|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 23, 2023 10:34:16 GMT -6
Semonza can move a little and the incoming recruit has some good rushing totals to go along with his passing. I think he has 31 total TD or something like that. We aren't necessarily QB poor, but we are certainly overall talent and scheme poor. Receivers and stout OL on that side. Shortage of the great athleticism good defenses always have. No lock down DB, no animal LB, no great run stuffer. VERY few MAC teams get those kind of make a difference defensive players, we can't really expect to not have some weaknesses there. That has always been MAC FB. Your defense plays out its ass and you can beat most MAC teams if you can score. A priority on offense.
We're not so bad on D, but the Neu idea of grinding it out with short passing and run up the middle is not a design to create dominance or very many big win margin games. And... it's been boring to the fans who want a bit of excitement.
Basically, these last two games have been grind it out relative success...Kelly pulling something out on QB runs is a refreshing change when it works. But we've also enjoyed things in the past a lot more when we have occasionally had a QB who made us a threat in shootouts in that last quarter.
The next coach seems to me to be more likely to bring offense and I'd hope make games entertaining. At best a change will give us a chance to grab a brass ring and get a hot coach. But staff salary budget and recruiting limitation in the bottom of FBS don't make it all that likely we get any dream maker. I do not see BSU as all that attractive a job. And no way to keep a good coach and build a program longer term.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 23, 2023 10:51:26 GMT -6
I think our best option is to target a coach who can win (hopefully) in 3-4 years or less and move on, and then make a good hire to replace that person and get more of the same. I don't see BSU having any "dean of coaches" in the MAC these days. Neu has been around too long given his lack of success. He'd have been more likely to stay even if he'd won big given he played for BSU and appears to have a great affinity for the school but that's not going to usually be the case at BSU. We didn't really need to extend him when we did. We can't afford contract extensions, our better bet is to hope a coach wants to move up and wins enough quickly enough to catch the eye of a P5 or sunbelt type school that would be considered a move up and NOT just throw an extension at him in hopes of hanging on to him. We need to want our coaches to move on before their first 5 year contract is up and quit this extension crap that locks us into bad coaches long term. BSU just isn't in a position to be a long term stop for a good coach. They're gonna want to move on because, well, it's BSU. You get some success you'd better take advantage of that and move up while you can. The key then would be to make the next hire the right hire and not some lame assistant coach for continuity's sake ala, Stan Parrish. Great OC, terrible HC.
|
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Oct 23, 2023 11:48:35 GMT -6
What I don’t understand is why any mid-major offers any type of contract. If they are good, they leave anyway! If I had been a coach, I wouldn’t want a contract with a mid major. Why even spend time worrying about such a thing. I was in a career path where some people wanted contracts others did not. I always figured my body of work would get me a better job if I wanted to move on or got fired. It worked well for the forty years I worked in the business. Coaches should be the same, let your body of work dictate your future - if your good, you can stay as long as you want or move up when you want - you’re in control of your future and not some stupid meaningless contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 23, 2023 12:15:04 GMT -6
What I don’t understand is why any mid-major offers any type of contract. If they are good, they leave anyway! 1. The contract terms mean the good coach when he leaves (actually his new school) has to pay a buyout. So it is insurance for us in case we get a good one...
2. If we want a coach to come and take on the job, attract assistants and everybody moves to Muncie with family, BSU has to offer a contract with the perk of job security. For a short term contract we'd pay a lot more per year for a coach. Every other school gives a guarantee of time to have a chance, and a coach knows they are entering a risky deal signing with us, just would not accept year to year.
The market seems to dictate a 5 year deal as the norm.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 23, 2023 12:24:11 GMT -6
I think our best option is to target a coach who can win (hopefully) in 3-4 years or less and move on, and then make a good hire to replace that person and get more of the same. I don't see BSU having any "dean of coaches" in the MAC these days. Neu has been around too long given his lack of success. He'd have been more likely to stay even if he'd won big given he played for BSU and appears to have a great affinity for the school but that's not going to usually be the case at BSU. We didn't really need to extend him when we did. We can't afford contract extensions, our better bet is to hope a coach wants to move up and wins enough quickly enough to catch the eye of a P5 or sunbelt type school that would be considered a move up and NOT just throw an extension at him in hopes of hanging on to him. We need to want our coaches to move on before their first 5 year contract is up and quit this extension crap that locks us into bad coaches long term. BSU just isn't in a position to be a long term stop for a good coach. They're gonna want to move on because, well, it's BSU. You get some success you'd better take advantage of that and move up while you can. The key then would be to make the next hire the right hire and not some lame assistant coach for continuity's sake ala, Stan Parrish. Great OC, terrible HC. Exactly, you gamble on a success story. That merry go round means every time we are in a lottery. VERY hard to get 2 or 3 good coaches in a row at low level, low budget, schools. We have maybe had two in a row, back in the day when salaries were lower.
So if you miss it is painful and a clear miss means you have to deal with a buyout and then a delay. Most likely you get the so-so coach, or things go slowly, but you are muddling along, then have a good year. Then the AD has strong incentive to extend. Can he count on doing better and doing it with a 3 or 4 year lag.
At BSU it is compounded by the year to year budget crisis, and lack of donors. Our greatest disadvantage in this game may be budget inability to get good staff. That's why we may have to count Lembo as a success. He in large part brought an intact staff, counting on moving along up with him. They were pretty good, ended up leaving when Lembo could not. Then we had a more cobbled together staff with a coach who had problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 23, 2023 13:59:20 GMT -6
I think our best option is to target a coach who can win (hopefully) in 3-4 years or less and move on, and then make a good hire to replace that person and get more of the same. I don't see BSU having any "dean of coaches" in the MAC these days. Neu has been around too long given his lack of success. He'd have been more likely to stay even if he'd won big given he played for BSU and appears to have a great affinity for the school but that's not going to usually be the case at BSU. We didn't really need to extend him when we did. We can't afford contract extensions, our better bet is to hope a coach wants to move up and wins enough quickly enough to catch the eye of a P5 or sunbelt type school that would be considered a move up and NOT just throw an extension at him in hopes of hanging on to him. We need to want our coaches to move on before their first 5 year contract is up and quit this extension crap that locks us into bad coaches long term. BSU just isn't in a position to be a long term stop for a good coach. They're gonna want to move on because, well, it's BSU. You get some success you'd better take advantage of that and move up while you can. The key then would be to make the next hire the right hire and not some lame assistant coach for continuity's sake ala, Stan Parrish. Great OC, terrible HC. Exactly, you gamble on a success story. That merry go round means every time we are in a lottery. VERY hard to get 2 or 3 good coaches in a row at low level, low budget, schools. We have maybe had two in a row, back in the day when salaries were lower.
So if you miss it is painful and a clear miss means you have to deal with a buyout and then a delay. Most likely you get the so-so coach, or things go slowly, but you are muddling along, then have a good year. Then the AD has strong incentive to extend. Can he count on doing better and doing it with a 3 or 4 year lag.
At BSU it is compounded by the year to year budget crisis, and lack of donors. Our greatest disadvantage in this game may be budget inability to get good staff. That's why we may have to count Lembo as a success. He in large part brought an intact staff, counting on moving along up with him. They were pretty good, ended up leaving when Lembo could not. Then we had a more cobbled together staff with a coach who had problems.
Yep, Pete fully expected to get the Wake Forest job after the 2013 season, but Clawson came in and got it instead. That crushed Pete and he was never the same. He thought he was moving up, he'd already lost his top assistants and when it fell through for him it was crash and burn. But, he was a good coach for us. |
|
|
|
Post by BSUMike on Oct 23, 2023 17:05:44 GMT -6
If we had a decent offensive line, I think any one of our 3 quarterbacks could succeed. With our line being garbage, the running QB gives us the best chance to win. Focus needs to be on improving the OL.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 23, 2023 17:09:16 GMT -6
If we had a decent offensive line, I think any one of our 3 quarterbacks could succeed. With our line being garbage, the running QB gives us the best chance to win. Focus needs to be on improving the OL. So the question becomes, is the talent being recruited to the OL not good enough, is it the Oline coaching that’s not good enough, or yes? |
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 23, 2023 18:55:17 GMT -6
just an oddball observation that does not fit anywhere..: Fringe big ten players Im talking guys who have played a few snaps but were highly recruited have not really panned out for us. Yes most play some start but few ever really doninate. We have had much better luck with small school lessor div all stars. Might be the way to keep going looking
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 23, 2023 19:32:21 GMT -6
Ah, the science of recruiting...
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 24, 2023 5:45:44 GMT -6
just an oddball observation that does not fit anywhere..: Fringe big ten players Im talking guys who have played a few snaps but were highly recruited have not really panned out for us. Yes most play some start but few ever really doninate. We have had much better luck with small school lessor div all stars. Might be the way to keep going looking Often you get better play out of kids from lower levels who are "on the come" and have a hunger to prove themselves vs. players who were sorta already "there" at maybe a higher level and don't have much room for improvement. Prime BSU example, Blaine Bishop. Dude was a beast for us because his best years were after he moved up to us. He wasn't stagnated and just looking for playing time somewhere. He was driven and ready to break out. You have to find ways to identify that type of kid and get him to BSU. We've gotten a few big 10 oline xfers, and yet our oline doesn't dominate. Seems like the Big 10 level xfers we get are just kinda out there and not really standing out. The level you come from isn't what matters, the level you're going to reach is the key. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 24, 2023 6:48:35 GMT -6
Blain made it to the top. One of a kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 24, 2023 8:11:30 GMT -6
What I don’t understand is why any mid-major offers any type of contract. If they are good, they leave anyway! If I had been a coach, I wouldn’t want a contract with a mid major. Why even spend time worrying about such a thing. I was in a career path where some people wanted contracts others did not. I always figured my body of work would get me a better job if I wanted to move on or got fired. It worked well for the forty years I worked in the business. Coaches should be the same, let your body of work dictate your future - if your good, you can stay as long as you want or move up when you want - you’re in control of your future and not some stupid meaningless contract. The buy out is insurance against the coach failing. This is important for some coaches who think there is a significant chance they will fail. they want the school to be financially locked into them in case they fail. This seems to be the sort of coach we typically pursue. It has to be admitted that these coaches have been quite right about themselves and their chances of failure. There are young coaches out there who believe strongly in themselves and are dying for an opportunity above all things. They would not demand failure insurance. They would see that is irrelevant to them. I don't see how we could do any worse by pursuing this sort of candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 24, 2023 10:18:00 GMT -6
What I don’t understand is why any mid-major offers any type of contract. If they are good, they leave anyway! If I had been a coach, I wouldn’t want a contract with a mid major. Why even spend time worrying... The buy out is insurance against the coach failing. This is important for some coaches who think there is a significant chance they will fail. they want the school to be financially locked into them in case they fail. This seems to be the sort of coach we typically pursue. It has to be admitted that these coaches have been quite right about themselves and their chances of failure. There are young coaches out there who believe strongly in themselves and are dying for an opportunity above all things. They would not demand failure insurance. They would see that is irrelevant to them. I don't see how we could do any worse by pursuing this sort of candidate. That is simply BS. Your premises are bogus. The good coaches who do believe know it's a risky job. They have family and have to convince good assistants to come here. That is relevant. Coaches who took on that risk and through no particular fault on their part were summarily let go would not so easily get another chance. Even they were crazy, those assistants are a problem and would have to gamble with the HC. For success the HC has to find those would have to both be good and also risk takers. It's the market that determines these terms. ADs and Presidents have a lot at stake as well. Wild gambles going against how everyone hires is risky for them as well. The Sherman Plan is more nuts in FB than BB. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 24, 2023 11:39:33 GMT -6
preemptively tying yourself financially to a coach in the event that he fails is clearly a stupid idea. It seems acceptable to you because it is the conventional wisdom...which you worship as holy writ. It's a terrible idea that bites schools in the ass over and over and over again.
|
|
