|
Post by rmcalhoun on Sept 18, 2019 14:11:33 GMT -6
Ive said it before and I will say it again there are 50 young aggressive lower levels coaches that would jump at the chance to coach BSU. You just have too have someone smart to identify one of the best ones. Is it a crap shoot yes maybe but schools pull it off every year
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Sept 18, 2019 14:29:08 GMT -6
And can put together a staff that makes an impact.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Sept 18, 2019 15:02:13 GMT -6
If everyone is right, and you probably are, where is our next coach coming from? This is a program that is trouble that doesnt pay its assistants well , doesnt have a great football history, blah, blah, blah...I just do not have the energy any more. I am about ready to give up. It seems to be a fight for every dollar. A fight for piece of equipment, for every facility that everyone else already has. We are NEVER proactive, ALWAYS REACTIVE. No foresight only hindsight. As the old folk song goes...''The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind.'' Since we are in the MAC, we aren't dropping the sport. If you can't fund it, can't or won't drop it, the AD is in a bind. Maybe can't even do the usual kick the can strategy of buyout one year and hire a new coach, infusing the program with "hope" without expectations being very high for a couple of years.
All radical moves to create a winning MAC program are dubious in terms of success and sadly even if successful will be unlikely to create enough revenue to right the sinking financials. And as others have pointed out going down a level isn't all that much cheaper and if it means leaving the MAC is not easy to implement as a solution.
We are in a holding pattern where the goal is probably to preserve the sport and hope for something major to change with FBS football to lessen the pain. We are not the only school in this situation. Something has to give fairly soon.
Oh something will give alright. The taxpayers and students will give more money for something they have absolutely no interest in, and get no benefit from. There is no sign I can see that indicates this will change anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by rgmillikan on Sept 18, 2019 17:13:42 GMT -6
Guys if EMU can beat 3 BT teams on the road in 3 yrs we can do the same thing with the right coach. EMU is not more attractive to most coaches or recruits. They had played 3 of their 4 Non conference games on the road for many yrs to bring in more money. I agree, it's a matter of trial and error. Between Harkema and Creighton EMU canned 5 coaches in span of 20 yr. This was also true at Duke with a litany of failures between Spurrier and Cutcliffe. It takes finding that 1 right fit.
|
|
|
Post by bsu0 on Sept 19, 2019 11:14:09 GMT -6
One right fit...We just cant buy off the rack...gotta be tailor made and seems to be out of our budget
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 19, 2019 13:44:50 GMT -6
Guys if EMU can beat 3 BT teams on the road in 3 yrs we can do the same thing with the right coach. EMU is not more attractive to most coaches or recruits. They had played 3 of their 4 Non conference games on the road for many yrs to bring in more money. I agree, it's a matter of trial and error. Between Harkema and Creighton EMU canned 5 coaches in span of 20 yr. This was also true at Duke with a litany of failures between Spurrier and Cutcliffe. It takes finding that 1 right fit. Which of the three programs is likely to have any kind of sustainable success? Which is most likely to fail to keep the coach which finally got them success, or replace him with an equally good one? Which may be one and done? Which can longer term come close to supporting a winning program which continues to be FBS?
|
|
|
Post by rgmillikan on Sept 19, 2019 18:38:23 GMT -6
I agree, it's a matter of trial and error. Between Harkema and Creighton EMU canned 5 coaches in span of 20 yr. This was also true at Duke with a litany of failures between Spurrier and Cutcliffe. It takes finding that 1 right fit. Which of the three programs is likely to have any kind of sustainable success? Which is most likely to fail to keep the coach which finally got them success, or replace him with an equally good one? Which may be one and done? Which can longer term come close to supporting a winning program which continues to be FBS? Losing successful MAC coaches for P5 or just below P5 like AAC or MWC is part of the deal for most MAC programs. Ohio is the exception because Solich has no desire to head to a slightly better joh and no P5 programs would want him Even NIU which I would consider a more respectable program than BSU or EMU loses coaches.
|
|
|
Post by rgmillikan on Sept 19, 2019 18:41:35 GMT -6
Which of the three programs is likely to have any kind of sustainable success? Which is most likely to fail to keep the coach which finally got them success, or replace him with an equally good one? Which may be one and done? Which can longer term come close to supporting a winning program which continues to be FBS? Losing successful MAC coaches for P5 or just below P5 like AAC or MWC is part of the deal for most MAC programs. Ohio is the exception because Solich has no desire to take a slightly better job and no P5 programs would want him. Even NIU which I would consider a more respectable program than BSU or EMU has lost multiple coaches to larger conferences.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 19, 2019 20:14:55 GMT -6
Which of the three programs is likely to have any kind of sustainable success? Which is most likely to fail to keep the coach which finally got them success, or replace him with an equally good one? Which may be one and done? Which can longer term come close to supporting a winning program which continues to be FBS? Losing successful MAC coaches for P5 or just below P5 like AAC or MWC is part of the deal for most MAC programs. Ohio is the exception because Solich has no desire to head to a slightly better joh and no P5 programs would want him Even NIU which I would consider a more respectable program than BSU or EMU loses coaches. How true. But being the cradle of coaches has not made the MAC a sustainable conference and no MAC program has an athletic budget that is all that financially sound.
My point especially is that EMU is hardly a sound Program, even at MAC level, and is likely not capable of continuing to be very good because of this recent relative success. Sure it's fun for fans, the few they have, but EMU is unlikely to have turned anything significantly around. Nor is Creighton a sustainable model long term for FBS football.
Which program is the best bet to survive 10 years in FBS? The one with a bigger conference affiliation. Maybe not actually a real power in a power conference, but Duke can afford major college FBS football.
|
|
|
Post by rgmillikan on Oct 19, 2019 15:17:01 GMT -6
I missed the boat so badly on this thread and I couldn't be more pleased to be wrong.
|
|