Who should our next HC be?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TiredHuskerFanMWI said:
FBS+NFL winning percentages of various coaches in ascending order of coaches in the rumor mill with several added by me:

Matt Rhule - 45.3%

Lance Leipold - 50%

Dave Clawson - 52.4%

Bill O'Brien - 53.1%

Mark Stoops - 53.4%

Hugh Freeze - 57.6%

Dave Aranda - 58.6%

Matt Campbell - 60.6%

Lane Kiffen - 60.8%

Bronco Mendenhall - 62.5%

Dan Mullen - 62.8%

Dave Doeren - 63%

Clay Helton - 64.5%

Jamie Chadwell - 65.5%

David Shaw - 65.7%

Kyle Whittingham - 67.1%

Gus Malzahn - 67.9%

Luke Fickell - 72%

Chris Petersen - 79.5%

Urban Meyer - 81.5%

It's inexcusable for Trev not to be courting Meyer/Petersen, with Fickell as the 3rd option.  The fact that he's obsessed with sub 60 coaches makes me assume Trev is Eichorst in an Alberts mask.  I won't believe anything else until proven wrong by Trev and only Trev.
Click to expand...
But who cares about NFL percentages again? 

 
TiredHuskerFanMWI said:
Matt Rhule - 45.3%

Lance Leipold - 50%

Dave Clawson - 52.4%

Bill O'Brien - 53.1%

Mark Stoops - 53.4%

Hugh Freeze - 57.6%

Dave Aranda - 58.6%

Matt Campbell - 60.6%

Lane Kiffen - 60.8%

Bronco Mendenhall - 62.5%

Dan Mullen - 62.8%

Dave Doeren - 63%

Clay Helton - 64.5%

Jamie Chadwell - 65.5%

David Shaw - 65.7%

Kyle Whittingham - 67.1%

Gus Malzahn - 67.9%

Luke Fickell - 72%

Chris Petersen - 79.5%

Deion Sanders - 80%

Urban Meyer - 81.5%
Click to expand...


Good info. Are these percentages based on total career or just their most recent jobs or how does that work? Edit, spot checking a couple and it looks like you're going with career totals.

And I'm sure you know this, but you have to take some of those lower guys with a grain of salt. A lot of them are being highly regarded for rebuilding programs, which inherently have some first couple years with an asterisk by them. Also, winning percentage isn't everything. Hell Nick Saban was only 58.6% at Sparty when LSU found him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Red Silk Smoking Jacket said:
Good info. Are these percentages based on total career or just their most recent jobs or how does that work? And I'm sure you know this, but you have to take some of those lower guys with a grain of salt. A lot of them are being highly regarded for rebuilding programs, which inherently have some first couple years with an asterisk by them. Also, winning percentage isn't everything. Hell Nick Saban was only 58.6% at Sparty when LSU found him.
Click to expand...
total career head coach wins with FBS/NFL combined. No Division1/2/3 or whatever the lower levels are known as these days.  The NFL win totals don't really affect anyone other than Bill O'Brien, just brings him down from 62.5% 

Sure - guys can find success in bunches of season or in a bottle/vacuum.  Grains of salt can be applied.  I've applied grains of salt to the last several coaching hires and they all were frustrating, so I'm just relying on win percentage this time around.  Anything less than 70% but greater than 60% to me is comparable to the current West coaches and we'll win some games, have some seasons where we can compete for the division, and solidify bowl appearances.

Less than 60% is Mike Riley territory.

I mean for Matt Rhule fans, if you want to take out NFL results and bump him to a 52% sub-60 tier coach and sell him as the best option...go ahead.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TiredHuskerFanMWI said:
total career head coach wins with FBS/NFL combined. No Division1/2/3 or whatever the lower levels are known as these days.  The NFL win totals don't really affect anyone other than Bill O'Brien, just brings him down from 62.5% 

Sure - guys can find success in bunches of season or in a bottle/vacuum.  Grains of salt can be applied.  I've applied grains of salt to the last several coaching hires and they all were frustrating, so I'm just relying on win percentage this time around.  Anything less than 70% but greater than 60% to me is comparable to the current West coaches and we'll win some games, have some seasons where we can compete for the division, and solidify bowl appearances.

Less than 60% is Mike Riley territory.

I mean for Matt Rhule fans, if you want to take out NFL results and bump him to a 52% sub-60 tier coach and sell him as the best option...go ahead.  
Click to expand...
Frost when hired was higher than Fickell is currently. Why do people constantly want to eliminate nuance and weed out useful information when making a decision? 

 
PasstheDamnBallGuy said:
Frost when hired was higher than Fickell is currently. Why do people constantly want to eliminate nuance and weed out useful information when making a decision? 
Click to expand...
Frost completed just his 2nd season as coach when he achieved 73%.  Fickell is completing his seventh.  Not weeding out anything.  All of the guys listed have several seasons of head coaching under their belts and aren't learning on the job anymore.

