+1. I agree
this is not supposed to be rude/sarcastic, but nothing matters if our players can't produce. the question is how will this affect NU, without considering how the players will produce, or assuming they produce well.
i think it is based on history, and the assumption that there will be growing pains, issues with recruiting, developing the system...
lane 'the pain' will probably have a decent year, maybe better than this year, because of all of their talent. but kiffin has not proved that he is a good head coach, he does have a great supporting staff.
lane 'the pain' was lucky that al davis likes USC and wanted an assistant coach from there. and once a person is an nfl head coach, for some reason colleges think they will be good college head coaches.
we have learned, the hard way, that being a head coach for the raiders proves nothing.
What history? Honestly, the first thing that popped into my head was us. Bo had a better year in his first year than the previous year. Then I thought of Iowa St. Rhoads had a better year than the previous left-for-a-better-job-coach. This led me to Chizik, new at Auburn, who had a better year than AU had the previous year. I'm sure there are just as many failures as successes for first year coaches, but many are writing off Tennessee and USC based solely on having new head coaches, which is ridiculous.
The difference being that two of those coaches were hired because the team sucked. The coaching changes more then I can remember are due to dismissals and coaches leaving not just firings. The two new Big 12 coaches are not replacing fired coaches but coaches who were dismissed because of off the field issues. Texas Tech probably won't be better, Kansas might be. Just the same Tennessee, USC, Cincinnati, and South Florida will probably be worse. Though USC was down this year so they might be better.