Red Silk Smoking Jacket

26 minutes ago, Jason Sitoke said:

This is dumb. 

Cool brah 

6 minutes ago, huskerpower22 said:

 

So the metric we should use instead of win/ loss then is how did Coach A and his recruiting rating do against Coach B who has a worse recruiting rating. By your rating Dave Clawson and Wake Forest defeating Georgia Southern and Clay Helton would be an upset. You cant use Clay Heltons recruiting rating from USC, you have to use what he inherited at Georgia Southern. What was the recruiting class Matt Rhule inherited at Temple and Baylor? Did you expect him to land top 10 classes given what he inherited at those places? What he did with less was amazing. He won games he had no business winning. Then look at Dave Aranda and what he inherited after his stay at Baylor? Way too many variables. You cant generalize wins and losses.

Yeah, that was all kind of my point. Tons of variables. But, as @M.A. just pointed out, the same can be said for wins and losses...

1 hour ago, M.A. said:

Again, there are so many variables. What was the strength of the competition lost to or won against. By what margins. Were they road wins or losses. What talent was the coach working with. Injury issues. What was the situation that the coach walked into. Unfavorable, very unfavorable, favorable, very favorable. Were there staff changes. On and on.

Hell, in just about all of football, simply having a good to great quarterback alone can make all the difference in the world.

47 minutes ago, M.A. said:

It’s a combination of both.

Again, there are so many variables. What was the strength of the competition lost to or won against. By what margins. Were they road wins or losses. What talent was the coach working with. Injury issues. What was the situation that the coach walked into. Favorable, unfavorable, very unfavorable, favorable, very favorable. Were there staff changes. On and on. 
 

It’s not altogether inaccurate. There is much more to consider though to getting  a clearer picture.

You forgot, was he a cultural fit or an a$$h@!e and did fans like the way he looks or did he look like an Ewok with a sleeveless hoodie and is he a fat slob but if so, does he at least have a hot wife? Then that pretty much covers it I think.

15 hours ago, TiredHuskerFanMWI said:

I actually hate doing anything with recruiting rankings for a few reasons:

 

1) is a composite of all ranking sites really a fair grade?  I have my doubts.  

 

2) How do we factor in transfers in/out, because;

 

3) I learned under Frost recruiting rankings are basically useless if you can't develop  or refuse to play your recruits and/or if they ultimately decide they are butt hurt/their coach is an idiot and transfer out.

 

basically , I don't trust recruiting rankings therefore I wouldn't find the exercise rewarding.  the value Nebraska has gotten out of recruiting classes, in recent times especially, has to be very low.  So my mind concludes, how useful is it?  Of course, we've just recently discovered Frost was running a dumpster fire from literally day 1...so maybe they are reliable just not for Nebraska?  it feels very manufactured while at least a football win can be treated as nothing other than a football win in my mind.    

 

Wins vs. ranked opponents would be kinda fun!  it still feels grey to me, but i'd use wins vs. opponents ranked at the end of the season rather than ranked the week they are playing in.  Just my personal belief rankings during the season are at least half used to boost interest and ratings in the tv agenda world.  And end of season rankings seem more honest.  I'd have to remove NFL results (unless we include playoff teams for fun?), and would consider removing anyone who has coached less than 5 FBS seasons  unless they just ended up coached against several top 25 teams in a short duration.

 

You've convinced me to take on the winning percentage vs FBS ranked end of season+NFL season playoff teams project.   I may have to move Aranda off the list unless he has enough games against ranked teams to sink into. eh..i'll leave him since he seems to be some type of candidate.  I might add in Troy Calhoun and Jeff Monken just because. I guess I should add Bob Stoops as well.

 

For anyone wondering FBS wining percentages for three added coaches are :

 

Jeff Monken - 60.6%

Troy Calhoun - 59.9%

Bob Stoops - 79.9%

Okay, here's your recruiting rankings. I did last two years for each as several don't have more than 2 classes.

It's a bit of an inexact science because it's hard to know which classes were solely that coach's responsibility. When they were hired, for example, there was already a recruiting class in place that they inherited and had to try to maintain or improve in short order, etc. Anyway, I estimated the best I could on those and tried to use that coach's last two full recruiting classes.

Also, you've mentioned you're not a big "take it with a grain of salt" guy, but some of these have to be taken with a grain of salt based on where they're at. Lance Leipold, for example is averaging 65, which isn't good enough for Nebraska, but it might be great for a place like Kansas. Obviously Deion is the same. Aranda at 41 is concerning when Rhule was at 33 at the same school and Rhule took over a s#!t show while Aranda took over a program in really good shape. Things like that have to be considered.

Anywhoooo...what did we learn? Aside from the fact that there's an hour of my life I'll never get back, we learned that these stats would tell us it's Urban, then everyone else, by a mile 

9 hours ago, Hayseed said:

I say it's flimflam snake oil.

I +1ed you...but, only because I like the terms "flim flam' and "snake oil." You could have also thrown in a "bull hockey" or a "gobbledygook"

11 hours ago, Husker816 said:

Based off 1 winning year. Again there are alot of intangibles that should go into a hire I find it hilarious some on the board pretend guys like Aranda & Campbell haven't been more successful than our program has been for almost a decade. 

 

The week to week power rankings on here that continously change are cringe. Any coach we get will have lost some games. It's about fit.

Based off 1 winning year. Again there are alot of intangibles that should go into a hire I find it hilarious some on the board pretend guys like Aranda & Campbell haven't been more successful than our program has been for almost a decade. 

 

The week to week power rankings on here that continously change are cringe. Any coach we get will have lost some games. It's about fit.

Based off 1 winning year. Again there are alot of intangibles that should go into a hire I find it hilarious some on the board pretend guys like Aranda & Campbell haven't been more successful than our program has been for almost a decade. 

 

The week to week power rankings on here that continously change are cringe. Any coach we get will have lost some games. It's about fit.

You can say that again 

I don't think anyone here is saying Aranda & Campbell haven't been more successful than our program over the the last decade. It's just that some of us have a little higher bar than finding a coach who can get us to a little better than what we've been. Aranda and Campbell seem like they may be able to get us to .500 football and I, for one, want better than that.

Also, Campbell is a loser. You wanna see cringe, that last clip from a press conference I saw of him was sooooo cringe (goals like "be the best version of yourself" and referring to himself the whole time in the 3rd person), I can't get behind a guy like that. Loser.

9 hours ago, M.A. said:

It doesn't represent a complete picture. There's lots of nuances. You'd have to take into consideration a host of variables.  

I think we're saying the same thing here. Sure, winning percentage isn't the be-all-end-all piece of data to look at in a vacuum on these things. But, you can't deny it should at least be a factor. Maybe @TiredHuskerFanMWI sees it that way (his first post seemed a little that way), but he seems open to also looking at wins against ranked opponents and, although he doesn't seem to care about recruiting rankings, he was open to at least discussing it.

I don't know, maybe some of us are just stat nerds who like to geek out on this kind of s#!t when we're playing imaginary AD?

Regardless, I can see his point. Maybe I don't break it down into finite, guaranteed winners and losers the way he initially did, but I can see where winning percentage alone could break it down into lowest risk hire to higher risk hire and probably be fairly accurate, save a tweak or two here and there. And I don't think it's much of a reach to make an argument for or against it being able to hold up. Like this...

Matt Rhule - 45.3% - higher risk

Lance Leipold - 50% - higher risk

Dave Clawson - 52.4% - higher risk

Bill O'Brien - 53.1% - higher risk

Mark Stoops - 53.4% - higher risk

Hugh Freeze - 57.6% - higher risk

Dave Aranda - 58.6% - higher risk

Troy Calhoun - 59.9% - higher risk

Matt Campbell - 60.6%- safe

Jeff Monken - 60.6%- safe

Lane Kiffen - 60.8%- safe

Bronco Mendenhall - 62.5%- safe

Dan Mullen - 62.8%- safe

Dave Doeren - 63%- safe

Clay Helton - 64.5%- safe

Jamie Chadwell - 65.5%- safe

David Shaw - 65.7%- safe

Kyle Whittingham - 67.1%- safe

Gus Malzahn - 67.9% - safe

Luke Fickell - 72% - lower risk

Chris Petersen - 79.5%- lower risk

Bob Stoops - 79.9%- lower risk

Deion Sanders - 80%- lower risk

Urban Meyer - 81.5%- lower risk

23 minutes ago, TiredHuskerFanMWI said:

Wins vs. ranked opponents would be kinda fun!  it still feels grey to me, but i'd use wins vs. opponents ranked at the end of the season rather than ranked the week they are playing in.  Just my personal belief rankings during the season are at least half used to boost interest and ratings in the tv agenda world.  And end of season rankings seem more honest.  I'd have to remove NFL results (unless we include playoff teams for fun?), and would consider removing anyone who has coached less than 5 FBS seasons  unless they just ended up coached against several top 25 teams in a short duration.