 
TiredHuskerFanMWI said:
Frost completed just his 2nd season as coach when he achieved 73%.  Fickell is completing his seventh.  Not weeding out anything.  All of the guys listed have several seasons of head coaching under their belts and aren't learning on the job anymore.
Click to expand...
And 6 games into his Husker tenure he was 59%.

 
TiredHuskerFanMWI said:
total career head coach wins with FBS/NFL combined. No Division1/2/3 or whatever the lower levels are known as these days.  The NFL win totals don't really affect anyone other than Bill O'Brien, just brings him down from 62.5% 

Sure - guys can find success in bunches of season or in a bottle/vacuum.  Grains of salt can be applied.  I've applied grains of salt to the last several coaching hires and they all were frustrating, so I'm just relying on win percentage this time around.  Anything less than 70% but greater than 60% to me is comparable to the current West coaches and we'll win some games, have some seasons where we can compete for the division, and solidify bowl appearances.

Less than 60% is Mike Riley territory.

I mean for Matt Rhule fans, if you want to take out NFL results and bump him to a 52% sub-60 tier coach and sell him as the best option...go ahead.  
Click to expand...


Yeah, I caught that and edited my post. Good to know the NFL thing is pretty much a moot point. Honestly, you might be onto something and I can't really argue with your analysis at all.

I know you didn't include minor leagues (or whatever it's called these days), but I added 1 for you that shouldn't be overlooked just behind Urban at 80%. Yeah, I know, I apparently have an unhealthy obsession  :B)

 
TiredHuskerFanMWI said:
FBS+NFL winning percentages of various coaches in ascending order of coaches in the rumor mill with several added by me:

Matt Rhule - 45.3%

Lance Leipold - 50%

Dave Clawson - 52.4%

Bill O'Brien - 53.1%

Mark Stoops - 53.4%

Hugh Freeze - 57.6%

Dave Aranda - 58.6%

Matt Campbell - 60.6%

Lane Kiffen - 60.8%

Bronco Mendenhall - 62.5%

Dan Mullen - 62.8%

Dave Doeren - 63%

Clay Helton - 64.5%

Jamie Chadwell - 65.5%

David Shaw - 65.7%

Kyle Whittingham - 67.1%

Gus Malzahn - 67.9%

Luke Fickell - 72%

Chris Petersen - 79.5%

Urban Meyer - 81.5%

It's inexcusable for Trev not to be courting Meyer/Petersen, with Fickell as the 3rd option.  The fact that he's obsessed with sub 60 coaches makes me assume Trev is Eichorst in an Alberts mask.  I won't believe anything else until proven wrong by Trev and only Trev.
Click to expand...
So by your logic Matt Rhule, Lance Leipold, and Dave Clawson are horrible coaches and shouldn't be considered for a major opportunity because they haven't won over 60% of their games? Are you trolling?

 
PasstheDamnBallGuy said:
It's funny how extra parts of the story are added when it helps your argument. 
Click to expand...
I see it differently.  To me trying to include Scott Frost as the reason not to rely on experienced career results is adding to the story. I guess I'll list what number season of head coaching each person has completed or will be completing at the end of this season for the FBS+NFL combined level if it will help with transparency:

Matt Rhule - 10

Lance Leipold - 8

Dave Clawson - 14

Bill O'Brien - 9

Mark Stoops - 10

Hugh Freeze - 10

Dave Aranda - 3

Matt Campbell - 12

Lane Kiffen - 13

Bronco Mendenhall - 17

Dan Mullen - 13

Dave Doeren - 12

Clay Helton - 9

Jamie Chadwell - 5

David Shaw - 12

Kyle Whittingham - 18

Gus Malzahn - 11

Luke Fickell - 7

Chris Petersen - 14

Urban Meyer - 17

I bolded Dave Aranda because I realized he is in his 3rds season only.  This to me alone is a big risk, but who knows.  

 
huskerpower22 said:
So by your logic Matt Rhule, Lance Leipold, and Dave Clawson are horrible coaches and shouldn't be considered for a major opportunity because they haven't won over 60% of their games? Are you trolling?
Click to expand...
IDK they certainly don't sustain wins over time like other coaches do.  Also, asking if i'm trolling seems odd.  I'm just laying out why I prefer Urban Meyer, Chris Petersen, and Luke Fickell as prime candidates.  Those don't seem like coaches I'd be publicly behind if I'd be trolling.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TiredHuskerFanMWI said:
IDK they certainly don't sustain wins over time like other coaches do.  Also, asking if i'm trolling seems odd.  I'm just laying out why I prefer Urban Meyer, Chris Petersen, and Luke Fickell as prime candidates.  Those don't seem like coaches I'd be publicly behind if I'd be trolling.  
Click to expand...


