Impact of ACC - Recruiting | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

Impact of ACC - Recruiting

That is really and outdated reference. Last year the Pats, Packers, and Giants all ranked at the bottom of the NFL in defense. 2 played in the Super Bowl and one didn't lose a game till November and had a great season.

I know that is the NFL and this is college. But unless you are Alabama or LSU where every starter on your defense is a future 1st and 2nd round draft pick, offense wins games!


Statistics can lie at times.

The Giants had trouble on defense much of the season because of a remarkable number of injuries - when they healed they played good defense.

I suspect that the Packers - whose defense the year they won was very strong - had a simlar problem last year.
 
Yep, there are. Carolina. 7th in the NFL in attendance. But that's not the point. Put a boring product on the field and lose...you'll have low attendance. Put an explosive product on the field and lose...you'll have better attendance than a boring product and losing.

Of course you are going to get people when you win. Every city, town, and hamlet in the country is filled with bandwagon fans (except maybe Green Bay and Oakland). Syracuse more than most.

Win=fans.
Boring and lose=least fans.
Entertaining and lose=you'll get people.
Entertaining and win=you're Oregon.

44cuse


Winning is not boring.

Win and fans are happy.

The Oregon reference is really pointless isn't it.

Some might think that Chip Kelly is a genius, but the bottom line with that team is talent - tremendous team speed.

We do not compare to Oregon or similar athletic teams.

We are closer to Ga Tech than Oregon.

So, win the game - and draw the fans.
 
Actually we had 2 until channel 9 came on the air channel 3 and 5.

And good luck getting channel 9 if you lived in the Valley on the South Side like I did -- terrible reception.

I'm getting older, but I've learned that the mind is the only thing that doesn't have to age. So put me down with the present generation that says "the points is too damn low". I'd like football track meets at the Dome. (It worked for basketball.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Virginia Tech has the best fan base in the ACC (there, I said it) for a team that is build around defense and specials.
 
Winning is not boring.

Win and fans are happy.

The Oregon reference is really pointless isn't it.

Some might think that Chip Kelly is a genius, but the bottom line with that team is talent - tremendous team speed.

We do not compare to Oregon or similar athletic teams.

We are closer to Ga Tech than Oregon.

So, win the game - and draw the fans.

I said: "Of course when you win you will get fans.". The fact that anyone is discussing that or brings it up in a thread as a discussion point is not some amazing observation.

And I wasn't comparing Syracuse to Oregon. I was speaking generically.

And on top of that, i completely disagree with you. Oregon runs a system unique to any other in college football. It's orchestrated with signs and words and misinformation. Their system is entertaining. Their style of football is entertaining. Yes it's built on team speed and athleticism, but that is not the whole of it. If it were, I would have included the previous Texas Tech teams in the example.

Be entertaining and even if you lose you'll have more fans than losing when you are boring.

That is the point.

44cuse
 
I don't understand what you are arguing. Arguing to argue I guess. I said: "Of course when you win you will get fans.". The fact that anyone is discussing that or brings it up in a thread as a discussion point is not some amazing observation.

And I wasn't comparing Syracuse to Oregon. I was speaking generically.

And on top of that, i completely disagree with you. Oregon runs a system unique to any other in college football. It's orchestrated with signs and words and misinformation. Their system is entertaining. Their style of football is entertaining. Yes it's built on team speed and athleticism, but that is not the whole of it. If it were, I would have included the previous Texas Tech teams in the example.

Trust me, I'm fairly certain you aren't the first to come up with concept of win and fans will come. Be entertaining and even of you lose you'll have more fans than losing when you are boring.

That is the point.

44cuse


I didn't start the debate about "exciting football."

I think it's a pointless argument.

And, sorry, but I just don't agree with you at all.

Exciting and losing turns fans off - when the Phillies here in Philadelphia had a great offense and scored lots of runs and lost most of the time, the fans stayed home. It was only when they began to win that the fans really showed up.