 

You've convinced me to take on the winning percentage vs FBS ranked end of season+NFL season playoff teams project.   I may have to move Aranda off the list unless he has enough games against ranked teams to sink into. eh..i'll leave him since he seems to be some type of candidate.  I might add in Troy Calhoun and Jeff Monken just because. I guess I should add Bob Stoops as well.

 

For anyone wondering FBS wining percentages for three added coaches are :

 

Jeff Monken - 60.6%

Troy Calhoun - 59.9%

Bob Stoops - 79.9%

Definitely with you on the ranked at the end of the year, not when they played part. Personally, I'd remove NFL altogether. It's a completely different game and it's been pretty well proven that success in one doesn't mean squat for success in another.

1 minute ago, TiredHuskerFanMWI said:

I actually hate doing anything with recruiting rankings for a few reasons:

 

1) is a composite of all ranking sites really a fair grade?  I have my doubts.  

 

2) How do we factor in transfers in/out, because;

 

3) I learned under Frost recruiting rankings are basically useless if you can't develop  or refuse to play your recruits and/or if they ultimately decide they are butt hurt/their coach is an idiot and transfer out.

 

basically , I don't trust recruiting rankings therefore I wouldn't find the exercise rewarding.  the value Nebraska has gotten out of recruiting classes, in recent times especially, has to be very low.  So my mind concludes, how useful is it?  Of course, we've just recently discovered Frost was running a dumpster fire from literally day 1...so maybe they are reliable just not for Nebraska?  it feels very manufactured while a football win can be treated as nothing other than a football win.

Fair enough. However, although good recruiting classes don't necessarily equal high winning percentage, I think those with the best winning percentages likely have high recruiting rankings. 24/7 let's you include transfers and look at overall rankings now (recruits + transfers). Maybe I'll run the numbers if I have some time this weekend.

9 minutes ago, TiredHuskerFanMWI said:

IDK they certainly don't sustain wins over time like other coaches do.  Also, asking if i'm trolling seems odd.  I'm just laying out why I prefer Urban Meyer, Chris Petersen, and Luke Fickell as prime candidates.  Those don't seem like coaches I'd be publicly behind if I'd be trolling.  

Can you do the same for average recruiting rankings? I actually think Rhule and Leipold are good coaches despite their overall winning percentages, mostly just going by the eye test. But their recruiting classes are pretty dismal and neither has beat (m)any ranked opponents.

6 minutes ago, TiredHuskerFanMWI said:

total career head coach wins with FBS/NFL combined. No Division1/2/3 or whatever the lower levels are known as these days.  The NFL win totals don't really affect anyone other than Bill O'Brien, just brings him down from 62.5% 

 

Sure - guys can find success in bunches of season or in a bottle/vacuum.  Grains of salt can be applied.  I've applied grains of salt to the last several coaching hires and they all were frustrating, so I'm just relying on win percentage this time around.  Anything less than 70% but greater than 60% to me is comparable to the current West coaches and we'll win some games, have some seasons where we can compete for the division, and solidify bowl appearances.

 

Less than 60% is Mike Riley territory.

 

I mean for Matt Rhule fans, if you want to take out NFL results and bump him to a 52% sub-60 tier coach and sell him as the best option...go ahead.  

Yeah, I caught that and edited my post. Good to know the NFL thing is pretty much a moot point. Honestly, you might be onto something and I can't really argue with your analysis at all.

I know you didn't include minor leagues (or whatever it's called these days), but I added 1 for you that shouldn't be overlooked just behind Urban at 80%. Yeah, I know, I apparently have an unhealthy obsession 

57 minutes ago, TiredHuskerFanMWI said:

Matt Rhule - 45.3%

Lance Leipold - 50%

Dave Clawson - 52.4%

Bill O'Brien - 53.1%

Mark Stoops - 53.4%

Hugh Freeze - 57.6%

Dave Aranda - 58.6%

Matt Campbell - 60.6%

Lane Kiffen - 60.8%

Bronco Mendenhall - 62.5%

Dan Mullen - 62.8%

Dave Doeren - 63%

Clay Helton - 64.5%

Jamie Chadwell - 65.5%

David Shaw - 65.7%

Kyle Whittingham - 67.1%

Gus Malzahn - 67.9%

Luke Fickell - 72%

Chris Petersen - 79.5%

Deion Sanders - 80%

Urban Meyer - 81.5%

Good info. Are these percentages based on total career or just their most recent jobs or how does that work? Edit, spot checking a couple and it looks like you're going with career totals.

And I'm sure you know this, but you have to take some of those lower guys with a grain of salt. A lot of them are being highly regarded for rebuilding programs, which inherently have some first couple years with an asterisk by them. Also, winning percentage isn't everything. Hell Nick Saban was only 58.6% at Sparty when LSU found him.

13 minutes ago, TiredHuskerFanMWI said:

It's inexcusable for Trev not to be courting Meyer/Petersen, with Fickell as the 3rd option.

How do you know he's not?

Quote

The fact that he's obsessed with sub 60 coaches makes me assume Trev is Eichorst in an Alberts mask.

How do you know he is?

29 minutes ago, M.A. said:

I’d doubt that we’re going to shell out $10M for Rhule to start. There’s added value with hiring him as opposed to other options. 
 

We aren’t paying a buyout. We’d potentially be gaining $3-4M a year that could be used toward assistants. Initially. Or, $12-16M over the course of four years. With respect to what he’s owed from the Carolina Panthers.
 

Instead of cost, it’s a hidden asset. Carolina is essentially helping bolster our assistant budget or, offsetting the cost of Frost’s dismissal.

 

I don’t think we’re hiring under $6M and I doubt it’s much over $8M maximum. 

Good point. Funny...my top 3 choices have (essentially) no buyout. And I'm in the "we need to spend whatever it takes to get the right guy" camp. My top 3 choices are also all already set for life financially, so, there's that.

55 minutes ago, MyBloodIsRed16 said:

They will do anything to keep the sell out streak alive.  even make seats unavailable for two years. 

Been done before...

Just now, huskerpower22 said:

For that amount of money I would be sipping margaritas by an ocean for eternity :>)

Yeah, maybe there's a reason we're all nothing more than a bunch of keyboard coaches 

2 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

The difference is that he can either A) get it from from the Panthers for doing absolutely nothing; or B) get it from us for coaching and all that entails. What would you do?

I'd be drinking a Carib on a beach in St Barth for for the rest of my life. I was just assuming he'd want to coach again.

4 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

 

https://athlonsports.com/nfl/heres-how-much-money-panthers-still-have-to-pay-matt-rhule

 

We'd likely have too offer $10-mil/yr. to get him to consider.

I don't think it really matters because whatever that number is, he's getting it either way.

5 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

 

He'll be making 40-mil over 48 months, which amounts to $10-mil/year, $833K/mo. Now remember, that's to sit at home doing nothing. So, whoever hires him is gonna have to make it worthwhile. 

2 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

 

From my understanding they will be paying him $40-mil over the next 48 months.

I think your math is a little off because part of that $40M number that's being thrown around is for this year which makes it $40M over 5 years. So it's somewhere closer to $8M per year for 2023-2026. I could be wrong though.

Just now, M.A. said:

I’d imagine we’d be compensating Rhule less than he’s being compensated after dismissal. The Panthers would continue to pay him a yet undetermined amount. 

My understanding is he gets around $8.85 million per year from the Panthers (7 year, $62M contract). He already got that for year 1 and 2 when he was coaching and he'll get it from them for the rest of this season. So, the Panthers are out around $26.55M of the $62M no matter what. But he's still owed the rest of the contract no matter what, so roughly $35.45M. After this year, whatever his new deal is with his new team will go against the balance. So essentially, he's getting paid $8.85 per year for the next 4 years no matter what. The only question is where it comes from. If we hired him and pay him $7M per year, the Panthers pay him the other $1.85M for the next 4 years. If we hired him and pay him $9M, the Panthers are off the hook. The Panthers really want him to return to coaching a demand a really high price tag.

15 hours ago, UniversalMartin said:

They have to be cage free bones

Does that mean we also just have to call them "shirts" when they get brought back?

9 minutes ago, M.A. said:

 

We’d have to examine the details of what’s stipulated in Rhule’s contract with Carolina. 

Around how much do you think Nebraska will be offering Rhule if there’s a mutual interest? 
 

I’m guessing in the $7-8M neighborhood.  

5 minutes ago, HANC said:

I do not know this for a fact, but according to the radio talk shows, the Panthers have to make up the difference between what they owe him and guaranteed money and what he is going to make at this next job.

