Dear AD Lyons
- Thread starter dangerousdaneerfan
- Start date
So just how much do you donate? Because it will take a lot of money to buy out his contract and money doesn't grow on trees. What's that, you don't donate?
What does my donating to the MAC have to do with the topic of conversation? A lot of assumptions on your part...
It doesn't matter if we manage to beat Baylor or TCU. I could always see us getting up for those two games. We always seem to play best when we are the worst underdogs. While those kinds of victories would obviously be an arrow toward the right direction for our team, if we can't grab hold of some consistency on Offense we could still get beat by Kansas again later in the season.
I get better results pitching my cash down a well and hoping for the best these days...same result...
Not sure what jpf578's intent was but to do nothing but troll... What I do with and how much I give to the MAC is none of his business.
Odd coming from someone like him who was screaming for Huggs to be fired back on March 10th.
The point is you complain and say WV has low expectations. You either do something about it or quit complaining. And if you think I was actually calling for Hugg's head, you need some serious help.
Let's wait for the end of the season to make a decision. I get the disappointment about the seeming lack of improvement or even decline in the program under Holgorsen, but a mid-season firing for nothing more than poor coaching is not going to help this team this year or put us in any better position for the future if we do make a change. Unless you have some major wrongdoing (showing up drunk like Sark, or getting caught cheating, etc.) there is really no good reason to let a coach go in the middle of the season and a lot of good reasons to let him finish.
First, however unlikely, the coach could get it together and finish surprisingly strong. The chances of a team rebounding under an interim coach are lower because the message has been sent that the towel is being thrown in. Even if you had a guy on the staff (which I don't believe we do) who is a strong candidate for the permanent job you would be more likely to undermine the goodwill toward him than build support for him. If the team does finish poorly the interim coach will probably be unfairly be held more responsible for it than he should be and he won't be able to really put his imprint on the team and show what he can do with a full offseason of preparation. It's kind of starting behind the eight ball to take a team over mid-season.
When you don't have a viable candidate for the permanent job on the staff, you don't gain any advantage in terms of bringing in a new coach from outside the program. We can't hire anyone until after the season and neither can any other school that we might be competing with for a particular coach. We can though make quiet, private inquiries and get the ball rolling without disrupting this season.
Let it play out. We might disagree among ourselves as to what is good enough this year to warrant keeping Holgorsen but give him a chance to meet whatever standard you think should be met. The reality that in today's environment there will be pressure to either give him an extension now or fire him is definitely not going to be in his favor unless we finish so strongly that someone could objectively say a longer term commitment doesn't look like as bad an idea now as it looked when Luck gave him the extension. It would be easier to keep him if we didn't have to worry that keeping him but not extending his contract would negatively impact recruiting, but that's just the way it is.
Personally, I'd be on the fence if we finish 5-4 in the conference and it would depend on how we look going 5-4. Better than that and I think we should extend and hope for the best. Worse than that and I think we need to move on because there will really be no plausible case we are improving.
I never bought into Luck's proclamation that we were ready to compete consistently for national championships and all we needed was the right coach, so I don't think the fact we are nowhere near that level is grounds for firing him. It's not Dana's fault Luck often spoke and acted rashly and created (or at least exacerbated) unrealistic expectations. I do think that by year 5 we need to see real improvement not excuses for why it's so hard to improve.
First, however unlikely, the coach could get it together and finish surprisingly strong. The chances of a team rebounding under an interim coach are lower because the message has been sent that the towel is being thrown in. Even if you had a guy on the staff (which I don't believe we do) who is a strong candidate for the permanent job you would be more likely to undermine the goodwill toward him than build support for him. If the team does finish poorly the interim coach will probably be unfairly be held more responsible for it than he should be and he won't be able to really put his imprint on the team and show what he can do with a full offseason of preparation. It's kind of starting behind the eight ball to take a team over mid-season.
When you don't have a viable candidate for the permanent job on the staff, you don't gain any advantage in terms of bringing in a new coach from outside the program. We can't hire anyone until after the season and neither can any other school that we might be competing with for a particular coach. We can though make quiet, private inquiries and get the ball rolling without disrupting this season.
Let it play out. We might disagree among ourselves as to what is good enough this year to warrant keeping Holgorsen but give him a chance to meet whatever standard you think should be met. The reality that in today's environment there will be pressure to either give him an extension now or fire him is definitely not going to be in his favor unless we finish so strongly that someone could objectively say a longer term commitment doesn't look like as bad an idea now as it looked when Luck gave him the extension. It would be easier to keep him if we didn't have to worry that keeping him but not extending his contract would negatively impact recruiting, but that's just the way it is.
Personally, I'd be on the fence if we finish 5-4 in the conference and it would depend on how we look going 5-4. Better than that and I think we should extend and hope for the best. Worse than that and I think we need to move on because there will really be no plausible case we are improving.
I never bought into Luck's proclamation that we were ready to compete consistently for national championships and all we needed was the right coach, so I don't think the fact we are nowhere near that level is grounds for firing him. It's not Dana's fault Luck often spoke and acted rashly and created (or at least exacerbated) unrealistic expectations. I do think that by year 5 we need to see real improvement not excuses for why it's so hard to improve.
I'd like to see some data on this point if you have any rather than just accepting it as fact.
When did Luck ever say we were "ready" to compete consistently for national championships? I do recall him saying we were NOT headed in that direction under Stewart, but that Luck wanted us to be.
Like you, I am not at all in favor of mid-season coaching changes under most circumstances. I also agree it's totally unrealistic to fire someone just because they're not competing for national championships.
