Important trivia question

Donate To GopherHole
ruralgopher said:
My point is that guys who stepped into successful programs and maintained success have no bearing on what we need, which is someone to raise a program from ashes.

Golden has a (brief) history of that at a lower level.

Leach has a prolonged history of that at a similar level, with inherent limitations.
Click to expand...

Yep, we are at Northwestern's level when they hired Barnett not at Ohio State's.
 

Lets look at some coaches from outside the Big Ten that have been hired over the years, and their preceeding coaches:

Gary Barnett (.438) : Francis Peay (.203)
John Cooper (.721) : Earle Bruce (.761)
Hayden Fry (.616) : Bob Commings (.327)
Ron Zook (.373) : Ron Turner (.380)
Lou Holtz (.456) : Joe Salem (.352)

Seems to me most programs, regardless of hiring inside or outside the Big Ten, do a pretty good job of maintaining status quo. Dantonio (.638) : John L Smith (.458) and Rodriguez (.419) : Carr (.753) are two exceptions to the rule, as are Fry and Barnett.
 

UM needs someone to build a foundation. Someone who knows how to win in the Big 10 and has roots in the league. Somebody who has doors throughout the midwest open to him immediately based on the people he knows and the people that know him. That isn't easy to do. A-level coaches have that instantly, B-level coaches DON'T, especially if they have major black eyes in their history.


The best example of someone lifting a Big 10 program from the ashes recently is Alvarez, who worked all over the midwest for years.


IMO a guy with roots at a good midwestern program would be ideal - but I guess that's only true if you think virtually every great Big 10 coach in history having followed that pattern is significant.
 

Wackerball said:
UM needs someone to build a foundation. Someone who knows how to win in the Big 10 and has roots in the league. Somebody who has doors throughout the midwest open to him immediately based on the people he knows and the people that know him. That isn't easy to do. A-level coaches have that instantly, B-level coaches DON'T, especially if they have major black eyes in their history.


The best example of someone lifting a Big 10 program from the ashes recently is Alvarez, who worked all over the midwest for years.


IMO a guy with roots at a good midwestern program would be ideal - but I guess that's only true if you think virtually every great Big 10 coach in history having followed that pattern is significant.
Click to expand...
Who do you want?
 

You've been cherry picking. You're pattern doesn't hold up under closer examination.
 



Ok, here's one.

What do Cam Cameron, Glen Mason, Bill Mallory, John Gutekunst, Bob Cummings, Bobby Williams, Ron Turner, Lou Tepper, Leon Burtnett, Gary Moeller (at ILL), Jim Colletto, Rick Venturi, Frances Peay, and Tim Brewster and all have in common???


They were all Big Ten head coaches who had previously been Big Ten assistant coaches or players who all had Big Ten roots and ties and ALL went on to get FIRED from their job for not getting it done.

There are no absolutes in a coaching search. Period.
 

RodentRampage said:
You've been cherry picking. You're pattern doesn't hold up under closer examination.
Click to expand...


I'm cherry picking in that I'm only looking at what can be considered great hires. Most of them follow this pattern. I would like to know where I'm wrong.


Yes, this formula can fail, and it's possible to get a good coach without following it, but it is the best formula I can see for finding a great coach. I would rather rely on a proven formula than the personal instincts of Joel Maturi.


How can you disregard OSU's hires and Michigan's hires? Is it possible that their success is due in part to following this formula pretty consistently? It doesn't matter how they have been great, because they are great? What?
 

Keeping a ship in the same direction is a lot easier than turning a ship around.

Case in point: Earle Bruce. 81-26-1 record with Ohio State. Fired after 1987 season. Combined 27-30-1 record at Northern Iowa and Colorado State in the following five seasons. Did Bruce forget how to coach? Or are the inherent advantages at a school like Ohio State that much greater than the advantages at other schools?

Another example: Gary Moeller. 6-24-3 with Illinois from 1977-1979. 44-13-3 with Michigan from 1990-1994. Did Moeller pick up so much coaching knowledge in those 11 years that he improved his ability to win games by nearly 300%? Or does Michigan really have an advantage because of their budget, boosters, history, and location?
 