And, over the past year the Phillies have been about as boring a team to watch as I have seen. But with great pitching they have won and have drawn fans.

This stuff about systems is really a bunch of nonsense in my opinion. It's really about the talent.

Oregon runs an option based offense and happens to have a lot of athletes - recruited on the basis of the tremendous amount of money that the program has received and spent over the last few years. It's football. There is nothing all that tricky about what's happening with that program.

The inherent notion that Chip Kelly is some kind of genius is just as inaccurate as the old notion that Pete Carroll - after years of mediocrity in the NFL - became a genius at USC.

Indeed, Nick Saban is a football genius when he has superior talent but is mediocre when the talent levels are comparable.

It's about talent. It's really not about the particular system - various systems can be exciting, whether it's Ga Tech, Michigan, USC or Oregon.

So, would it be nice if the Orange was "exciting"?

Of course it would.

But, given the talent level, we probably will not be "exciting" in the sense that Oregon is exciting for awhile.

Right now, the idea is to win on a consistent basis so that the fans are happy when they leave the Dome and are confident that the program will soon once again be a prominent one.
 
When was there ever 7 channels? Wehn I grew up it was 3, 5, 9 and 24. We couldn't get 9 and 24 because of our remote location and reception. Then it went from that to cable and that was always more than 7 channels.

Not sure if this is what he was referencing, but there was a time when there were 7 OTA channels: NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, PBS, UPN, & WB. Even if you didn't have cable (and a lot of people still don't), you would still have all of those channels.
 
I didn't start the debate about "exciting football."

I think it's a pointless argument.

And, sorry, but I just don't agree with you at all.

Exciting and losing turns fans off - when the Phillies here in Philadelphia had a great offense and scored lots of runs and lost most of the time, the fans stayed home. It was only when they began to win that the fans really showed up.

And, over the past year the Phillies have been about as boring a team to watch as I have seen. But with great pitching they have won and have drawn fans.

This stuff about systems is really a bunch of nonsense in my opinion. It's really about the talent.

Oregon runs an option based offense and happens to have a lot of athletes - recruited on the basis of the tremendous amount of money that the program has received and spent over the last few years. It's football. There is nothing all that tricky about what's happening with that program.

The inherent notion that Chip Kelly is some kind of genius is just as inaccurate as the old notion that Pete Carroll - after years of mediocrity in the NFL - became a genius at USC.

Indeed, Nick Saban is a football genius when he has superior talent but is mediocre when the talent levels are comparable.

It's about talent. It's really not about the particular system - various systems can be exciting, whether it's Ga Tech, Michigan, USC or Oregon.

So, would it be nice if the Orange was "exciting"?

Of course it would.

But, given the talent level, we probably will not be "exciting" in the sense that Oregon is exciting for awhile.

Right now, the idea is to win on a consistent basis so that the fans are happy when they leave the Dome and are confident that the program will soon once again be a prominent one.
I couldnt disagree with you more. Nick Saben and Chip Kelly are at the top of their profession. They have won at every step of the way. I was Nicks neighbor for two years in East Lansing. Lived next door to him and his daughter was our baby sitter. Nick Saben can make any team better as he is in a different league than most coaches. I dont know Kelly but i believe the same to be true. Great coaches find a way to win. If was only about talent Florida State, Miami, Texas, and ND would be in the top 5 every year. Question if Nick Saben or Chip Kelly had been our coach last year do you think we would have won more games? End of argument.
 
I couldnt disagree with you more. Nick Saben and Chip Kelly are at the top of their profession. They have won at every step of the way. I was Nicks neighbor for two years in East Lansing. Lived next door to him and his daughter was our baby sitter. Nick Saben can make any team better as he is in a different league than most coaches. I dont know Kelly but i believe the same to be true. Great coaches find a way to win. If was only about talent Florida State, Miami, Texas, and ND would be in the top 5 every year. Question if Nick Saben or Chip Kelly had been our coach last year do you think we would have won more games? End of argument.


