Hauck

[AZGrizFan]

All Stitt had to do was beat the Bobcats this season, and he'd still be coach of the Griz. That's simplistic, but I think it was the final nail in the coffin. Someone mentioned the "big donors" influencing Haslam's decision. If that is true, aside from the issue of private parties controlling a state institution, it shows the palpable hatred of Griz donors and fans toward the Bobcats. And, it's shared by the other side toward the Griz. I suspect Stitt was let go because he lost to the Bobcats 2 years in a row, and Choate has maintained his employment for the same reason.

That's Bobcat thinking. I'd take a .333 winning percentage against the Cats if it meant UM made the playoffs every year. Cat fans would take a .333 overall winning percentage if it meant they beat UM every year.

To PR's point a few posts above, I think if UM misses the tourney the next two years, the new coach needs to be completely reevaluated.

Which is why I was stating several days ago that the ‘scat game was NOT the most important game on our schedule. It’s important for a couple reasons:

A) winning the game helps with in-state recruiting
B) winning is another D-1 win towards playoff eligibility

Rarely does it count as a “quality” win...and I’d take a loss to them every year if the trade off was we were making the playoffs.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

Whether or not it’s Hauck, can we take away 4 scholleys and make him take Semore for a year just to make it fair?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Whether or not it’s Hauck, can we take away 4 scholleys and make him take Semore for a year just to make it fair?

No, and that's a big part of the reason why the new guy had better produce right away.

 

[PlayerRep]

All Stitt had to do was beat the Bobcats this season, and he'd still be coach of the Griz. That's simplistic, but I think it was the final nail in the coffin. Someone mentioned the "big donors" influencing Haslam's decision. If that is true, aside from the issue of private parties controlling a state institution, it shows the palpable hatred of Griz donors and fans toward the Bobcats. And, it's shared by the other side toward the Griz. I suspect Stitt was let go because he lost to the Bobcats 2 years in a row, and Choate has maintained his employment for the same reason.

That's Bobcat thinking. I'd take a .333 winning percentage against the Cats if it meant UM made the playoffs every year. Cat fans would take a .333 overall winning percentage if it meant they beat UM every year.

To PR's point a few posts above, I think if UM misses the tourney the next two years, the new coach needs to be completely reevaluated.

Which is why I was stating several days ago that the ‘scat game was NOT the most important game on our schedule. It’s important for a couple reasons:

A) winning the game helps with in-state recruiting
B) winning is another D-1 win towards playoff eligibility

Rarely does it count as a “quality” win...and I’d take a loss to them every year if the trade off was we were making the playoffs.

A rivalry win is virtually always a quality win, by definition. Also, a win on the last game of the season is a positive going into playoff selection. Beating the Cats consistently has become a necessity for a UM coach in recent decades. Most of Griz nation would not trade losses to the Cats for a playoff spot, I don't think.

 

[Ringneck]

Isn’t that what the e in eGriz stands for?

I believe you might have hit the nail on the head!!

Maybe we need to realize what Griz stand for.

I don't think people are making excuses for the new coach. Those posters are pointing out the hypocrisy of some posters who were willing to give the old coach all the time in the world and make excuses for him, but now, with their guy gone, they want to hold the new coach (not their guy) to a higher standard. Also, some are poking fun at those posters who had a lot of excuses.

I agree that the expectation for Hauck should be higher. My hope and expectation is that he will reasonably well, all things considered, in his first year, and be hitting on all or most cylinders by year 2. By year 3, there should be significant progress to show that UM is moving back towards the top.

I agree with the Phillips comment too. But I also believe it is not acceptable to lose to the Cats 2 years in a row and get knocked out of the playoffs. The expectations at UM are very high.

If the expectations for Hauck aren’t immediately higher, why change coaches at all?

:thumb:

I'll take a stab at answering your question, and then I'll take cover because I'm sure I'll get blasted.