I'll try to be as definitive as I can be without knowing enough to give you a specific name.


I would hire the most respected assistant at an upper division Big 10 team I could find. Simple as that. If I was Maturi would talk to as many smart people as I could find around the league to decide who that is.


Could still be a total failure. I admit that.
 

Fair point. I wouldn't necessarily be against hiring a top Big Ten assistant (Don Treadwell?) but that shouldn't be the only place we look.
 

Wackerball said:
I'm cherry picking in that I'm only looking at what can be considered great hires. Most of them follow this pattern. I would like to know where I'm wrong.


Yes, this formula can fail, and it's possible to get a good coach without following it, but it is the best formula I can see for finding a great coach. I would rather rely on a proven formula than the personal instincts of Joel Maturi.


How can you disregard OSU's hires and Michigan's hires? Is it possible that their success is due in part to following this formula pretty consistently? It doesn't matter how they have been great, because they are great? What?
Click to expand...

What is your formula? Formulas tend to be exact and fixed and can be very complex. Clearly there is no magic formula.
 

The only thing Wackerball is proving is that many of the teams prefer to hire coaches with previous BT or school ties. That's it. The reason he has examples of success is not because this is the formula - it is because the sample size is so large.

It is like having a hypothesis that most of the great Big Ten coaches had more than 10 years of coaching experience when taking the job. Since most have this anyway, it is easy to prove the point.
 



Wackerball said:
I'll try to be as definitive as I can be without knowing enough to give you a specific name.


I would hire the most respected assistant at an upper division Big 10 team I could find. Simple as that. If I was Maturi would talk to as many smart people as I could find around the league to decide who that is.


Could still be a total failure. I admit that.
Click to expand...

This is not what Wisconsin did. They hired Barry away from Notre Dame. Not what Ohio State did with Sweater Vest. Admit defeat!
 

glovedgopher said:
What is your formula? Formulas tend to be exact and fixed and can be very complex. Clearly there is no magic formula.
Click to expand...


A smart, experienced guy with roots in the region, preferably with experience at a successful Big 10 program. As I said above, I would try to find the best respected assistant at one of those programs.


"Smart" and "best respected" are subjective, but I think the overall point is pretty clear.
 


Wackerball said:
A smart, experienced guy with roots in the region, preferably with experience at a successful Big 10 program. As I said above, I would try to find the best respected assistant at one of those programs.


"Smart" and "best respected" are subjective, but I think the overall point is pretty clear.
Click to expand...

No names to give us?
 

Wackerball said:
I'm cherry picking in that I'm only looking at what can be considered great hires. Most of them follow this pattern.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, so do most of the lousy hires. See:

Cam Cameron
John Gutekunst
Lou Tepper
Jim Colletto
Leon Burtnett
Rick Venturi
Bobby Williams
Bob Cummings
Tim Brewster


Funny how most of the lousy hires took place at Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, and Northwestern.
 

Wackerball said:
I'll try to be as definitive as I can be without knowing enough to give you a specific name.


I would hire the most respected assistant at an upper division Big 10 team I could find. Simple as that. If I was Maturi would talk to as many smart people as I could find around the league to decide who that is.


Could still be a total failure. I admit that.
Click to expand...

This was your post.
 

Well, you might have to hire a few Cam Camerons before you find an Alvarez or a Ferentz. I guess we can argue about what the data means until we're blue in the face.


Doesn't it make sense that someone who works for a quality Big 10 program, who has recruited players from top midwestern high schools for years and has pull with those coaches, is going to have more success, in most cases, than a transplant? Does a guy from another region just walk into a living room and awe everyone to the point where that doesn't matter? If so, how is he not already winning big somewhere else? Can UM get that type of guy? They're rare.
 

Wackerball said:
Doesn't it make sense that someone who works for a quality Big 10 program, who has recruited players from top midwestern high schools for years and has pull with those coaches, is going to have more success, in most cases, than a transplant? Does a guy from another region just walk into a living room and awe everyone to the point where that doesn't matter?
Click to expand...