Nick Saban the genius was a failure with the Dolphins - when the rules are the same - when the money is the same - when the access to talent is the same, he and Pete Carroll are average coaches.

I'm sure that Nick's daughter was an excellent baby sitter, and I'm sure he was a nice neighbor, but those attributes hardly support the notion that he is a genius. He is a very good college football coach - when he is at mega programs where there is a lot of money to help him accumulate talent.

Chip Kelly did not develope the Oregon program. He is a beneficiary of a lot of money poured into the program by Nike and the work that Bellotti did.

Do I think Chip Kelly would have had more success with Ryan Nassib, Van Chew and the others on the SU offense?

No, I really don't. Sorry.

Chip Kelly cannot make Ryan faster or more accurate or a better long thrower.

And he can't make Van Chew stronger and better able to get off the line of scrimmage.

And, he can't make Antwan Bailey anything more than what he is.

As far as your valuation of talent is concerned, sorry, but nobody feels that ND or FSU or Miami has top five talent right now. They might have at one time - when they were very good programs, but that has not been the case for awhile.

I can't comment on Texas because I frankly do not know. But I do know that Mack Brown has had great success there and for the last couple of years has not had great success. Does that mean that for awhile he was a great coach and now is not?
 
Nick Saban the genius was a failure with the Dolphins - when the rules are the same - when the money is the same - when the access to talent is the same, he and Pete Carroll are average coaches.

I'm sure that Nick's daughter was an excellent baby sitter, and I'm sure he was a nice neighbor, but those attributes hardly support the notion that he is a genius. He is a very good college football coach - when he is at mega programs where there is a lot of money to help him accumulate talent.

Chip Kelly did not develope the Oregon program. He is a beneficiary of a lot of money poured into the program by Nike and the work that Bellotti did.

Do I think Chip Kelly would have had more success with Ryan Nassib, Van Chew and the others on the SU offense?

No, I really don't. Sorry.

Chip Kelly cannot make Ryan faster or more accurate or a better long thrower.

And he can't make Van Chew stronger and better able to get off the line of scrimmage.

And, he can't make Antwan Bailey anything more than what he is.

As far as your valuation of talent is concerned, sorry, but nobody feels that ND or FSU or Miami has top five talent right now. They might have at one time - when they were very good programs, but that has not been the case for awhile.

I can't comment on Texas because I frankly do not know. But I do know that Mack Brown has had great success there and for the last couple of years has not had great success. Does that mean that for awhile he was a great coach and now is not?
 
Nick Saban the genius was a failure with the Dolphins - when the rules are the same - when the money is the same - when the access to talent is the same, he and Pete Carroll are average coaches.

I'm sure that Nick's daughter was an excellent baby sitter, and I'm sure he was a nice neighbor, but those attributes hardly support the notion that he is a genius. He is a very good college football coach - when he is at mega programs where there is a lot of money to help him accumulate talent.

Chip Kelly did not develope the Oregon program. He is a beneficiary of a lot of money poured into the program by Nike and the work that Bellotti did.

Do I think Chip Kelly would have had more success with Ryan Nassib, Van Chew and the others on the SU offense?

No, I really don't. Sorry.

Chip Kelly cannot make Ryan faster or more accurate or a better long thrower.

And he can't make Van Chew stronger and better able to get off the line of scrimmage.

And, he can't make Antwan Bailey anything more than what he is.

As far as your valuation of talent is concerned, sorry, but nobody feels that ND or FSU or Miami has top five talent right now. They might have at one time - when they were very good programs, but that has not been the case for awhile.

