Jim Mora's name has come up here and there for the open position at University of Michigan. We doubt it is actually going to happen. But MGoBlog – the blogosphere's most influential Michigan fanblog – took a look at Mora. They did a detailed analysis and were not overly impressed. They agreed with Bellerophon's assessment that it will take two more years to determine whether Mora is a "good idea" as a "gamble" in Michigan:
He hasn't beaten Stanford in four tries-has barely come close-and got plowed by Oregon; this season features a two-point escape against Cal and a double OT win over Colorado, plus uncomfortable close shaves against UVA and Texas. UCLA played seven one-possession games this year and won six. You'd hope for something better with a fourth-year Brett Hundley wowing NFL scouts.
On the other hand, UCLA may have played the toughest schedule in college football this year what with a nine-game Pac-12 schedule and UVA, Texas, and surging Memphis the nonconference schedule.
Uh... is Jim Mora a spread coach now? Mora had one year in Seattle when Matt Hasselbeck was his QB in which he ran for about a hundred yards. The six other years he's been in charge of a football team have seen QBs run for hundred and hundreds of yards.
The answer here is probably not since he acquired a pocket passer in Josh Rosen this year. It is goofy how the anti-spread people are willing to overlook one entirely shotgun-based, heavy-QB-run offense while screaming "no" about another one.
Is three years enough to take a gamble? The last three years at UCLA are the first in Mora's career in which he seems to have had any positive impact on the program he's in charge of. What if Hundley is the whole reason?
The recruiting successes and Mora's flexibility when dealing with both Vick and Hundley argue the other way. Still, Mora is a couple years away from being a definitively good idea.
But, Michigan is so desperate right now that they will be happy with Mora.