How many wins would a competent HC add next year?
- Thread starter wvpaper
- Start date
Your headline says "competent" then you list ultra-successful examples.
Competent, maybe a game or 2 in the first year, but he would get better as he established his program. A handful of the really great coaches might be able to make a 4 game difference right off the bat, but that really is not the issue in deciding what we should do.
Competent, maybe a game or 2 in the first year, but he would get better as he established his program. A handful of the really great coaches might be able to make a 4 game difference right off the bat, but that really is not the issue in deciding what we should do.
We see this differently.
As for my list, you have a good point. But any list is subjective. Let's say everyone's top 50 coaches for argument.
We do see it differently. I think the LAST thing you want to do to a new coach when you hire to replace an underachieving predecessor is to saddle him with unrealistic expectations. A four game improvement whether from 0 to4, 4 to 8, or 8 to 12 is huge and not to be expected, because if there was any rational reason to expect it you wouldn't be firing your coach.
Maybe, in a rare situation where a long-term, very successful coach retires at a point where he bequeaths a roster loaded with starters who will be returning (including a good QB), it would not be totally unfair to expect such huge improvement. Even then, though, one should not be upset if it doesn't happen.
I didn't get down on Dana when his first year was no real improvement over Stewart's. It wasn't until year 3 when it was clear things were moving in the wrong direction that the doubts began and it's not until now when we show no signs of escaping mediocrity that the doubts are turning to a belief it's put up or shut up time.
Maybe, in a rare situation where a long-term, very successful coach retires at a point where he bequeaths a roster loaded with starters who will be returning (including a good QB), it would not be totally unfair to expect such huge improvement. Even then, though, one should not be upset if it doesn't happen.
I didn't get down on Dana when his first year was no real improvement over Stewart's. It wasn't until year 3 when it was clear things were moving in the wrong direction that the doubts began and it's not until now when we show no signs of escaping mediocrity that the doubts are turning to a belief it's put up or shut up time.
Four diff people from one household post using this IP address. So to answer your question directly...just one.
I see you ignored the question I asked... ...I wonder why.....
Then why do we, and all other major programs, pay coaches so much money? Are all University administrators stupid spendthrifts? If programs simply are and always will be what they are regardless of coaching, then there could be no worse use of scarce dollars than paying so much money.
I'd also ask how you reconcile your belief with the historical facts that weak programs have improved and strong programs have declined under certain coaches. Are all of those occurrences just mere coincidence?
I'd also ask how you reconcile your belief with the historical facts that weak programs have improved and strong programs have declined under certain coaches. Are all of those occurrences just mere coincidence?