Do we have better athletes (across the board) than UCF?

[Isle of View]

3 minutes ago, lo country said:

Look at the rankings and then their W-L records of the teams on that list.  Coaching appears to be a huge factor in success.......TCU, Wisky for example...or LSU as a team that's imploding...

Coaching is by FAR the most important factor in the success of a football team.

[The Dude]

20 minutes ago, Isle of View said:

Coaching is by FAR the most important factor in the success of a football team.

If you read HuskerBoard it's:

 

1. Offensive line coach

2. Backup running back

3. Everything else

[Undone]

24 minutes ago, The Dude said:

If you read HuskerBoard it's:

 

1. Offensive line coach

2. Backup running back

3. Everything else

+1, I laughed hard.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Isle of View said:

Coaching is by FAR the most important factor in the success of a football team.

MNC winners 2001 Miami and 2010 Auburn disagree.

 

There's not one "by FAR the most important factor in the success of a football team", many, many factors matter.

[Isle of View]

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

MNC winners 2001 Miami and 2010 Auburn disagree.

 

There's not one "by FAR the most important factor in the success of a football team", many, many factors matter.

Because there are many factors, that means there can't be one that's most important?  

 

Also, a couple weak exeptions don't disprove a general rule.  

[RedDenver]

Just now, Isle of View said:

Because there are many factors, that means there can't be one that's most important?  

 

Also, a couple weak exeptions don't disprove a general rule.  

I'm not saying that many factors mean there can't be a single most important factor. I am saying that there are many factors in football and coaching is not, as you said, "by FAR the most important factor."

 

No, but even weak counter-examples are a lot more convincing than no evidence and just stating something.

[Isle of View]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'm not saying that many factors mean there can't be a single most important factor. I am saying that there are many factors in football and coaching is not, as you said, "by FAR the most important factor."

 

No, but even weak counter-examples are a lot more convincing than no evidence and just stating something.

There are millions of examples.  OU was floundering.  Bob Stoops comes in and wins NC in year 2.  Pete Carroll at USC.  What did they do before and after Pete?  What did Alabama do before Saban?  What about what Chris Petersen did at Boise St with recruiting classes that averaged in the 60s?  What about the hapless Huskers pre-1962?  How long did it take for the Bobfather to turn it around?

 

I could go on all day.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have said "by far".  Coaching is clearly the most important factor.  

 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Isle of View said:

There are millions of examples.  OU was floundering.  Bob Stoops comes in and wins NC in year 2.  Pete Carroll at USC.  What did they do before and after Pete?  What did Alabama do before Saban?  What about what Chris Petersen did at Boise St with recruiting classes that averaged in the 60s?  What about the hapless Huskers pre-1962?  How long did it take for the Bobfather to turn it around?

 

I could go on all day.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have said "by far".  Coaching is clearly the most important factor.  

 

And I'd make the argument that talented players are the most important. Every team you mentioned had talent. And I'm not saying coaching isn't very important, but it's definitely not clear that it's the most important. A lot of factors go into having a good to great team, and coaching is certainly part of that, but I'd take great talent and average coaching over great coaching and average talent. It's certainly subjective though.

[Isle of View]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

And I'd make the argument that talented players are the most important. Every team you mentioned had talent. And I'm not saying coaching isn't very important, but it's definitely not clear that it's the most important. A lot of factors go into having a good to great team, and coaching is certainly part of that, but I'd take great talent and average coaching over great coaching and average talent. It's certainly subjective though.

Tell me, who is it that convinces talented players to play for them?  Oops, I think I answered my own question.

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, Isle of View said:

Tell me, who is it that convinces talented players to play for them?  Oops, I think I answered my own question.

So in your own example, you thought Bob Stoops recruited the players he won the title with in his second year?

 

Of course recruiting matters - I'm even arguing that talented players is the most important factor. But being a good recruiter is not the same as being a good coach. And even in recruiting, the coach is not the only factor, as parents, friends, location, fans, academics, etc. all factor into whether a player is convinced to play for a coach. And in some cases, like Stoops and his title or Pelini with Suh, other circumstances (e.g. the coaching changes) ended up being bigger factors than the coach's recruiting prowess.

[Isle of View]

Just now, RedDenver said:

So in your own example, you thought Bob Stoops recruited the players he won the title with in his second year?

 

Of course recruiting matters - I'm even arguing that talented players is the most important factor. But being a good recruiter is not the same as being a good coach. And even in recruiting, the coach is not the only factor, as parents, friends, location, fans, academics, etc. all factor into whether a player is convinced to play for a coach. And in some cases, like Stoops and his title or Pelini with Suh, other circumstances (e.g. the coaching changes) ended up being bigger factors than the coach's recruiting prowess.

 

Right, so good players sign with good recruiters and ignore what kind of coach they're going to play for?

 

Good players want to play for good coaches (those who win) and become better players.  Just because you can list other factors that might come into play doesn't mean they're as important as coaching.  It's the most important factor.