I'll suggest that the change in coaches was driven predominantly by major boosters whose egos and/or self-worth are inordinantly and inextricably derived from their perceived connection to, value to, and influence over an amateur, intercollegiate football program. And, despite their insistence that this coaching change is about nebulous goals like "relevance," "swagger," and "pride," it's really about the big time boosters' own inflated sense of self-importance.

To be a major booster is to be part of an important club, relatively speaking, and no booster wants to be important to a program that is losing its value. So in order to feel better about themselves, and to increase their perceived self-worth, the program must improve. "If the team gets better, so do I," reasons the booster. So they push, and prod, and pressure, and threaten to withold their checks if they don't get what they want, as if their personal well-being depends on it (because some of them actually believe it does).

What this decision has communicated to many people is that for better or worse, in the immediate future, the football program's primary goal is to oil the squeaky wheels: to give them whatever they want, regardless of the sensibility of doing so.

As an average Joe, a pedestrian fan without any personal experience playing the game, that appears to be why a coaching change was necessary.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

All Stitt had to do was beat the Bobcats this season, and he'd still be coach of the Griz. That's simplistic, but I think it was the final nail in the coffin. Someone mentioned the "big donors" influencing Haslam's decision. If that is true, aside from the issue of private parties controlling a state institution, it shows the palpable hatred of Griz donors and fans toward the Bobcats. And, it's shared by the other side toward the Griz. I suspect Stitt was let go because he lost to the Bobcats 2 years in a row, and Choate has maintained his employment for the same reason.

That's Bobcat thinking. I'd take a .333 winning percentage against the Cats if it meant UM made the playoffs every year. Cat fans would take a .333 overall winning percentage if it meant they beat UM every year.

To PR's point a few posts above, I think if UM misses the tourney the next two years, the new coach needs to be completely reevaluated.

Which is why I was stating several days ago that the ‘scat game was NOT the most important game on our schedule. It’s important for a couple reasons:

A) winning the game helps with in-state recruiting
B) winning is another D-1 win towards playoff eligibility

Rarely does it count as a “quality” win...and I’d take a loss to them every year if the trade off was we were making the playoffs.

A rivalry win is virtually always a quality win, by definition. Also, a win on the last game of the season is a positive going into playoff selection. Beating the Cats consistently has become a necessity for a UM coach in recent decades. Most of Griz nation would not trade losses to the Cats for a playoff spot, I don't think.

I certainly would. But, I understand that's just me, and respect that others might have other opinions. I also agree that the two concepts have recently been intertwined in reality (e.g., we generally aren't a playoff team if we can't beat State). I was just talking hypothetical terms.

 

[Fahque]

I believe you might have hit the nail on the head!!

Maybe we need to realize what Griz stand for.

I don't think people are making excuses for the new coach. Those posters are pointing out the hypocrisy of some posters who were willing to give the old coach all the time in the world and make excuses for him, but now, with their guy gone, they want to hold the new coach (not their guy) to a higher standard. Also, some are poking fun at those posters who had a lot of excuses.

I agree that the expectation for Hauck should be higher. My hope and expectation is that he will reasonably well, all things considered, in his first year, and be hitting on all or most cylinders by year 2. By year 3, there should be significant progress to show that UM is moving back towards the top.

I agree with the Phillips comment too. But I also believe it is not acceptable to lose to the Cats 2 years in a row and get knocked out of the playoffs. The expectations at UM are very high.

If the expectations for Hauck aren’t immediately higher, why change coaches at all?

:thumb:

I'll take a stab at answering your question, and then I'll take cover because I'm sure I'll get blasted.

I'll suggest that the change in coaches was driven predominantly by major boosters whose egos and/or self-worth are inordinantly and inextricably derived from their perceived connection to, value to, and influence over an amateur, intercollegiate football program. And, despite their insistence that this coaching change is about nebulous goals like "relevance," "swagger," and "pride," it's really about the big time boosters' own inflated sense of self-importance.

