Who should our next HC be?

[Knothole Seats @ 50 Cents]

Who is this Lane Kiffen guy I see referenced from time to time?

[Hayseed]

4 hours ago, TiredHuskerFanMWI said:

 

 

FBS+NFL winning percentages of various coaches in ascending order of coaches in the rumor mill with several added by me:

 

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%

Urban Meyer - 81.5%

 

It's inexcusable for Trev not to be courting Meyer/Petersen, with Fickell as the 3rd option.  The fact that he's obsessed with sub 60 coaches makes me assume Trev is Eichorst in an Alberts mask.  I won't believe anything else until proven wrong by Trev and only Trev.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those are pretty worthless stats since some of those coaches did complete rebuilds starting with a horrible season and having their team at the top by the third season. A bunch of flimflam if you ask me.

[Husker816]

17 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Frost was a great hire at the time. 20/20 hindsight after the fact of a coach failing has no bearing on whether they were a great hire or the right hire at the time.

 

The most educated and genius football minds to ever exist couldn't have predicted how Frost would have turned out.

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.

17 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Frost was a great hire at the time. 20/20 hindsight after the fact of a coach failing has no bearing on whether they were a great hire or the right hire at the time.

 

The most educated and genius football minds to ever exist couldn't have predicted how Frost would have turned out.

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.

17 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Frost was a great hire at the time. 20/20 hindsight after the fact of a coach failing has no bearing on whether they were a great hire or the right hire at the time.

 

The most educated and genius football minds to ever exist couldn't have predicted how Frost would have turned out.

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.

[thexyz]

1 hour ago, Hayseed said:

Those are pretty worthless stats since some of those coaches did complete rebuilds starting with a horrible season and having their team at the top by the third season. A bunch of flimflam if you ask me.

 

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

[UniversalMartin]

4 hours ago, Knothole Seats @ 50 Cents said:

Who is this Lane Kiffen guy I see referenced from time to time?

Lane Kiffen sounds like what Ben Affleck's character shoulda been named in "Dazed and Confused"

[Hayseed]

35 minutes 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 say it's flimflam snake oil.

[Red Silk Smoking Jacket]

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

[Red Silk Smoking Jacket]

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.

[Red Silk Smoking Jacket]

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"

[Red Silk Smoking Jacket]

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 

 

 

[Savage Husker]

David Shaw has torpedoed Stanford. So overrated.

[Hayseed]

23 minutes ago, Red Silk Smoking Jacket said:

 

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 

 

 

But are they really good because they're good, or because they're surrounded by good players who make them look gooder?

[Hayseed]

1 hour ago, Red Silk Smoking Jacket said:

 

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.

He has a point though...you don't want to present yourself as the self rolling out of bed in your underwear.....unless you are super hot and the women can't get enough of underpants you....which most of us are not. I'd rather the coach just present himself as the best develop your players and call the right plays that win the game self....and leave the waitresses alone self.

[thexyz]

45 minutes ago, Hayseed said:

But are they really good because they're good, or because they're surrounded by good players who make them look gooder?

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.

[Red Silk Smoking Jacket]

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.