However, I do think it's totally reasonable to fire someone if they seem unable to be even within shouting distance of a conference championship by this point--in the specific context of where the program was when hired and why a change was made. That's not to say the coach needs to win one, but we should look like we are capable of winning one in peak years. Taking up permanent residence in the bottom half of the league doesn't meet that standard.
Fantastic, well-thought post overall.
Well, Orgeron at USC showed that despite the chances being lower that a midseason replacement can help that doesn't mean it never will. I don't have any data but I can't think of another example in recent times where a team looked better and won more following a mid-season firing.
Of course, the Kiffin firing was not entirely based on poor coaching. A lot of USC people despised Kiffin (joining an already sizeable crowd). There was a noticeable lack of complaining when Kiffin was fired. I don't think that many WVU fans dislike Dana; a lot may have little or no confidence in his head coaching ability but not personal dislike. I don't think you have to look any further than the message boards to see that a considerable portion of the fan base still retains confidence in him and would be angered if he was fired during the season. I even think there would be a few who would be angry if he is fired after another subpar season.
As for Luck's unwisely creating expectations, what Luck stated was:
"I didn't believe we had an opportunity to win a national championship with the direction of the program [under Stewart]," Luck said. "At the end of the day, results matter. And we weren't getting the results.
"I want our Mountaineer program and expect us to compete at the highest levels."
I read that to mean he was claiming we could consistently compete for (not win) national championships with the right coach because that's what it means to be at the highest level. I don't think we are even at a higher level after 5 years let alone the highest. I agree that 5 years without improvement is sufficient to determine the prospect for future improvement is unpromising (yes, results do matter). I don't, however, think that anyone who thinks it is not long enough is necessarily either a stupid or bad person as many here seem to think anyone who disagrees with them must be.
Of course, the Kiffin firing was not entirely based on poor coaching. A lot of USC people despised Kiffin (joining an already sizeable crowd). There was a noticeable lack of complaining when Kiffin was fired. I don't think that many WVU fans dislike Dana; a lot may have little or no confidence in his head coaching ability but not personal dislike. I don't think you have to look any further than the message boards to see that a considerable portion of the fan base still retains confidence in him and would be angered if he was fired during the season. I even think there would be a few who would be angry if he is fired after another subpar season.
As for Luck's unwisely creating expectations, what Luck stated was:
"I didn't believe we had an opportunity to win a national championship with the direction of the program [under Stewart]," Luck said. "At the end of the day, results matter. And we weren't getting the results.
"I want our Mountaineer program and expect us to compete at the highest levels."
I read that to mean he was claiming we could consistently compete for (not win) national championships with the right coach because that's what it means to be at the highest level. I don't think we are even at a higher level after 5 years let alone the highest. I agree that 5 years without improvement is sufficient to determine the prospect for future improvement is unpromising (yes, results do matter). I don't, however, think that anyone who thinks it is not long enough is necessarily either a stupid or bad person as many here seem to think anyone who disagrees with them must be.
Well, Orgeron at USC showed that despite the chances being lower that a midseason replacement can help that doesn't mean it never will. I don't have any data but I can't think of another example in recent times where a team looked better and won more following a mid-season firing.
Of course, the Kiffin firing was not entirely based on poor coaching. A lot of USC people despised Kiffin (joining an already sizeable crowd). There was a noticeable lack of complaining when Kiffin was fired. I don't think that many WVU fans dislike Dana; a lot may have little or no confidence in his head coaching ability but not personal dislike. I don't think you have to look any further than the message boards to see that a considerable portion of the fan base still retains confidence in him and would be angered if he was fired during the season. I even think there would be a few who would be angry if he is fired after another subpar season.
As for Luck's unwisely creating expectations, what Luck stated was:
"I didn't believe we had an opportunity to win a national championship with the direction of the program [under Stewart]," Luck said. "At the end of the day, results matter. And we weren't getting the results.
"I want our Mountaineer program and expect us to compete at the highest levels."
I read that to mean he was claiming we could consistently compete for (not win) national championships with the right coach because that's what it means to be at the highest level. I don't think we are even at a higher level after 5 years let alone the highest. I agree that 5 years without improvement is sufficient to determine the prospect for future improvement is unpromising (yes, results do matter). I don't, however, think that anyone who thinks it is not long enough is necessarily either a stupid or bad person as many here seem to think anyone who disagrees with them must be.
Of course, the Kiffin firing was not entirely based on poor coaching. A lot of USC people despised Kiffin (joining an already sizeable crowd). There was a noticeable lack of complaining when Kiffin was fired. I don't think that many WVU fans dislike Dana; a lot may have little or no confidence in his head coaching ability but not personal dislike. I don't think you have to look any further than the message boards to see that a considerable portion of the fan base still retains confidence in him and would be angered if he was fired during the season. I even think there would be a few who would be angry if he is fired after another subpar season.
As for Luck's unwisely creating expectations, what Luck stated was:
"I didn't believe we had an opportunity to win a national championship with the direction of the program [under Stewart]," Luck said. "At the end of the day, results matter. And we weren't getting the results.
"I want our Mountaineer program and expect us to compete at the highest levels."
I read that to mean he was claiming we could consistently compete for (not win) national championships with the right coach because that's what it means to be at the highest level. I don't think we are even at a higher level after 5 years let alone the highest. I agree that 5 years without improvement is sufficient to determine the prospect for future improvement is unpromising (yes, results do matter). I don't, however, think that anyone who thinks it is not long enough is necessarily either a stupid or bad person as many here seem to think anyone who disagrees with them must be.