I can't comment on Texas because I frankly do not know. But I do know that Mack Brown has had great success there and for the last couple of years has not had great success. Does that mean that for awhile he was a great coach and now is not?
My point is that coaching matters. Nick was a great coach at Michigan State, LSU, and now Alabama. Chip Kellys system would have made both Ryan and Antwan much more productive. They both would have been much more productive. I can promise you that the team wouldnt have quit on Nick, not even close and if you think for one minute either one of these guys would have lost the Rutgers or UConn games you have to be kidding yourself and lets not even discuss Tulane. Question do you think that if JB were coaching Rutgers Basketball team they would have had a better record? Sure talent matters but so does coaching.
 
Anyone who thinks Chip Kelly and Nick Saban aren't great coaches is a fool. Seriously, is this a serious debate or some kind of joke?
 
Anyone who thinks Chip Kelly and Nick Saban aren't great coaches is a fool. Seriously, is this a serious debate or some kind of joke?
Orange PA seems to think that all that matters is talent which is total BS. Sure talent is the foundation but great coaching can overcome poor talent. Poor coaching and poor talent and you have Grob. Average coaching and average talent and you may have DM. His other point is that systems dont matter. Of course they do. Boise State, Oregon, Texas T, Navy, Indiana Basketball with Knight and before that what he did with Army. Welsh at San Fran, Ben with the unbalanced line at Syracuse, George D at Syracuse, JB's zone. I could go on and on but great coaching and Systems make all of the difference. They are the difference regardless of the talent level as they will make whatever talent level you are at better which leads to winning those games that you should and a few that you shouldnt. That then leads to better recruiting, better talent and the cycle continues upwards. Poor coaching and or poor systems and the inverse occurs. The bottom line is that great coaching and systems are every bit as important as talent.
 
My point is that coaching matters. Nick was a great coach at Michigan State, LSU, and now Alabama. Chip Kellys system would have made both Ryan and Antwan much more productive. They both would have been much more productive. I can promise you that the team wouldnt have quit on Nick, not even close and if you think for one minute either one of these guys would have lost the Rutgers or UConn games you have to be kidding yourself and lets not even discuss Tulane. Question do you think that if JB were coaching Rutgers Basketball team they would have had a better record? Sure talent matters but so does coaching.


Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.

Chip Kelly would cannot change the athlete's physical abilities - nobody can do that.

And Ryan Nassib couldn't run what Oregon runs - we don't have the talent to do it - or to do it in the way the Ducks do it. It's not the system - it's the players.

To suggest somehow that under Chip Kelly, Philip Thomas would not have dropped the pick six or that Antwon Baily would not have fumbled at the ten yeard line during OT is just plain silly.

I find it truly dumbfounding how fans get these notions about what "great coaches" can achieve. Great coaches become great because of great talent. Casey Stengel had one of the worst W-L records in MLB when he managed the Dodgers and then the Mets. He became a HOF manager when he had DiMaggio, Mantle, Berra, Maris and the rest.

Pete Carroll is a mediocre coach at NE, NY Jets and now at Seattle. But he was a genius at USC when he had AAs two or three deep at every position.

It truly does amaze me how fans can convince themselves that certain people have magical powers. Ugh.

And, stop with this nonsense about the team quitting on Marrone - it's just not true. If you were in Pittsburgh during the last game of the year when everything that could go wrong, went wrong at the beginning of the game, the team did not quit - it hung in there and made it a game and had the ball at the end with a chance to win - on the road.

I saw no quit in this team. I saw a team lose games that it was expected to lose.

And as far as Jim Boeheim is concerned, I think you really don't get it. Jim Boeheim is a very good coach. But JB gets the top talent in the game these days. We have big time players on the BB roster - heck D. Coleman was a top five or top ten player last year.

And JB finally won the NC when he had the best player in the college game. That was no coincidence.

When was the last time any SU Football coach recruited a top five or top ten player? Heck, when's the last time we recruited a top fifty or top one hundred football player?

Sorry, but you're way, way off on this one.
 
Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.

Chip Kelly would cannot change the athlete's physical abilities - nobody can do that.

And Ryan Nassib couldn't run what Oregon runs - we don't have the talent to do it - or to do it in the way the Ducks do it. It's not the system - it's the players.