To be a major booster is to be part of an important club, relatively speaking, and no booster wants to be important to a program that is losing its value. So in order to feel better about themselves, and to increase their perceived self-worth, the program must improve. "If the team gets better, so do I," reasons the booster. So they push, and prod, and pressure, and threaten to withold their checks if they don't get what they want, as if their personal well-being depends on it (because some of them actually believe it does).

What this decision has communicated to many people is that for better or worse, in the immediate future, the football program's primary goal is to oil the squeaky wheels: to give them whatever they want, regardless of the sensibility of doing so.

As an average Joe, a pedestrian fan without any personal experience playing the game, that appears to be why a coaching change was necessary.

Well said

 

[Griz Man]

I believe you might have hit the nail on the head!!

Maybe we need to realize what Griz stand for.

I don't think people are making excuses for the new coach. Those posters are pointing out the hypocrisy of some posters who were willing to give the old coach all the time in the world and make excuses for him, but now, with their guy gone, they want to hold the new coach (not their guy) to a higher standard. Also, some are poking fun at those posters who had a lot of excuses.

I agree that the expectation for Hauck should be higher. My hope and expectation is that he will reasonably well, all things considered, in his first year, and be hitting on all or most cylinders by year 2. By year 3, there should be significant progress to show that UM is moving back towards the top.

I agree with the Phillips comment too. But I also believe it is not acceptable to lose to the Cats 2 years in a row and get knocked out of the playoffs. The expectations at UM are very high.

If the expectations for Hauck aren’t immediately higher, why change coaches at all?

:thumb:

I'll take a stab at answering your question, and then I'll take cover because I'm sure I'll get blasted.

I'll suggest that the change in coaches was driven predominantly by major boosters whose egos and/or self-worth are inordinantly and inextricably derived from their perceived connection to, value to, and influence over an amateur, intercollegiate football program. And, despite their insistence that this coaching change is about nebulous goals like "relevance," "swagger," and "pride," it's really about the big time boosters' own inflated sense of self-importance.

To be a major booster is to be part of an important club, relatively speaking, and no booster wants to be important to a program that is losing its value. So in order to feel better about themselves, and to increase their perceived self-worth, the program must improve. "If the team gets better, so do I," reasons the booster. So they push, and prod, and pressure, and threaten to withold their checks if they don't get what they want, as if their personal well-being depends on it (because some of them actually believe it does).

What this decision has communicated to many people is that for better or worse, in the immediate future, the football program's primary goal is to oil the squeaky wheels: to give them whatever they want, regardless of the sensibility of doing so.

As an average Joe, a pedestrian fan without any personal experience playing the game, that appears to be why a coaching change was necessary.

Your description of the boosters is an apt description of most fans, myself included, but without the big checks. I get that if Hauck wants to come back we almost have to let that play out, given his prior success. At the same time, I think Stitt is a good coach and would love to see him get another FCS gig. To me at least that would make football Saturdays even more entertaining.

 

[grizrgood]

I don't think people are making excuses for the new coach. Those posters are pointing out the hypocrisy of some posters who were willing to give the old coach all the time in the world and make excuses for him, but now, with their guy gone, they want to hold the new coach (not their guy) to a higher standard. Also, some are poking fun at those posters who had a lot of excuses.

I agree that the expectation for Hauck should be higher. My hope and expectation is that he will reasonably well, all things considered, in his first year, and be hitting on all or most cylinders by year 2. By year 3, there should be significant progress to show that UM is moving back towards the top.

I agree with the Phillips comment too. But I also believe it is not acceptable to lose to the Cats 2 years in a row and get knocked out of the playoffs. The expectations at UM are very high.

If the expectations for Hauck aren’t immediately higher, why change coaches at all?

:thumb:

I'll take a stab at answering your question, and then I'll take cover because I'm sure I'll get blasted.

