Who should our next HC be?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who ever had the Deboer analogy, could use the same for Lance Leipold.  If you can build programs, you can build programs, RIGHT!  Not saying I want Leipold, but every arguement for and against any coach, on anyone's list can be reversed or made to make some sense in some way or another.

I like Troy Calhoun some because he would make this running game almost unstoppable.  He would beat most non-con teams and the likes of Minny, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, Michigan ST, Maryland and Iowa.  Those would be wins.  We would have to recruit elite talent and then start competing against Penn ST, Ohio ST and Michigan.

 
Nebhawk said:
Who ever had the Deboer analogy, could use the same for Lance Leipold.  If you can build programs, you can build programs, RIGHT!  Not saying I want Leipold, but every arguement for and against any coach, on anyone's list can be reversed or made to make some sense in some way or another.

I like Troy Calhoun some because he would make this running game almost unstoppable.  He would beat most non-con teams and the likes of Minny, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, Michigan ST, Maryland and Iowa.  Those would be wins.  We would have to recruit elite talent and then start competing against Penn ST, Ohio ST and Michigan.
Click to expand...


Yes I agree that Deboer, Liepold and Klieman all have prior lower division experience that is amazing. I would be happy with any of these three.

 
Lorewarn said:
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. 
Click to expand...


OK, even if we leave aside all your other BS, you're still blatantly cherry-picking a single example out of hundreds. If you look at schools that hired a coach with a .400 conference record, I don't think you're gonna find very many that amounted to much at their new school.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Toe said:
OK, even if we leave aside all your other BS, you're still blatantly cherry-picking a single example out of hundreds. If you look at schools that hired a coach with a .400 conference record, I don't think you're gonna find very many that amounted to much at their new school.
Click to expand...
This is you cherry picking a single arbitrary number and ignoring a lot of context. Namely being that .400 conference record in the SEC is not the same as the PAC 10 or the old B1G. Also your just falling into the same trap we do every coaching search where someone say we hired a coach and x is why it failed and so any coach who is that we have to eliminate. And then we ignore coaches like Sonny Dykes or James Franklin who were just ok at lower schools. If you know the secret formula for hiring a successful coach feel free to share it though and prove it with data. 

 
PasstheDamnBallGuy said:
This is you cherry picking a single arbitrary number and ignoring a lot of context. Namely being that .400 conference record in the SEC is not the same as the PAC 10 or the old B1G. Also your just falling into the same trap we do every coaching search where someone say we hired a coach and x is why it failed and so any coach who is that we have to eliminate. And then we ignore coaches like Sonny Dykes or James Franklin who were just ok at lower schools. If you know the secret formula for hiring a successful coach feel free to share it though and prove it with data. 
Click to expand...


I mean ... Dykes won 58% of his conference games at SMU before being hired at TCU.  And Franklin had a noticeably better conference record than Stoops at a different school in the same conference that is even harder to win at.

So your examples are pretty much proving @Toe's point.

 
Mavric said:
I mean ... Dykes won 58% of his conference games at SMU before being hired at TCU.  And Franklin had a noticeably better conference record than Stoops at a different school in the same conference that is even harder to win at.

So your examples are pretty much proving @Toe's point.
Click to expand...
Wasn't Franklin well below .500 also? And Dykes had a Riley like record in a g5 conference. 

 
It’s going to be a coach who has the same agent as Lincoln Riley who is also connected to the search firm Alberts is using 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
talaricohusker said:
It’s going to be a coach who has the same agent as Lincoln Riley who is also connected to the search firm Alberts is using 
Click to expand...
I mean maybe, my guess would be the agency rather than the specific agent… Trace Armstrong is Riley’s agent but works for CAA. CAA reps huge names, mainly through Jimmy Sexton

 
Redux said:
Haven't won a conference title since 1999, we're approaching three decades of hardware drought in that area.  Haven't even been bowling since 2016, coming up on a decade there too.  Every time we make a move it ends up being the wrong one.  When we do make the right move, other circumstances deter it from working.  Cursed, snakebit, voodoo doll in Solich's closet call it what you will but this program is definitely cursed.
Click to expand...
I'm going to assume this is mostly tongue in cheek, but Nebraska isn't any more cursed than the Cubs were. Nothing magical happened to break the Cubs World Series drought. They hired a smart leader, that leader put smart people in place, they started spending more cash, they brought in championship caliber talent, and now the curse is an afterthought... because there never was one.

It's hard to win in college/professional sports. There are a lot of smart people and talented athletes. And yeah, sometimes, franchises/administrations make a lot of choices that don't pan out. Sometimes, you just have to do the best with what you've got and hope it works. I think a lot of Nebraska administrators have done what they thought was best and it ended up not being the right path. Doesn't mean the program is cursed. It just means they have to be better.

 
Mavric said:
Franklin was two games below .500 in the same conference as Stoops is now at a school that is even harder to win at than Kentucky.

Riley was .479 in-conferece at OSU.  Dykes was .581 in-conference at SMU.
Click to expand...
So Riley was better than Franklin then? I feel like .400 to .455 conference record between him and Stoops is a little hair splitting. Maybe I need to look around more and see if it matters though it may be hard to find a lot of examples that are very similar situations. 

I don't even care specifically about Stoops he is down a little ways on my list but I think winning 10 games at Kentucky is impressive and you can't just pick out conference record set an arbitrary percentage it should be over and say someone can't win here because of that especially when its in likely the toughest conference. He has an average roster and has won big games while facing the most talented rosters. It's a lot of looking at stats without context like Rhule and his record against ranked teams. 

 
Redux said:
 Haven't won a conference title since 1999, we're approaching three decades of hardware drought in that area.  Haven't even been bowling since 2016, coming up on a decade there too.  Every time we make a move it ends up being the wrong one.  When we do make the right move, other circumstances deter it from working.  Cursed, snakebit, voodoo doll in Solich's closet call it what you will but this program is definitely cursed.
Click to expand...
23=30 and 6=10

I tell ya, this new math stuff really confuses me!!  Lol

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top