Can you do the same for average recruiting rankings? I actually think Rhule and Leipold are good coaches despite their overall winning percentages, mostly just going by the eye test. But their recruiting classes are pretty dismal and neither has beat (m)any ranked opponents.

 
Red Silk Smoking Jacket said:
Can you do the same for average recruiting rankings? I actually think Rhule and Leipold are good coaches despite their overall winning percentages, mostly just going by the eye test. But their recruiting classes are pretty dismal and neither has beat (m)any ranked opponents.
Click to expand...
I actually hate doing anything with recruiting rankings for a few reasons:

1) is a composite of all ranking sites really a fair grade?  I have my doubts.  

2) How do we factor in transfers in/out, because;

3) I learned under Frost recruiting rankings are basically useless if you can't develop  or refuse to play your recruits and/or if they ultimately decide they are butt hurt/their coach is an idiot and transfer out.

basically , I don't trust recruiting rankings therefore I wouldn't find the exercise rewarding.  the value Nebraska has gotten out of recruiting classes, in recent times especially, has to be very low.  So my mind concludes, how useful is it?  Of course, we've just recently discovered Frost was running a dumpster fire from literally day 1...so maybe they are reliable just not for Nebraska?  it feels very manufactured while at least a football win can be treated as nothing other than a football win in my mind.    

Wins vs. ranked opponents would be kinda fun!  it still feels grey to me, but i'd use wins vs. opponents ranked at the end of the season rather than ranked the week they are playing in.  Just my personal belief rankings during the season are at least half used to boost interest and ratings in the tv agenda world.  And end of season rankings seem more honest.  I'd have to remove NFL results (unless we include playoff teams for fun?), and would consider removing anyone who has coached less than 5 FBS seasons  unless they just ended up coached against several top 25 teams in a short duration.

You've convinced me to take on the winning percentage vs FBS ranked end of season+NFL season playoff teams project.   I may have to move Aranda off the list unless he has enough games against ranked teams to sink into. eh..i'll leave him since he seems to be some type of candidate.  I might add in Troy Calhoun and Jeff Monken just because. I guess I should add Bob Stoops as well.

For anyone wondering FBS wining percentages for three added coaches are :

Jeff Monken - 60.6%

Troy Calhoun - 59.9%

Bob Stoops - 79.9%

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TiredHuskerFanMWI said:
I actually hate doing anything with recruiting rankings for a few reasons:

1) is a composite of all ranking sites really a fair grade?  I have my doubts.  

2) How do we factor in transfers in/out, because;

3) I learned under Frost recruiting rankings are basically useless if you can't develop  or refuse to play your recruits and/or if they ultimately decide they are butt hurt/their coach is an idiot and transfer out.

basically , I don't trust recruiting rankings therefore I wouldn't find the exercise rewarding.  the value Nebraska has gotten out of recruiting classes, in recent times especially, has to be very low.  So my mind concludes, how useful is it?  Of course, we've just recently discovered Frost was running a dumpster fire from literally day 1...so maybe they are reliable just not for Nebraska?  it feels very manufactured while a football win can be treated as nothing other than a football win.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. However, although good recruiting classes don't necessarily equal high winning percentage, I think those with the best winning percentages likely have high recruiting rankings. 24/7 let's you include transfers and look at overall rankings now (recruits + transfers). Maybe I'll run the numbers if I have some time this weekend.

 
TiredHuskerFanMWI said:
Wins vs. ranked opponents would be kinda fun!  it still feels grey to me, but i'd use wins vs. opponents ranked at the end of the season rather than ranked the week they are playing in.  Just my personal belief rankings during the season are at least half used to boost interest and ratings in the tv agenda world.  And end of season rankings seem more honest.  I'd have to remove NFL results (unless we include playoff teams for fun?), and would consider removing anyone who has coached less than 5 FBS seasons  unless they just ended up coached against several top 25 teams in a short duration.

You've convinced me to take on the winning percentage vs FBS ranked end of season+NFL season playoff teams project.   I may have to move Aranda off the list unless he has enough games against ranked teams to sink into. eh..i'll leave him since he seems to be some type of candidate.  I might add in Troy Calhoun and Jeff Monken just because. I guess I should add Bob Stoops as well.

For anyone wondering FBS wining percentages for three added coaches are :

Jeff Monken - 60.6%

Troy Calhoun - 59.9%

Bob Stoops - 79.9%
Click to expand...


Definitely with you on the ranked at the end of the year, not when they played part. Personally, I'd remove NFL altogether. It's a completely different game and it's been pretty well proven that success in one doesn't mean squat for success in another.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top