I'll suggest that the change in coaches was driven predominantly by major boosters whose egos and/or self-worth are inordinantly and inextricably derived from their perceived connection to, value to, and influence over an amateur, intercollegiate football program. And, despite their insistence that this coaching change is about nebulous goals like "relevance," "swagger," and "pride," it's really about the big time boosters' own inflated sense of self-importance.

To be a major booster is to be part of an important club, relatively speaking, and no booster wants to be important to a program that is losing its value. So in order to feel better about themselves, and to increase their perceived self-worth, the program must improve. "If the team gets better, so do I," reasons the booster. So they push, and prod, and pressure, and threaten to withold their checks if they don't get what they want, as if their personal well-being depends on it (because some of them actually believe it does).

What this decision has communicated to many people is that for better or worse, in the immediate future, the football program's primary goal is to oil the squeaky wheels: to give them whatever they want, regardless of the sensibility of doing so.

As an average Joe, a pedestrian fan without any personal experience playing the game, that appears to be why a coaching change was necessary.

Well said

Probably some truth to what you said Ringneck but don’t forget about the product on the field and the factor that played in Stitts departure. :thumb:

 

[AZGrizFan]

That's Bobcat thinking. I'd take a .333 winning percentage against the Cats if it meant UM made the playoffs every year. Cat fans would take a .333 overall winning percentage if it meant they beat UM every year.

To PR's point a few posts above, I think if UM misses the tourney the next two years, the new coach needs to be completely reevaluated.

Which is why I was stating several days ago that the ‘scat game was NOT the most important game on our schedule. It’s important for a couple reasons:

A) winning the game helps with in-state recruiting
B) winning is another D-1 win towards playoff eligibility

Rarely does it count as a “quality” win...and I’d take a loss to them every year if the trade off was we were making the playoffs.

A rivalry win is virtually always a quality win, by definition. Also, a win on the last game of the season is a positive going into playoff selection. Beating the Cats consistently has become a necessity for a UM coach in recent decades. Most of Griz nation would not trade losses to the Cats for a playoff spot, I don't think.

I certainly would. But, I understand that's just me, and respect that others might have other opinions. I also agree that the two concepts have recently been intertwined in reality (e.g., we generally aren't a playoff team if we can't beat State). I was just talking hypothetical terms.

Well certainly we’ve needed that victory recently to even be considered FOR the playoffs, which by default makes it a very important game and the reason why Stitt is gone. If he’d have been 9-1 going into the ‘scat game both years and ended 9-2 with medium runs into the playoffs, I don’t think we’d be searching for a new coach right now. But when you struggle to make the playoffs AND lose to the cats, it’s a recipe for disaster.

 

[Stop_HammerTime69]

Whether or not it’s Hauck, can we take away 4 scholleys and make him take Semore for a year just to make it fair?

No, and that's a big part of the reason why the new guy had better produce right away.

It's honestly why I'm baffled about how fast the decision came out.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Which is why I was stating several days ago that the ‘scat game was NOT the most important game on our schedule. It’s important for a couple reasons:

A) winning the game helps with in-state recruiting
B) winning is another D-1 win towards playoff eligibility

Rarely does it count as a “quality” win...and I’d take a loss to them every year if the trade off was we were making the playoffs.

A rivalry win is virtually always a quality win, by definition. Also, a win on the last game of the season is a positive going into playoff selection. Beating the Cats consistently has become a necessity for a UM coach in recent decades. Most of Griz nation would not trade losses to the Cats for a playoff spot, I don't think.

I certainly would. But, I understand that's just me, and respect that others might have other opinions. I also agree that the two concepts have recently been intertwined in reality (e.g., we generally aren't a playoff team if we can't beat State). I was just talking hypothetical terms.

Well certainly we’ve needed that victory recently to even be considered FOR the playoffs, which by default makes it a very important game and the reason why Stitt is gone. If he’d have been 9-1 going into the ‘scat game both years and ended 9-2 with medium runs into the playoffs, I don’t think we’d be searching for a new coach right now. But when you struggle to make the playoffs AND lose to the cats, it’s a recipe for disaster.