 

And Stoops was able to bring in some good juco players that contributed right away, but they won the NC because his coaching maximized the potential of the entire team.  My last post was about the fact that even if you try to claim that talent is more important, it's still the coach that brought in that talent.

[RedDenver]

7 minutes ago, Isle of View said:

 

Right, so good players sign with good recruiters and ignore what kind of coach they're going to play for?

 

Good players want to play for good coaches (those who win) and become better players.  Just because you can list other factors that might come into play doesn't mean they're as important as coaching.  It's the most important factor.

 

And Stoops was able to bring in some good juco players that contributed right away, but they won the NC because his coaching maximized the potential of the entire team.  My last post was about the fact that even if you try to claim that talent is more important, it's still the coach that brought in that talent.

Ron Zook is the poster boy for recruiter that wasn't a good coach. I'm sure you can think of others.

 

You keep asserting that coaching is the most important factor, and if that's your opinion, fine, but I'm not convinced by you repeating it.

 

The bolded part is absolutely contradicted by the example of Stoops. Stoops didn't bring in that talent, he just didn't. Same with Pelini and that great 2009 defense, he just didn't bring in that talent. Both of those coaches were much better at coaching than the previous coach that had recruited those players, but then again neither of those coaches were ever as good as when they had talent from another coach, which supports my stance that there's a lot of factors and it's not clear that coaching is the most important.

[Isle of View]

27 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Ron Zook is the poster boy for recruiter that wasn't a good coach. I'm sure you can think of others.

 

You keep asserting that coaching is the most important factor, and if that's your opinion, fine, but I'm not convinced by you repeating it.

 

The bolded part is absolutely contradicted by the example of Stoops. Stoops didn't bring in that talent, he just didn't. Same with Pelini and that great 2009 defense, he just didn't bring in that talent. Both of those coaches were much better at coaching than the previous coach that had recruited those players, but then again neither of those coaches were ever as good as when they had talent from another coach, which supports my stance that there's a lot of factors and it's not clear that coaching is the most important.

You're making my arguments for me.  Thank you!

 

How did Ron Zook do with all that talent?  How did John Blake do with all that talent?  Poor coaches.  Poor records.

 

But when you try to place the credit for winning with the talent instead of the coach, it's still a coach who brought in the talent.  Recruiting is part of coaching.

 

It's like me saying that the most important thing for a good meal is a good cook, and you claim it's the seasonings.  But it's still the cook that chooses and puts the seasonings into the food.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Isle of View said:

You're making my arguments for me.  Thank you!

 

How did Ron Zook do with all that talent?  How did John Blake do with all that talent?  Poor coaches.  Poor records.

 

But when you try to place the credit for winning with the talent instead of the coach, it's still a coach who brought in the talent.  Recruiting is part of coaching.

 

It's like me saying that the most important thing for a good meal is a good cook, and you claim it's the seasonings.  But it's still the cook that chooses and puts the seasonings into the food.

How am I making your argument exactly? I've said repeatedly that there are lots of factors, so it makes sense that just having a good coach or just having talent isn't always enough.

 

As for the bold: except for the examples where I've showed that the coach won with players he didn't recruit. If you really want to prove your point, then you'd need to show where good or great coaching overcame talent deficiencies. My point is shown when even good to great coaches like Bill McCartney and Bill Snyder didn't win until they had good talent, and again when mediocre to lousy coaches like Larry Coker and Gene Chizik won national title with exceptional talent.

[84HuskerLaw]

Hm:   Kind of an interesting little paradox that seems to emerge from the foregoing discussion:   It would appear that Callahan was a darn good recruiter who managed to bring in a number of NFL caliber players but failed to turn them into a college football that won a lot.  Pelini comes in and gets some success in year two of his reign with thos Callahan guys but over time, he fails to keep the recruits coming and the talent pool shrinks.  He manages to find ways to get that 9th win (maybe some luck, schedule, darn good defensive strategy in games, etc.) but the pressure gets to him and he lashes out at almost everybody not within his own inner circle and as far as I know most all of his players.  He alienates the fans, the media and the administration.  He explodes in tirades and gets himself fired.   Riley comes in to a program that clearly is NOT as talented as that which Pelini inherited although we don't have the final tally based on NFL players apparently.  

 

Riley, however, has failed to find ways to win about four or five games so far that we almost certainly should have and could have won.  This is Riley's big problem.   He has just not got the team adequately prepared to compete in a number of games that, any reasonable minded football observer would say he should have.  This is Riley's achilles heel frankly.  He scores well when grading him in many areas but team prep and in game strategic planning and decision making are the areas where, in my view, he sometimes falls short of excellence.  His recruiting and his public persona and the academice (apparently) are all good enough.   We need to see some games where we can all honestly say ' Riley out coached the opponent' or something along those lines.  I don't recall many games where that was really apparent.