This isn't 1960 anymore. The media has made college football a national game and changed the way everyone recruits. A recruiter with strong regional ties is not as important as it once was, nor is it even necessary. I would argue a big name coach would have even more success than a guy locally who isn't high profile.
 

Wackerball said:
Well, you might have to hire a few Cam Camerons before you find an Alvarez or a Ferentz.
Click to expand...

Well, EVERY coach the University of Minnesota has hired since Warmath has fit your "magic formula" of being either a former Big Ten assistant or player OR having strong midwest roots (Stoll, Salem, Holst, Gutekunst, Wacker, Mason, Brewster)

And, all of them but Holtz have been fired.

So, yeah, we've hit on a few Cam Camerons.
 

josh087 said:
This isn't 1960 anymore. The media has made college football a national game and changed the way everyone recruits. A recruiter with strong regional ties is not as important as it once was, nor is it even necessary. I would argue a big name coach would have even more success than a guy locally who isn't high profile.
Click to expand...


Tressel, Bielema, Dantonio, Ferentz, Fitzgerald. Best coaches in the B10 along with Paterno.


Connections matter. That's just the truth.
 

I guess if we hire Kirk Ferentz or Jim Tressel I'd be ok with bringing in someone with Big Ten/Midwest connections.

But Ferentz can't bring Ken O'Keefe with. And we'd need Norm Parker's amputated foot in a jar.
 

tjgopher said:
Well, EVERY coach the University of Minnesota has hired since Warmath has fit your "magic formula" of being either a former Big Ten assistant or player OR having strong midwest roots (Stoll, Salem, Holst, Gutekunst, Wacker, Mason, Brewster)

And, all of them but Holtz have been fired.

So, yeah, we've hit on a few Cam Camerons.
Click to expand...


My "magic formula" includes being an extremely respected coach and recruiter at an excellent midwestern program. Not just some assistant or player for any Big 10 school, or a guy who was born in the midwest.
 

Wackerball said:
Tressel, Bielema, Dantonio, Ferentz, Fitzgerald. Best coaches in the B10 along with Paterno.


Connections matter. That's just the truth.
Click to expand...

How does this even address my point??? Good god, dude.

I can just see you sitting at your computer this morning..."Maybe if I just rattle off some names of coaches in the Big 10 everyone will think I have a great point to be made!!!!"
 

josh087 said:
How does this even address my point??? Good god, dude.

I can just see you sitting at your computer this morning..."Maybe if I just rattle off some names of coaches in the Big 10 everyone will think I have a great point to be made!!!!"
Click to expand...


Just some names? Please. The names of the best coaches in the history of the league, and the league today.
 

Wackerball said:
Tressel, Bielema, Dantonio, Ferentz, Fitzgerald. Best coaches in the B10 along with Paterno.


Connections matter. That's just the truth.
Click to expand...

Wackerball said:
Just some names? Please. The names of the best coaches in the history of the league, and the league today.
Click to expand...

So? Urban Meyer and Nick Saban are some of the best coaches in the SEC. What does that even prove?

Your great and innovative hypothesis is actually just a list of coaches that have been successful. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no magic formula.
 

josh087 said:
So? Urban Meyer and Nick Saban are some of the best coaches in the SEC. What does that even prove?

Your great and innovative hypothesis is actually just a list of coaches that have been successful. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no magic formula.
Click to expand...


Again, a list that includes all of the best coaches in the league.

It includes virtually every great coach in the history of the Big 10.

And if you analyze it, all of those coaches were positioned to succeed in the Big 10 because of their experience and connections. So maybe that's worth considering.
 

Wackerball said:
Again, a list that includes all of the best coaches in the league.

It includes virtually every great coach in the history of the Big 10.

And if you analyze it, all of those coaches were positioned to succeed in the Big 10 because of their experience and connections. So maybe that's worth considering.
Click to expand...

Does your formula only work in the Big Ten?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom