Help me understand

Donate To GopherHole
drinks at Northpoint

drinks at Northpoint

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
652
Reaction score
0
Points
16
I am a knowledgeable football fan, but hardly an expert. I am familiar with all the names in the coach search. I know the A listers like Petersen, Leach, and Harbaugh much better than the B listers like Golden, Edsall, Kill, and Hoke. However, I know what each has accomplished and a little about what kind of schemes they run.
My question is how some can be so excited about what Golden has accomplished in the Mac but dismiss what Edsall has accomplished in the Big East? Or vice versa, or dismiss Hoke because he hasn't done it in a big conference. Don't get me wrong, I think all are qualified candidates who would be a solid double as opposed to a home run hire like Petersen.
None of the B list candidates have coached competition like they will face in the Big Ten, however, they can only play who is on their schedule. If someone points out Hoke went undefeated at Ball St, someone else points out it was the MAC not the Big Ten. If someone mentions Golden's losing record, someone else points out it is friggin Temple. If you win your conference, you've done the best you could do with your schedule.
Sometimes, I think it comes down to your first reaction.
I like Golden because of his name.
I don't like Fedora because of his name.
Kill looks like a raisin to me and I don't like him for that reason.
Because, really, which one of us is an expert in Mountain West, MAC, or Big East football?
 

this post make way too much sense, are you sure you ment to post it on a message board?
 

You'd have to ask dpol to be sure but most of why I like Golden (besides his name) is because he wears a tie. I can just imagine telling my Wisconsin friends, "We may be a fringe bowl team, BUT our coach wears a tie!"
 

drinks at Northpoint said:
I am a knowledgeable football fan, but hardly an expert. I am familiar with all the names in the coach search. I know the A listers like Petersen, Leach, and Harbaugh much better than the B listers like Golden, Edsall, Kill, and Hoke. However, I know what each has accomplished and a little about what kind of schemes they run.
My question is how some can be so excited about what Golden has accomplished in the Mac but dismiss what Edsall has accomplished in the Big East? Or vice versa, or dismiss Hoke because he hasn't done it in a big conference. Don't get me wrong, I think all are qualified candidates who would be a solid double as opposed to a home run hire like Petersen.
None of the B list candidates have coached competition like they will face in the Big Ten, however, they can only play who is on their schedule. If someone points out Hoke went undefeated at Ball St, someone else points out it was the MAC not the Big Ten. If someone mentions Golden's losing record, someone else points out it is friggin Temple. If you win your conference, you've done the best you could do with your schedule.
Sometimes, I think it comes down to your first reaction.
I like Golden because of his name.
I don't like Fedora because of his name.
Kill looks like a raisin to me and I don't like him for that reason.
Because, really, which one of us is an expert in Mountain West, MAC, or Big East football?
Click to expand...

+1000
 



Brick House said:
this post make way too much sense, are you sure you meant to post it on a message board?
Click to expand...

Huh? are you insinuating that someone made sense on the GopherHole? My goodness I am shocked.
 

drinks at Northpoint said:
I am a knowledgeable football fan, but hardly an expert. I am familiar with all the names in the coach search. I know the A listers like Petersen, Leach, and Harbaugh much better than the B listers like Golden, Edsall, Kill, and Hoke. However, I know what each has accomplished and a little about what kind of schemes they run.
My question is how some can be so excited about what Golden has accomplished in the Mac but dismiss what Edsall has accomplished in the Big East? Or vice versa, or dismiss Hoke because he hasn't done it in a big conference. Don't get me wrong, I think all are qualified candidates who would be a solid double as opposed to a home run hire like Petersen.
None of the B list candidates have coached competition like they will face in the Big Ten, however, they can only play who is on their schedule. If someone points out Hoke went undefeated at Ball St, someone else points out it was the MAC not the Big Ten. If someone mentions Golden's losing record, someone else points out it is friggin Temple. If you win your conference, you've done the best you could do with your schedule.
Sometimes, I think it comes down to your first reaction.
I like Golden because of his name.
I don't like Fedora because of his name.
Kill looks like a raisin to me and I don't like him for that reason.
Because, really, which one of us is an expert in Mountain West, MAC, or Big East football?
Click to expand...

Well said but the reaction may be easier to understand then that; any hire by Maturi will be blasted period.
 


Everyone's got their guy they like. Look no further than the Trestman people. They hold up his run in the CFL like it's a certainty that he would coach rings around all comers. I understand why they want him -- local boy does good and all, but he's not qualified.
 



I was a Brew guy, but any of these guys would be an upgrade over what we've had. I'd be happy with any of them (except Trestman).
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom