2017 College Football Head Coach Fire and Hire Thread

Donate To GopherHole
Claeys simply is not seem as a valuable asset. If you made a list of all the coaches you could hire, every single AD would pick Fleck and dozens of others. It is about who can get.
 

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Jedd Fisch is now the interim head coach.
 



Mora's 2nd and 3rd year in, he was looking like the real deal.

I hope our coach doesn't rise too fast like Mora did.
 


For whatever reason, Cal and UCLA seem to be the antithesis to the idea that having a great QB is critical to success in college football.

Josh Rosen
Jared Goff
some guy named Rodgers (2004 season notwithstanding ...)
 

Reports out of Houston that Sumlin will not save his job and be let go after game this weekend.
 

MnplsGopher said:
For whatever reason, Cal and UCLA seem to be the antithesis to the idea that having a great QB is critical to success in college football.

Josh Rosen
Jared Goff
some guy named Rodgers (2004 season notwithstanding ...)
Click to expand...

Ummm- if some team was the antithesis to the idea that having a great QB is critical to success in football it would mean the were successful despite having crappy quarterbacks- see Baltimore Ravens with Trent Dilfer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 











Spoofin said:
I can think of one that underachieved more this year.
Click to expand...

Your Fleck disdain just can't be quenched, can it? Take a look at Sumlin's recruiting classes from 2013-2016. They averaged the 11th nationally ranked class for those 4 years):

2013: https://247sports.com/college/texas-am/Season/2013-Football/Commits
2014: https://247sports.com/college/texas-am/Season/2014-Football/Commits
2015: https://247sports.com/college/texas-am/Season/2015-Football/Commits
2016: https://247sports.com/college/texas-am/Season/2016-Football/Commits
 


I think he meant "underachieved" in the sense of wins.
 

MnplsGopher said:
I think he meant "underachieved" in the sense of wins.
Click to expand...

Yes, but let Donovan go --- I love when people use recruiting (& better yet "talent") rankings to support any argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I know a lot of people poo-poo star rankings, but generally, I think they are fairly accurate barometers. Key word is generally. Of course there are outliers.

Yesterday I listened to this Ryan Burns interview: http://www.myalbertlea.com/2017/11/21/ryan-burns-on-the-blitz-w-mitch-21/
and he referenced this stat: Since 2015 against P5 teams, the Gophers are 8-1 vs teams that had lower ranked recruiting classes (247 composite) and 4-13 vs teams with higher ranked recruiting classes.
 

I would bet that 1 loss to lower ranked teams was to Purdue this year. (Fleck v. Brohm discussion)
 

Donovan said:
I know a lot of people poo-poo star rankings, but generally, I think they are fairly accurate barometers. Key word is generally. Of course there are outliers.

Yesterday I listened to this Ryan Burns interview: http://www.myalbertlea.com/2017/11/21/ryan-burns-on-the-blitz-w-mitch-21/
and he referenced this stat: Since 2015 against P5 teams, the Gophers are 8-1 vs teams that had lower ranked recruiting classes (247 composite) and 4-13 vs teams with higher ranked recruiting classes.
Click to expand...

They are, about 75% of time. I have a whole thread dedicated to this. ;)
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
They are, about 75% of time. I have a whole thread dedicated to this. ;)
Click to expand...

Actually, your thread is dedicated to "talent rankings" which start with recruiting rankings and then remove items that would otherwise lessen the correlation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
Actually, your thread is dedicated to "talent rankings" which start with recruiting rankings and then remove items that would otherwise lessen the correlation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They are still very closely related. We've been there before though.
 

I didn't read the other thread, but my presumption is this.


Top 10 ranked classes win often.
If they don't the coach gets fired.
The majority of top 10 ranked classes will beat classes ranked below top 10.

Top 30 ranked classes will beat lower ranked classes, but not as often as top 10 classes.
Coaches who lose who have recruited top 30 ranked classes will get fired if they lose to classes ranked below top 30 more times than they beat them.

If you are ranked 50-80, you are going to be in a sea of nothingness.
You will get to a bowl game every now and then.
If you recruit in this area, your fans will think a top 20 victory is really awesome, rather than expecting it.

If the schedule aligns perfectly, you may play a season where you play no one good and win the majority of these games. But you won't ever get close to sniffing a National Title.
The only way you will is if you're essentially been the coach at that place for about 10 years where you've been recruiting and building the same players year after year after year.
If you're a super coach, and everything aligns, you will maybe make it to the national championship playoff, but you'll get run out of town when you play the #1 or #2 team.

If you recruit lower than 80, you won't keep a power 5 head coaching job very long and you might not get rehired for another job after you get fired.
 

We'll have to see how that works for Maryland. It worked for Wiscy, Iowa.
Edsal had a #18 National recruiting class in 2017, and is at # 19 so far in 2018.
Time will tell in the next two or three years.

Coach-----Rec Yr---Rec Rnk----Record-----B1G
Edsal------2014-------41--------7-6--------4-4
Edsal------2015-------47--------3-9--------1-7
Durkin----2016-------41--------6-7--------3-6
Durkin----2017-------18--------4-7--------2-6
Durkin----2018-------19---------?-----------?
 

The massive underlying assumption on this whole (silly, IMO) discussion is that if you took the #1 recruiting class, say it was Alabama for example, and literally picked them up and dropped them off at Minnesota, that would magically transform Minnesota into the #1 team.

Sorry ... no. It doesn't work like that. There are a billion factors.
 

hungan1 said:
We'll have to see how that works for Maryland. It worked for Wiscy, Iowa.
Edsal had a #18 National recruiting class in 2017, and is at # 19 so far in 2018.
Time will tell in the next two or three years.

Coach-----Rec Yr---Rec Rnk----Record-----B1G
Edsal------2014-------41--------7-6--------4-4
Edsal------2015-------47--------3-9--------1-7
Durkin----2016-------41--------6-7--------3-6
Durkin----2017-------18--------4-7--------2-6
Durkin----2018-------19---------?-----------?
Click to expand...

You know that Edsal [sic] isn't at Maryland, right?
 

MnplsGopher said:
The massive underlying assumption on this whole (silly, IMO) discussion is that if you took the #1 recruiting class, say it was Alabama for example, and literally picked them up and dropped them off at Minnesota, that would magically transform Minnesota into the #1 team.

Sorry ... no. It doesn't work like that. There are a billion factors.
Click to expand...

Not one class, no. But several #1 classes over repeated years? Yes, it absolutely would.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Not one class, no. But several #1 classes over repeated years? Yes, it absolutely would.
Click to expand...

Nope. It doesn't work like that.

I know you'd like to pretend that such a complex thing can be boiled down to so few factors. It makes life easy, that way. But you can't discount the other billion factors. Sorry
 

MnplsGopher said:
Nope. It doesn't work like that.

I know you'd like to pretend that such a complex thing can be boiled down to so few factors. It makes life easy, that way. But you can't discount the other billion factors. Sorry
Click to expand...

I think you are exaggerating the billions factors.
To prove me wrong, please list all billion here:

1.
2.
3.
etc...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom