Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Scooch, post: 105862, member: 628"] I'm not sure what you're arguing here OPA? I assume is that's colleges shouldn't fire coaches after 3-4 "mediocre" years (and obviously the definition of mediocre is debatable). But using the NFL, and Cowher in particular, to argue that point is misguided, IMHO. Here are some facts... Cowher took over the Steelers in 1992, after they had gone 25-23 the previous 3 seasons under Chuck Noll. So he inherited a league average team. His first year he went 11-5 and made the playoffs for just the 2nd time in the past 8 years. So a great start by any definition. He proceeded to make the playoffs in the next 5 seasons, for a 6-year record of 64-32. Then he had 2 losing seasons. I'm not sure I see how the situations in college and Cowher's performance with the Steelers as being remotely comparable. Cowher made the playoffs for SIX straight years when he took over, after the franchise had made the playoffs once in the 7 years before that. He earned a helluva lot of goodwill, and that's why he was "given" the two losing seasons before he rebuilt into the team that ultimately won a Super Bowl. That's not anything like a college coach taking over a mediocre team, and continuing that mediocre trend. In the case of UCLA they were 13-13 the 2 years prior to Neuheisel being hired (an AWFUL hire if you ask me, the guy is a total sleazeball). He then went 4-8, 7-6, 4-8 and now presumably 6-7. No improvement whatsoever in 4 years. How is that comparable to Bill Cowher? In Kansas's last 5 years under Mangino they were 7-5, 6-6, 12-1, 8-5 and 5-7. Gill had them go 3-9 and 2-10. That's a catastrophe. How is that comparable to Bill Cowher? I get that some programs are trigger-happy, but "stability" is not some guarantee of success. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?