Does the Coaching Carousel help us?

[billdozer15]

Maybe I jumped the gun a bit, but I thought ESPN reported last night that Chow was in and was working out the contract details with USC.

 

Knowing ESPN that was probably an interweb rumor that they decided to report as fact.

[sd'sker]

The coaching carousel means nothings if our players can't produce.

+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.

 

Can someone refer me to the page in the College Football Handbook where it states that teams replacing coaches will have a poorer than expected result in the first year. I can't find it.

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.

[junior4949]

I wouldn't count USC out of anything. Monte Kiffin is a heck of a DC, and Norm Chow is a heck of an OC. Even though Lane is a complete sleazeball, he has surrounded himself with some outstanding assistants. I'd be willing to put 100 bucks on USC winning the Pac 10 in spite of having a douche for a coach.

 

Where can I get in on this bet?

 

Bookmark this thread. If USC doesn't win/share the Pac 10 title, I'll mail you 100 bucks cash.

[Count 'Bility]

Everyone seems to want to discuss on the field affects, but what about recruiting. Are there any major recruits that we may have fallin out of the running with that we may be back in the race for due to the coaching change frenzy goin on. Secondly, is it just me or does the so called caroussel seem a little larger this year than usual or does it just seem that way cuz of all the more well known names flying around?

[Count 'Bility]

Everyone seems to want to discuss on the field affects, but what about recruiting. Are there any major recruits that we may have fallin out of the running with that we may be back in the race for due to the coaching change frenzy goin on. Secondly, is it just me or does the so called caroussel seem a little larger this year than usual or does it just seem that way cuz of all the more well known names flying around?

[Captain K]

The coaching carousel means nothings if our players can't produce.

+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.

 

Can someone refer me to the page in the College Football Handbook where it states that teams replacing coaches will have a poorer than expected result in the first year. I can't find it.

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.

[default_28]

The coaching carousel means nothings if our players can't produce.

+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.

 

Can someone refer me to the page in the College Football Handbook where it states that teams replacing coaches will have a poorer than expected result in the first year. I can't find it.

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.

[default_28]

My last post wasn't very coherent. My point was it's easier to improve a teams record if you're replacing a coach that was fired because he wasn't winning games, as opposed to coaches that replace coaches that left or were fired for off the field issues.

[schuhbdoo]

Everyone seems to want to discuss on the field affects, but what about recruiting. Are there any major recruits that we may have fallin out of the running with that we may be back in the race for due to the coaching change frenzy goin on. Secondly, is it just me or does the so called caroussel seem a little larger this year than usual or does it just seem that way cuz of all the more well known names flying around?

 

 

I think Oregon will have something to do with the Pac 10 title. QB returns and their RB will be a soph. Talent all over the roster.

 

First year coach had a better year than the previous guy!!!

 

Washington may have a role in this as well.

[Hunter94]

as usual, it is what we do and achieve that counts.......and not at the expense of anyone else, focusing on that is a waste of time.....hoping we get stronger, because someone else gets weaker or has to go through a transition is a useless exercise.

[sd'sker]

My last post wasn't very coherent. My point was it's easier to improve a teams record if you're replacing a coach that was fired because he wasn't winning games, as opposed to coaches that replace coaches that left or were fired for off the field issues.

i agree, there is a difference between being fired and being stolen. it is generally hard to do worse than a fired coach, that is why they are fired. a stolen coach is doing good, that is why he is stolen. who wants to follow petey? he never lost a non-conference game, he won all of his bowls, and he had a 90% winning percentage; you got to image a job off, even with the less than stellar year.

 

look at Notre Dame, there new coaches always start out hot, and then fizzle because they are inherent talent but can not coach. kansas will probably do better because it would be hard for them not to, ttu will have a hard time. tennessee will lose a lot of recruit and did not have a great year this year anyway. florida is losing everying. usc will be hard to say because they have a lot of talent and under performed this year. who knows what will happen, but i got to believe that the instability will have an adverse affect at least at first.

 

but i got to agree that every instances will be different, but there is a reason knoxville freaked out.

[skersfan]

SC will be better next year no question.

 

Not because of Lane, but because of Monte. They have a great recruiting coordinator now and the fact that they are talking to Chow is a major positive.

 

The QB will have a year under his belt and will be darned good.

 

I doubt that it helps or hinders Nebraska this year, but it will have an effect on Nebraska in the years that follow. I expect Lane to light a real fire under the SC bus. They will quickly return to what Carrol had them at is my guess. Not saying that Lane is better than Pete, but the old band is reunited and they have not been gone that long, a lot of the players know them and welcome them back.