Yep, losses against the Cats can be the straws that break your career as Griz HC, but wins against the Cats will not make your career by themselves. The opposite is true in Boze. See, Choache.

 

[AZGrizFan]

A rivalry win is virtually always a quality win, by definition. Also, a win on the last game of the season is a positive going into playoff selection. Beating the Cats consistently has become a necessity for a UM coach in recent decades. Most of Griz nation would not trade losses to the Cats for a playoff spot, I don't think.

I certainly would. But, I understand that's just me, and respect that others might have other opinions. I also agree that the two concepts have recently been intertwined in reality (e.g., we generally aren't a playoff team if we can't beat State). I was just talking hypothetical terms.

Well certainly we’ve needed that victory recently to even be considered FOR the playoffs, which by default makes it a very important game and the reason why Stitt is gone. If he’d have been 9-1 going into the ‘scat game both years and ended 9-2 with medium runs into the playoffs, I don’t think we’d be searching for a new coach right now. But when you struggle to make the playoffs AND lose to the cats, it’s a recipe for disaster.

Yep, losses against the Cats can be the straws that break your career as Griz HC, but wins against the Cats will not make your career by themselves. The opposite is true in Boze. See, Choache.

yep. He’ll have a statue erected in his honor in the middle of the shit pond even if he never has a .500+ season at the MooU....

 

[PlayerRep]

Whether or not it’s Hauck, can we take away 4 scholleys and make him take Semore for a year just to make it fair?

San Diego didn't even need 4 schollies to beat Weber. 4 schollies over 3 years impacts depth more than anything else. It will impact the next coach next year as much as it impacted Stitt this year. Also note that the lost 4 schollies were the lasts schollies that would have been given each year, by definition. Injuries and turnovers affect teams more than 4 schollies.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Whether or not it’s Hauck, can we take away 4 scholleys and make him take Semore for a year just to make it fair?

San Diego didn't even need 4 schollies to beat Weber. 4 schollies over 3 years impacts depth more than anything else. It will impact the next coach next year as much as it impacted Stitt this year. Also note that the lost 4 schollies were the lasts schollies that would have been given each year, by definition. Injuries and turnovers affect teams more than 4 schollies.

And depth is where we were exposed. Safety. Corner. D-Line.

 

[PlayerRep]

Whether or not it’s Hauck, can we take away 4 scholleys and make him take Semore for a year just to make it fair?

San Diego didn't even need 4 schollies to beat Weber. 4 schollies over 3 years impacts depth more than anything else. It will impact the next coach next year as much as it impacted Stitt this year. Also note that the lost 4 schollies were the lasts schollies that would have been given each year, by definition. Injuries and turnovers affect teams more than 4 schollies.

And depth is where we were exposed. Safety. Corner. D-Line.

Don't agree that any lack of depth there caused the season to be worse than it should have been. QB injury and mistakes. Not a powerful running game. Not enough tough catches earlier in the season, and then too many drops at key times. Too many slow starts by the O. ST's not good enough. My view is that, overall, the O was the bigger culprit in the FCS losses than the D.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Whether or not it’s Hauck, can we take away 4 scholleys and make him take Semore for a year just to make it fair?

San Diego didn't even need 4 schollies to beat Weber. 4 schollies over 3 years impacts depth more than anything else. It will impact the next coach next year as much as it impacted Stitt this year. Also note that the lost 4 schollies were the lasts schollies that would have been given each year, by definition. Injuries and turnovers affect teams more than 4 schollies.

And depth is where we were exposed. Safety. Corner. D-Line.

Don't agree that any lack of depth there caused the season to be worse than it should have been. QB injury and mistakes. Not a powerful running game. Not enough tough catches earlier in the season, and then too many drops at key times. Too many slow starts by the O. ST's not good enough. My view is that, overall, the O was the bigger culprit in the FCS losses than the D.

