tattooedhusker
All-Conference
People have been saying that about A&M for a long time (myself included), when the hell are they gonna get the formula right!!?
It looks to me like Sherman will be another NFL bust , like Callahan, at the college level. But time will tell, so we will see. There was no reason on earth for them to have had as bad of a season as they had last year.People have been saying that about A&M for a long time (myself included), when the hell are they gonna get the formula right!!?
Agreed. 100%It looks to me like Sherman will be another NFL bust , like Callahan, at the college level. But time will tell, so we will see. There was no reason on earth for them to have had as bad of a season as they had last year.People have been saying that about A&M for a long time (myself included), when the hell are they gonna get the formula right!!?
People should have known that was a bad hire from the get go. Coaches that go from NFL to College and vice versa have a tough time getting acclimated from the lifestyle of one into the life style of another. One is for passion and the glory of the game, the other is a business and a career. One has class conflicts, the other does not.Agreed. 100%It looks to me like Sherman will be another NFL bust , like Callahan, at the college level. But time will tell, so we will see. There was no reason on earth for them to have had as bad of a season as they had last year.People have been saying that about A&M for a long time (myself included), when the hell are they gonna get the formula right!!?
I think it is important to note that while success always breeds success, and failure breeds failure, I was looking out over a longer term. I think A&M has a lot more going for it, and like odds in a casino, the house wins over the long term with a little edge in his favor. That doesn't mean that coaching or player abberations can cause a long term blip... I think my own school is the one that will have the most riding on the most 10 years, if we are talking about shorter term exposure...
Or just find a 70 year old coach a little bit past his prime <_<The other schools will have to gamble on a hot assistant coach or small school head coach and hope to hit a home run.
Do your Ma and Pa know you're writing such nasty things about them here?I think it is important to note ...failure breeds failure....
Et Tu, Brute?Cy the Cyclone said:Do your Ma and Pa know you're writing such nasty things about them here?jayhawk said:I think it is important to note ...failure breeds failure....
I do not agree, except to say that the coach is the variable that effects immediate success. There is an exception, if you happen to put together a long enough run with a legend or two to build a History, then I would concur. I would argue the predicatable factors (coaches are tough), over the long term, are...Jim Hammer said:Very specious reasoning in this thread. If you look at the Big 12 teams, the main factor in each team's success has been the head coach. When McCarney was at ISU, they were challenging for the North title. Now that KU has Mangino and Pinkel is at MU, they are up there. NU gets Callahan and they drop off. OU was way down before they got Stoops. KSU had a great run with Snyder.
To infer anything about the next 50 years, you need to look at the ability to attract a top coach. UT and OU will be up there because they will throw the most money at a coach and have tradition. OSU and TAMU will do the same without the tradition. NU won't spend as much, but they have tradition to attract talent. The other schools will have to gamble on a hot assistant coach or small school head coach and hope to hit a home run.
Do you mean your location needs to be nice to bring recruits in (i.e. weather) or that you need to be in an area relatively close to good recruiting states? i.e. a place right next to Texas2) Geographic access to good recruitsJim Hammer said:Very specious reasoning in this thread. If you look at the Big 12 teams, the main factor in each team's success has been the head coach. When McCarney was at ISU, they were challenging for the North title. Now that KU has Mangino and Pinkel is at MU, they are up there. NU gets Callahan and they drop off. OU was way down before they got Stoops. KSU had a great run with Snyder.
To infer anything about the next 50 years, you need to look at the ability to attract a top coach. UT and OU will be up there because they will throw the most money at a coach and have tradition. OSU and TAMU will do the same without the tradition. NU won't spend as much, but they have tradition to attract talent. The other schools will have to gamble on a hot assistant coach or small school head coach and hope to hit a home run.
I am talking about being near where the recruits are. A lot of kids do not want to go too far away, or have very high views of local powers. UT comes to mind. ALso, a lot of Southern Kids, especially from the deep south, won't leave it. Go look at rivals if you do not believe me. They may roll over to Texas or Mississippi, but Louisiana kids don't roll of to Minnesota very often. I am not saying you cannot get any kids at a place like Nebraska, but I would say if you took 2 Nebraska clone programs, but one was in Texas, it would get better recruits on average, all else being equal, due to location.Do you mean your location needs to be nice to bring recruits in (i.e. weather) or that you need to be in an area relatively close to good recruiting states? i.e. a place right next to Texas2) Geographic access to good recruitsJim Hammer said:Very specious reasoning in this thread. If you look at the Big 12 teams, the main factor in each team's success has been the head coach. When McCarney was at ISU, they were challenging for the North title. Now that KU has Mangino and Pinkel is at MU, they are up there. NU gets Callahan and they drop off. OU was way down before they got Stoops. KSU had a great run with Snyder.
To infer anything about the next 50 years, you need to look at the ability to attract a top coach. UT and OU will be up there because they will throw the most money at a coach and have tradition. OSU and TAMU will do the same without the tradition. NU won't spend as much, but they have tradition to attract talent. The other schools will have to gamble on a hot assistant coach or small school head coach and hope to hit a home run.
If it's the first one, I think that is a very over-dramatized belief. Nebraska would recruit great 3 and 4 star guys from across the country, get em to come to Lincoln, and kick the a$$ of teams with 5 star recruits all over the place.
If it's the second one, idk if I agree or disagree, cause most kids just wanna play football and go to school for free. Washington used to be a nice little powerhouse but they have horrible geographic location.
That's just how I think about it at least.
Do you mean your location needs to be nice to bring recruits in (i.e. weather) or that you need to be in an area relatively close to good recruiting states? i.e. a place right next to Texas2) Geographic access to good recruitsJim Hammer said:Very specious reasoning in this thread. If you look at the Big 12 teams, the main factor in each team's success has been the head coach. When McCarney was at ISU, they were challenging for the North title. Now that KU has Mangino and Pinkel is at MU, they are up there. NU gets Callahan and they drop off. OU was way down before they got Stoops. KSU had a great run with Snyder.
To infer anything about the next 50 years, you need to look at the ability to attract a top coach. UT and OU will be up there because they will throw the most money at a coach and have tradition. OSU and TAMU will do the same without the tradition. NU won't spend as much, but they have tradition to attract talent. The other schools will have to gamble on a hot assistant coach or small school head coach and hope to hit a home run.
If it's the first one, I think that is a very over-dramatized belief. Nebraska would recruit great 3 and 4 star guys from across the country, get em to come to Lincoln, and kick the a$$ of teams with 5 star recruits all over the place.
If it's the second one, idk if I agree or disagree, cause most kids just wanna play football and go to school for free. Washington used to be a nice little powerhouse but they have horrible geographic location.
That's just how I think about it at least.