Yep, pretty sure that's how these deals work. One of the benefits to firing him early for the Panthers was to have him on the market as early as possible in hopes that he takes a college gig to lower the payment on what they owe him.

24 minutes ago, huskerpower22 said:

Understood. Found this nugget on 247 sports by Chris Hummer in regard to Rhule and his player development. You mentioned his recruiting classes above so wanted to bring to light what he did with less:

 

"Few coaches have developed like Rhule, and you can see that success peppered across the NFL Draft.

 

Six Owls were selected while Rhule was the program’s head coach. Six more of his former recruits were drafted in the two years after Rhule departed. That’s 12 draft picks in four years. Temple produced total 12 draft picks between 1997-2015. The Owls also haven’t had a non-Rhule recruit drafted since.

 

His results at Baylor were nearly as impressive.

 

Baylor had the seventh-most players drafted of any college in the 2022 NFL Draft. Those like Tyquan Thornton and Kalon Barnes lit up the combine with their testing times. All six of them were Rhule evaluations and recruits.

Given his recruiting pools and circumstances, few, if any, college coaches have done a better job evaluating and developing than Rhule over the last decade."

Yeah, I did see that about NFL talent. It’s pretty damn impressive. I was very close to that whole Baylor situation (living in Dallas) and Rhule was very highly regarded through that whole thing. What he did with that situation was pretty magical. I don’t love the fact that he’s never beat a ranked team, and I think his recruiting classes will have to improve (you need to be able to recruit and develop to win championships) to get to the elite level. But he’s got enough other really strong points to offset all that. He’s going to get a top gig if he wants it and I’d be great with him at Nebraska. He’s pretty squarely in my top 3. Texas fans are worried OU will fire Venables and hire Rhule if that tells you anything.

42 minutes ago, M.A. said:

It seems Rhule is sitting in a sweet spot to me. With his guaranteed income that frees up more resources for assistants. He gets paid handsomely either way and has the option of getting a great staff to boot. Then as his pay with the Panthers comes to a close, his salary can be sweetened as time progresses.
 

I wouldn’t assume that Rhule will sit out for awhile to kick back and recharge. He’s sitting in a very good spot now. His opportunities in college now significantly exceed what they once were in my opinion. If you’re a fan of Matt Rhule and are pulling for him there’s cause for optimism. 
 

By assembling a top level staff that are high caliber developers that helps him draw in better recruits. It all starts at the line of scrimmage. Make that a priority. 

I don’t think that’s how this works. Pretty sure the Panther money goes away the minute he takes another coaching job. Or am I misreading your post?

46 minutes ago, huskerpower22 said:

Given this scenario, Mickey and Busch have a great working relationship with Aranda so I can see that being plausible. I disagree about a lateral move with Campbell, Leipold, and Klieman. Whether we like them or not, they are all experienced head coaches who have developed players as coordinators and head coaches in less than ideal conditions. Speaking of Leipold,  has been a HC for a long time and Mickey would be able to learn a ton with him in the mix. He has a lot of Bill Snyder in him, no nonsense approach. Leipold isn't my #1, but I think he would do well here especially if Mickey is staying around. How can you not be sure of Rhule? We are Nebraska who hasn't been relevant for 20+ years. It would be a huge hit if Rhule considers coaching here. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all those guys aren't an upgrade literally. They all most certainly are, on paper anyway. I'm saying if I'm Mickey, I may not see it that way...at least not to the extent of wanting to stick around and learn under them. I mean, sure they've all done pretty good things and he could probably stick around and learn under them. But it's not like they're a bunch of coaching legends with serious skins on the wall that he'd be crazy not to stick around and work under. Maybe I'm reading too much into it and Mickey would see it differently, I don't know. But, when I hear Trev already has his guy and Mickey's on board, I just assume it's a significant upgrade.

And I wasn't saying I'm not sure on Rhule (or Leipold) as a coach, although he's never beat a ranked opponent and his recruiting classes were fairly poor. I was saying I'm not sure if Mickey would see either of them as significant enough upgrades to give his blessing to. Aranda, sure great working relationship, so maybe you're right. But if I'm Mickey, I can make a reeeeeeally strong case that I'm the next Aranda, so I don't see it at all.

I'm probably just reading into it what I want to hear, which is the case with a lot of us. That said, I hope to God it's not Campbell or Aranda. Give me Mickey over either of those...all...day...long, and I'm far from being a "keep Mickey" proponent.