Agreed to an extent. Gresch’s freshman mistakes (INT’s, primarily) led to a lot of short fields for Weber...he was able to overcome it against the lesser teams (I forget which team we had 5 TO’s against and still won...UNC?)...I was fine with the running game, especially as the season wore on. ST got better as the season progressed as well, IMHO. O is only the culprit to the extent that it had to outscore opponents because the D wasn’t going to stop many people, especially early on....

 

[Diesel]

San Diego didn't even need 4 schollies to beat Weber. 4 schollies over 3 years impacts depth more than anything else. It will impact the next coach next year as much as it impacted Stitt this year. Also note that the lost 4 schollies were the lasts schollies that would have been given each year, by definition. Injuries and turnovers affect teams more than 4 schollies.

And depth is where we were exposed. Safety. Corner. D-Line.

Don't agree that any lack of depth there caused the season to be worse than it should have been. QB injury and mistakes. Not a powerful running game. Not enough tough catches earlier in the season, and then too many drops at key times. Too many slow starts by the O. ST's not good enough. My view is that, overall, the O was the bigger culprit in the FCS losses than the D.

Agreed to an extent. Gresch’s freshman mistakes (INT’s, primarily) led to a lot of short fields for Weber...he was able to overcome it against the lesser teams (I forget which team we had 5 TO’s against and still won...UNC?)...I was fine with the running game, especially as the season wore on. ST got better as the season progressed as well, IMHO. O is only the culprit to the extent that it had to outscore opponents because the D wasn’t going to stop many people, especially early on....

So, offense, defense and special teams contributed to the losses. Throw in some terrible coaching as per lack of preparation (Weber), defensive adjustments (EWU), and game time calls (MSU) and I would agree with your assessments.
I would put more emphasis on coaching errors over player errors.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

And depth is where we were exposed. Safety. Corner. D-Line.

Don't agree that any lack of depth there caused the season to be worse than it should have been. QB injury and mistakes. Not a powerful running game. Not enough tough catches earlier in the season, and then too many drops at key times. Too many slow starts by the O. ST's not good enough. My view is that, overall, the O was the bigger culprit in the FCS losses than the D.

Agreed to an extent. Gresch’s freshman mistakes (INT’s, primarily) led to a lot of short fields for Weber...he was able to overcome it against the lesser teams (I forget which team we had 5 TO’s against and still won...UNC?)...I was fine with the running game, especially as the season wore on. ST got better as the season progressed as well, IMHO. O is only the culprit to the extent that it had to outscore opponents because the D wasn’t going to stop many people, especially early on....

So, offense, defense and special teams contributed to the losses. Throw in some terrible coaching as per lack of preparation (Weber), defensive adjustments (EWU), and game time calls (MSU) and I would agree with your assessments.
I would put more emphasis on coaching errors over player errors.

Well said. We aren't going to have to put up with those coaching mistakes anymore.

 

[AZGrizFan]

And depth is where we were exposed. Safety. Corner. D-Line.

Don't agree that any lack of depth there caused the season to be worse than it should have been. QB injury and mistakes. Not a powerful running game. Not enough tough catches earlier in the season, and then too many drops at key times. Too many slow starts by the O. ST's not good enough. My view is that, overall, the O was the bigger culprit in the FCS losses than the D.

Agreed to an extent. Gresch’s freshman mistakes (INT’s, primarily) led to a lot of short fields for Weber...he was able to overcome it against the lesser teams (I forget which team we had 5 TO’s against and still won...UNC?)...I was fine with the running game, especially as the season wore on. ST got better as the season progressed as well, IMHO. O is only the culprit to the extent that it had to outscore opponents because the D wasn’t going to stop many people, especially early on....

So, offense, defense and special teams contributed to the losses. Throw in some terrible coaching as per lack of preparation (Weber), defensive adjustments (EWU), and game time calls (MSU) and I would agree with your assessments.
I would put more emphasis on coaching errors over player errors.

How would you propose the coaches prepare for Gresch to have 3 turnovers in our first 7 possessions?