To suggest somehow that under Chip Kelly, Philip Thomas would not have dropped the pick six or that Antwon Baily would not have fumbled at the ten yeard line during OT is just plain silly.

I find it truly dumbfounding how fans get these notions about what "great coaches" can achieve. Great coaches become great because of great talent. Casey Stengel had one of the worst W-L records in MLB when he managed the Dodgers and then the Mets. He became a HOF manager when he had DiMaggio, Mantle, Berra, Maris and the rest.

Pete Carroll is a mediocre coach at NE, NY Jets and now at Seattle. But he was a genius at USC when he had AAs two or three deep at every position.

It truly does amaze me how fans can convince themselves that certain people have magical powers. Ugh.

And, stop with this nonsense about the team quitting on Marrone - it's just not true. If you were in Pittsburgh during the last game of the year when everything that could go wrong, went wrong at the beginning of the game, the team did not quit - it hung in there and made it a game and had the ball at the end with a chance to win - on the road.

I saw no quit in this team. I saw a team lose games that it was expected to lose.

And as far as Jim Boeheim is concerned, I think you really don't get it. Jim Boeheim is a very good coach. But JB gets the top talent in the game these days. We have big time players on the BB roster - heck D. Coleman was a top five or top ten player last year.

And JB finally won the NC when he had the best player in the college game. That was no coincidence.

When was the last time any SU Football coach recruited a top five or top ten player? Heck, when's the last time we recruited a top fifty or top one hundred football player?

Sorry, but you're way, way off on this one.
Sorry Orange but i have to push back. Do you really think that Grob would have done as well at Alabama as Nick did? Do you think that just any coach could come into Syracuse roll out the 2-3 zone and do as well as JB? Are you being honest that if Syracuse had been coached by Kelly or Saben last year that we wouldnt have had a better record. Dont you find it odd that when the girls US girls Olympic team hired BG that all of a sudden we started winning gold medals. Does a good horse just win a race or does a trainer make a difference. Would the Syracuse girls Lac team made the championship game with a different coach. Did Patton or Churchill matter. Do you think that the miracle on Ice which i was at would have ever happened if Herb hadnt been the coach? The point is that it is you Orange PA who is so far off base that you arent even on the field. Wake up my friend you are too good a poster to keep up this foolish rant. Yes talent does matter it is huge but so does good coaching and so does a good game plan. I suggest you go read some world war two planning documents next time you visit the hudson and ask those guys if a system or "good coach" matters.
 
Sorry Orange but i have to push back. Do you really think that Grob would have done as well at Alabama as Nick did? Do you think that just any coach could come into Syracuse roll out the 2-3 zone and do as well as JB? Are you being honest that if Syracuse had been coached by Kelly or Saben last year that we wouldnt have had a better record. Dont you find it odd that when the girls US girls Olympic team hired BG that all of a sudden we started winning gold medals. Does a good horse just win a race or does a trainer make a difference. Would the Syracuse girls Lac team made the championship game with a different coach. Did Patton or Churchill matter. Do you think that the miracle on Ice which i was at would have ever happened if Herb hadnt been the coach? The point is that it is you Orange PA who is so far off base that you arent even on the field. Wake up my friend you are too good a poster to keep up this foolish rant. Yes talent does matter it is huge but so does good coaching and so does a good game plan. I suggest you go read some world war two planning documents next time you visit the hudson and ask those guys if a system or "good coach" matters.


Where do I begin???

You are actually comparing Churchill and Patton to college football coaches?

Wow. I can tell you one thing. Had Patton not had the U.S. money and armaments he would not have had the success he had. We prevailed in WWII - it was inevitable - because of our overwhelming economic power. And, I can tell you that had the U.S. not come to Europe, the UK would not have survived. So, yes these were great leaders and inspriational people, but money and economic power was the key to success - just like money and economic power is the key to success on the college football level.

