Best long term prospects in Big 12 Football

[tattooedhusker]

People have been saying that about A&M for a long time (myself included), when the hell are they gonna get the formula right!!?

[Huskers Forever]

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.

[carlfense]

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.

 

Agreed. 100%

[Enhance]

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.

 

Agreed. 100%

 

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.

 

People like Callahan just don't fit into college because of their business take and their in-depth ideas. Sherman probably just doesn't have what it takes to be a good college coach, but time will tell. Rich Rodriguez had a poor year at Michigan but he isn't a bad coach, so we just gotta wait it out and watch what unfolds.

[jayhawk]

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...

[HSKRNOKC]

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...

[BeachBuffs]

Hard to predict any of this, if you go back 30 years ago would anyone have predicted that Texas would have gone through about a 10 year stretch of mediocrity from the mid 80's on. Would anyone back in the early 90's predicted that Nebraska would have been mediocre during the first decade of the new millenium? In 1990 would anyone have thought that within 7-8 years that the only team capable of challenging NU would have been KSU? So we really do not know how any of this will all pan out but I bet we will all stay tuned to find out.

[Jim Hammer]

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.

[Enhance]

The other schools will have to gamble on a hot assistant coach or small school head coach and hope to hit a home run.

 

Or just find a 70 year old coach a little bit past his prime

 

What goes around comes around, which sometimes sucks and that is what happened to us this decade. Texas and OU all had long stretches of mediocrity and bad losses, and Nebraska has a had a few years of mediocrity and embarrassing losses. We won't be down forever, and Texas and OU won't be up forever. But I do agree, coaching has a hell of a lot to do with it (I would argue the most to do with it).

[Cy the Cyclone]

I think it is important to note ...failure breeds failure....

 

Do your Ma and Pa know you're writing such nasty things about them here?

[jayhawk]

I think it is important to note ...failure breeds failure....

 

Do your Ma and Pa know you're writing such nasty things about them here?

 

Et Tu, Brute?

[jayhawk]

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 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...

 

1) Money

2) Geographic access to good recruits

3) Great Fan Base

4) History / Game day experience (related because history that is too stale, that no one gets excited about, is not too valuable.)

5) Great facilities

6) Proximity to fans to fill stadium (which effects Money, fan base and game day experience)

 

 

On a side note, NU does spend a fair amount, pretty close to OU in spending (within 20%).

[Enhance]

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.

 

2) Geographic access to good recruits

 

 

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 Texas

 

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.

[jayhawk]

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.

 

2) Geographic access to good recruits

 

 

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 Texas

 

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.

 

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.

 

Also, what is wrong with Washington? It is right in Seattle, they are in the Pac 10, and a lot of those big Samoan kids like to play on the West Coast as well (no idea why that is, but it seems true anyway), It is a decent sized state, etc. It is not like USC or something, but it is a pretty decent sized state and they do not even get snow...

[huskered17]

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.

 

2) Geographic access to good recruits

 

 

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 Texas

 

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.

 

 

This gos back to the coaching staff. We won all those games because of the coaches, knowing how to get the most out of 3 and 4 star players.

As far as Washington gos, I think any time your close to an ocean, that's only a plus for recruiting. They only need what Nebraska had, and now has , is good coaches again.

 

GBR!!!