Who should our next HC be?

Status
Not open for further replies.
We could derail the thread and talk about food and it would get to 600 real quick esp if @knapplc joined in. 

3c5926a66200b4f63fb359f9f5ca5f37_-united-states-oklahoma-tulsa-county-tulsa-burn-co-barbeque-918-574-2777htm.jpg


Burnco BBQ - Tulsa

 
sho said:
Quick google search,  because I remember hearing/reading about it when it first happened.  It flared up and died almost as quickly.  Not sure how reliable this tweeter is but, there was some definitely some  chatter on message boards stating that a meeting with TA and Bieniemy took place.   

I re-read the quote from Moglia, you're right, he doesn't say Chadwick was contacted.  I infer he, or his people, had been contacted, but no reports of it.
Click to expand...
Who the Hell is Mike Riley

 
Undone said:
-This year's run play percentage: 51.16

-Last year's run play percentage: 55.44

Now admittedly, a 4.28% difference is actually a big jump. So I guess I'd sort of agree with your pushback.

But I think the trajectory was trying to go more with Grant as the workhorse until it was apparent just how terrible the offensive line really was once we got to the stretch of decent opponents (meaning starting with Oklahoma).

No way we put up the yards & points we did against Purdue if the plan had been to just hand it off to Grant a bunch.

At any rate we agree that without a decent line it's all a bit moot anyway, but I still have to argue that with a good offensive line your scheme is less of a question (even in the B1G West). I think the reason teams run that scheme in this division is because they can't recruit the skill players.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's fair...I think defense matters the most. Wisconsin/Iowa always seem to be good on D and Illinois turned the corner this year with defense as well. For the record I think Whip is a good OC, but almost seems like it hurts his soul to be boring and grind a game out. Hell, he somehow thought Purdy was the option over LS. Grant should of had nothing less than 30 carries last vs MN. 

 
TonkaSker said:
That's fine, but I'll make a case.

Kentucky football has (4) 10+ win seasons: 1950, 1977, 2018, 2021. It's a hard place to win and he's made it consistently top-25.

Kentucky had never recruited in the top-5 in the SEC until last year, because of Stoops who's a great recruiter and because of his staff, who are also great recruiters.

Stoops convinced boosters to support NIL for football despite it being one of the premier basketball schools, so he's obviously a good fundraiser.

You can look at this season and say it's disappointing but the entire sample speaks for itself. They're also still 6-3, which I would crawl through glass for at this point. Mickey is great, but there are probably four Mickeys on Stoops' staff as far as elite recruiting and proven development go. Guy's got a network.
Click to expand...


He's had 2 winning conference seasons in 10 years.  .400 conference winning percentage.  He has finished in the top 25 twice in 10 years.  He also plays only 8 conference games/year in the easier side of the conference.  He has 4 wins built into his schedule each year (3 cupcakes + Vandy).

Yes, that is much better than Nebraska the past 8 years.  But that doesn't make him a "great coach".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho said:
Quick google search,  because I remember hearing/reading about it when it first happened.  It flared up and died almost as quickly.  Not sure how reliable this tweeter is but, there was some definitely some  chatter on message boards stating that a meeting with TA and Bieniemy took place.   

I re-read the quote from Moglia, you're right, he doesn't say Chadwick was contacted.  I infer he, or his people, had been contacted, but no reports of it.
Click to expand...


The only difference between the platinum board and here is that you pay $9.99/mo for it. 

 
Red Five said:
He's had 2 winning conference seasons in 10 years.  .400 conference winning percentage.  He has finished in the top 25 twice in 10 years.  He also plays only 8 conference games/year in the easier side of the conference.  He has 4 wins built into his schedule each year (3 cupcakes + Vandy).

Yes, that is much better than Nebraska the past 8 years.  But that doesn't make him a "great coach".
Click to expand...


There's a bit more to it than the overall record. Guy took over a team that went 0-8 in conference and hadn't had a winning conference record since 1977. Since getting the program stabilized he's had a solid conference record. I don't mean to cherry pick, but it's an unprecedented string of success. 

Also won 4 straight bowl games which is something you only see great coaches do. I'm not saying the guy's Nick Saban, but he's a great coach that's won at one of the harder places to do it, historically.

 
TonkaSker said:
There's a bit more to it than the overall record. Guy took over a team that went 0-8 in conference and hadn't had a winning conference record since 1977. Since getting the program stabilized he's had a solid conference record. I don't mean to cherry pick, but it's an unprecedented string of success. 

Also won 4 straight bowl games which is something you only see great coaches do. I'm not saying the guy's Nick Saban, but he's a great coach that's won at one of the harder places to do it, historically.
Click to expand...


What is your opinion on Matt Campbell?  He has arguably done more than Stoops at a place that I think is harder to win.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TonkaSker said:
That's fine, but I'll make a case.

Kentucky football has (4) 10+ win seasons: 1950, 1977, 2018, 2021. It's a hard place to win and he's made it consistently top-25.

Kentucky had never recruited in the top-5 in the SEC until last year, because of Stoops who's a great recruiter and because of his staff, who are also great recruiters.

Stoops convinced boosters to support NIL for football despite it being one of the premier basketball schools, so he's obviously a good fundraiser.

You can look at this season and say it's disappointing but the entire sample speaks for itself. They're also still 6-3, which I would crawl through glass for at this point. Mickey is great, but there are probably four Mickeys on Stoops' staff as far as elite recruiting and proven development go. Guy's got a network.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, he's been sorta-not-too-horrible at a s#!tty school. AKA the Mike Riley justification.

 
Lorewarn said:
Also aka the Nick Saban at Michigan State justification.
Click to expand...


Saban was .588 in conference play at Michigan State, versus .400 for Stoops. Saban finished in the top ten his fifth year at Michigan State, which Stoops has never done in ten years. Good try, though, I'll give you an E for Effort!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Toe said:
Saban was .588 in conference play at Michigan State, versus .400 for Stoops. Saban finished in the top ten his fifth year at Michigan State, which Stoops has never done in ten years. Good try, though, I'll give you an E for Effort!
Click to expand...




I'm sorry I thought the metric was "sorta-not-too-horrible at a s#!tty school". Nick Saban's tenure at MSU 100% qualifies as "sorta-not-too-horrible at a s#!tty school".

Didn't know you would then back the goalposts up to pedantically flex they're not the 100% exact same because they don't have the exact same win percentage and one finished 9th while the other finished 11th. 

How about aka the Les Miles at Oklahoma State justification then?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Toe said:
@Lorewarn If you wanna pretend that a .400 conference record is as about good as a .588 record, hey, knock yourself out, buddy.
Click to expand...




If you wanna pretend like Saban's tenure at MSU doesn't qualify under your metric (not mine) of "sorta-not-too-horrible at a s#!tty school" it's pretty obvious you're only trying to win an argument and not actually engaging with the real discussion.

I never said Stoops' UK record is as good or about as good as Saban's. I said Saban's qualifies as "sorta-not-too-horrible at a s#!tty school". The point being that coaches doing ok at low-resource programs aren't fated to not being able to do any better than that. Sometimes that's the best they can do, and other times they do better with a better opportunity. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top