As far as Robinson is concerned, I think you forget that with talent he won two Super Bowls - his defenses were very good during those two years. He also had success at UCLA and Texas - when he had talent.

Do I think Nick Saban is a better football coach than Greg Robinson? Of course I do. And, if I were a betting man, I would probably agree that at Alabama Greg Robinson would not have had the same success that Nick Saban has had. But, Greg would have had a great deal of success with that kind of talent, at that school. Most coaches would have success at that school. In fact, three coaches in the last thirty years have won NCs at Alabama.

Your take on JB is way off.

The SU BB team does not win because of strategy - it wins with great players - many great players.

If you think JB wins because of his 2-3 zone, you're crazy. He's been running the 2-3 since Roy Danforth ran it in the late 1960s. In the early 1970s SU was a very decent team, with players like Mark Wadach, Mike Lee, Bob Dooms and after that Dennis DuVal and Jim Lee. We were a very good regional program. But we were not a national program. The 2-3 zone did not change the trajectory of the program - national players did that - Pearl Washington, Derrick Coleman, Billy Owens and the many, many more that have come to SU since that time. The team right now has gobs of national players - it's sick how much talent we have accumulated. And you're focusing on the 2-3 zone???

My goodness.

And as far as the other sports you've mentioned, I really have no idea what you're talking about. I am not familar with the teams other than the SU women's lacrosse team. I'm sure that GG is very good coach. And, I'm sure that he has been funded well and has been given the chance to recruit more effectively.

Beyond that I can't really comment.

Do coaches matter? Yes. But they are not "genies in bottles" who take mediocre players and transform them somehow.

They succeed with money, facilities, talented players, knowledge of the game - which they all have - and organizational skills. As Coach Mac used to say. In the begining "I thought it was 80% coaching and 20% players. After awhile I realized that it was 20% coaching and 80% players."

And that's the reality.

No, Nick Saban and Chip Kelly would not have caused Philip to catch that INT or Antwon Baily not to fumble or our WRs to become faster or our KO guy to kick deeper or our punter to be more effective. When you break it down player to player it becomes very clear that coaches can only do so much. And neither Chip nor Nick would have changed any of what I have just described.

I'm done with this argument. You know where I stand. I have a nice day.
 
Why the hell do you guys still argue this stuff.

Someone answer this for me... Is it impossible for a team to have both an exciting, high-powered offense and a stout defense?

Why are we always arguing this stupid point like its some binary choice. Like we either have to play games 45-42 or 13-10. How about we win 45-10.

Arrrggghh.
 
Where do I begin???

I'm done with this argument. You know where I stand. I have a nice day.

I would be done too if I were you. You have taken a DUMB stance in a silly debate. Nick Saban and Chip Kelly can't coach? Give me a break!
 
I would be done too if I were you. You have taken a DUMB stance in a silly debate. Nick Saban and Chip Kelly can't coach? Give me a break!

That isn't what he is saying...his point was that with a level playing field in the NFL, guys like Saban and Carroll were pretty run of the mill. Stick them at a football factory / allow them to cheat like no tomorrow (Carroll) and give them all Nike has to offer (Kelly) and suddenly they are geniuses.
 
That isn't what he is saying...his point was that with a level playing field in the NFL, guys like Saban and Carroll were pretty run of the mill. Stick them at a football factory / allow them to cheat like no tomorrow (Carroll) and give them all Nike has to offer (Kelly) and suddenly they are geniuses.

It's still a stupid stance to take. It's beyond stupid! Saban was only a head coach in the NFL for 2 years and he had 15-17 record. It wasn't like he was god awful. And it wasn't like he was coaching some great group either. He walked into a bad situation and made it somewhat better, decided he hated the NFL and went back to college. He took a mediocre to bad team and had them playing essentially .500 ball over the course of 2 seasons.

And if his entire stance hinges on "Pete Carroll" then its a weak and DUMB stance.

And lets also point out when Saban went to LSU they were 3-8, the next year they were 8-4. And he built them from the ground up!! They weren't a football factory!! NOT EVEN CLOSE!!! And at Alabama it wasn't like Alabama was a football factory at the time. He took over a team coming off a losing season in 2006. And in 2004 they were 6-6. Same for Carroll, the year before he took over USC they were 6-6. And the year before that they were a whopping 8-5. These places BECAME football factory's because they are great coaches. They weren't football factories before they got there!!

If you and OPA honestly believe that Nick Saban, Pete Carroll, and Chip Kelly are average or mediocre football coaches and aren't great, you know little to nothing about college football or football in general. Nick Saban turned around Mich St, LSU, and Alabama. They didn't fire their coaches coming off great seasons, they went to bad situations and made them football factories.

And this notion that there is cheating in college and NOT the NFL and Saban so called "failed" there so he sucks as a coach or is just average...uh, Spygate!! HELLO!! Does that mean Belichick can't coach either because he cheated?
 
I would be done too if I were you. You have taken a DUMB stance in a silly debate. Nick Saban and Chip Kelly can't coach? Give me a break!


You again?

Two words - reading lessons.
 
These places BECAME football factory's because they are great coaches. They weren't football factories before they got there!!

You lose 99% of your credibility by referring to Bama, USC, and LSU as non-football factories prior to Saban's & Carroll's tenures. Those schools have been the definition of football factory for decades.

Like all college programs they were mired in a down cycle of underachievement prior to Saban & Carroll.

Their rise to national prominence was inevitable because of their pre-existing status as football factories. Carroll & Saban are good coaches who helped speed their return to national glory but they didn't build them to factory status out of thin air.
 
OPA, how do you explain the trend towards more offense? Teams score more and gain more yardage on average now than they did 10/20/30 years ago.

Is the explanation that for some reason right now there's more talent on offense than defense?

Occam's razor to me suggests that coaches are scheming their offense to be more productive now than they have in the past, but you've pretty well established that should be impossible.

Also, I'm absolutely certain that if you swapped Chip Kelly and Marrone right now and held constant their offensive philosophies and roster talent that Oregon's scoring would go down and Syracuse's scoring would go up.
 
It's still a stupid stance to take. It's beyond stupid! Saban was only a head coach in the NFL for 2 years and he had 15-17 record. It wasn't like he was god awful. And it wasn't like he was coaching some great group either. He walked into a bad situation and made it somewhat better, decided he hated the NFL and went back to college. He took a mediocre to bad team and had them playing essentially .500 ball over the course of 2 seasons.

And if his entire stance hinges on "Pete Carroll" then its a weak and DUMB stance.

And lets also point out when Saban went to LSU they were 3-8, the next year they were 8-4. And he built them from the ground up!! They weren't a football factory!! NOT EVEN CLOSE!!! And at Alabama it wasn't like Alabama was a football factory at the time. He took over a team coming off a losing season in 2006. And in 2004 they were 6-6. Same for Carroll, the year before he took over USC they were 6-6. And the year before that they were a whopping 8-5. These places BECAME football factory's because they are great coaches. They weren't football factories before they got there!!

If you and OPA honestly believe that Nick Saban, Pete Carroll, and Chip Kelly are average or mediocre football coaches and aren't great, you know little to nothing about college football or football in general. Nick Saban turned around Mich St, LSU, and Alabama. They didn't fire their coaches coming off great seasons, they went to bad situations and made them football factories.

And this notion that there is cheating in college and NOT the NFL and Saban so called "failed" there so he sucks as a coach or is just average...uh, Spygate!! HELLO!! Does that mean Belichick can't coach either because he cheated?

You lost me when you said Alabama wasn't a football factory at the time...Alabama has always been a football factory.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
171,894
Messages
4,980,935
Members
6,020
Latest member
OldeOstrom

Online statistics

Members online
234
Guests online
3,484
Total visitors
3,718


...
Top Bottom