're just good. Again, 7 of those points from pick 6, and we gave up 2 more turnovers. Their D (and our awful O) put them in spots to score. An awful play to give up a 70yd TD doesn't help, you can put that on Mattison if you want.
ND - This is an interesting game (and ND only had 31 points). ND had 4 long drives where they scored TDs, but didn't move the ball at all outside of that. We held them to 4.3 yards per play all game. They had 11 real drives. 4 scored TDs (two of which had good starting field position) and the other 7 all had fewer than 20 yards. Again, if our offense doesn't totally suck (two missed FGs and 4 turnovers) this is a close game. Their FG was a 0 yard drive off one of our turnovers.
November 4th, 2014 at 6:57 PM ^
Yeah, but the 373 total yards needs to be put in context. They had 200+ yds rushing. They ran the ball 47 times and only threw it 23 times. They pretty much controlled the game by running the ball and having 35 minutes of possession. Considering that the rushing defense is supposedly a strength for the defense and Minny is fairly one dimensional, I don't think I'd use this game as evidence that Mattison is a good DC.
November 5th, 2014 at 9:31 PM ^
We also had a QB that threw for like 42 yards and couldn't sustain a drive to save his life.
We were AWFUL. We couldn't have beaten half the MAC that day.
November 4th, 2014 at 6:18 PM ^
I don't see the point. The new coach should bring HIS guys. There's many other names out there.
November 4th, 2014 at 5:59 PM ^
November 4th, 2014 at 5:59 PM ^
"possible coaching change?"
You're funny.
November 4th, 2014 at 6:24 PM ^
November 4th, 2014 at 6:49 PM ^
Excellent idea.
I also don't think there's any chance Nuss becomes interim coach for more than a possible bowl game (assuming we become bowl eligible). If he wants to be a head coach, a long-term interim coach is not a good situation and not a good career move.
Fickell was only interim coach for as long as he was because the Tressel scandal happened so late in the offseason (much in the same way Lloyd Carr--who didn't originally want to be a head coache--ended up Michigan's coach after the Moeller fiasco). I think he made a mistake in staying on at Ohio State if he does want to be a head coach.