KSUFans Archives
Sports => Frank Martin's OOD sponsored by the "Angriest Fans in America" => Topic started by: michigancat on April 19, 2007, 07:49:55 AM
-
The Martin hire got me looking around, and I was shocked at how few coaches at BCS schools hadn't been head coaches before taking their current job. The ones of the top of my head I could come up with are Jay John at Oregon St., Sean Sutton, Tom Izzo, Tony Bennett at Washington State (lord, how could forget to use him in Martin's defense), and Fred Hill at Rutgers. (There may be more, not sure).
This year, there were 9 BCS coaching changes, and Martin was the only hire w/o D1 head coaching experience.
When you compare that to BCS football, there's more than in the Big XII alone - Mike Leach, Ron Prince, Gene Chizik, Bob Stoops, Mike Gundy, and Mark Mangino.
What makes an offensive coordinator more prepared to be a head coach than a lead assistant?
-
Because there are 330+ Division 1 Bball teams. Only 120 football teams.
-
Because there are 330+ Division 1 Bball teams. Only 120 football teams.
While that's a major factor, you'll never see a head coach from the a conference like the MEAC, Big South, or Atlantic Sun conference make the leap straight to high major.
It wouldn't be a stretch to see an elite football coach in the Sun Belt or MAC to jump to a BCS school, though.
-
I think its partially the nature of the sports and partially the numbers. When you look at basketball vs football as well, on any basketball staff there is potentially maybe 1 HC candidate, while on most football staffs there are 2 (both coordinators). That still leaves more candidates in BB than FB overall, so the numbers favor hiring assistants. Plus, in FB more often than not, the coordinators have a lot of responsibility for gameplans etc, and in basketball some HCs run everything and others give their lead assistant like Huggs did with Martin and even Wooly did with Miller. It just depends on the program.
Sean Sutton has never been a HC either, and spent all 13 of his coaching years under his dad at OSU.
-
Plus, in FB more often than not, the coordinators have a lot of responsibility for gameplans etc, and in basketball some HCs run everything and others give their lead assistant like Huggs did with Martin and even Wooly did with Miller.
At the same time, you would think basketball assistant's jobs are less specific than a coordinator's. I realize you have some guys work only with big men or guards, but they have to understand team defense and team offense inside and out.
-
True, but in football you can hire a coordinator for the side of the ball you aren't as familiar with. In FB the head coach has to deligate, there is no way he can do it all, especially at the BCS level. In BB the HC still has to delegate, but not on near the level as FB.
-
What makes an offensive coordinator more prepared to be a head coach than a lead assistant?
Nothing. You've been at the Phog too long and now you're trying to justify the hiring. Think about it, had he spent 10 years as head coach at UCLA he would have had too much experience with Pac 10 ball and wouldn't be able to understand Big XII defenses.
None of it really matters.
-
What makes an offensive coordinator more prepared to be a head coach than a lead assistant?
Nothing. You've been at the Phog too long and now you're trying to justify the hiring.
Doesn't mean it isn't a good question.
-
You've answered the question a million times already.
-
What makes an offensive coordinator more prepared to be a head coach than a lead assistant?
Nothing. You've been at the Phog too long and now you're trying to justify the hiring.
Doesn't mean it isn't a good question.
One must wonder why you spend so much time over there, if it's not to emberass them/troll. Not much entertainment comes out of there this time of year, other than the often overly optimistic prediction threads(which k-state fans keep ruining :mad:)
-
You've answered the question a million times already.
Not really...I'm not talking about promotion from within, I'm just wondering why guys like Joe Holladay don't get more consideration for BCS jobs.
What makes an offensive coordinator more prepared to be a head coach than a lead assistant?
Nothing. You've been at the Phog too long and now you're trying to justify the hiring.
Doesn't mean it isn't a good question.
One must wonder why you spend so much time over there, if it's not to emberass them/troll. Not much entertainment comes out of there this time of year, other than the often overly optimistic prediction threads(which k-state fans keep ruining :mad:)
I like to pass time at work.
-
Someone brought this up on the radio a week ago or so and the rationale that they gave was that in bball the assistants "don't do much" and in football the assistants do most of the coaching.
Made no sense to me, but they basically said that being a head fb coach is easier than being a head bball coach.
-
Someone brought this up on the radio a week ago or so and the rationale that they gave was that in bball the assistants "don't do much" and in football the assistants do most of the coaching.
Made no sense to me, but they basically said that being a head fb coach is easier than being a head bball coach.
I agree with that.
Seriously. What do you think was Snyder's downfall? Did he suddenly forget how to coach?
And how many awesome assistants has he produced that later ended up getting BCS head coaching jobs? Stoops, Stoops, Beleima, Mangino, Leavitt, etc etc etc.
The assistants coaches on a football team make or break it. The assistant coaches on a basketball team do help, but the head coaches do a lot more. A good head coach and mediocre/bad assistants on the basketball team can still produce a good basketball team.(Which is also why basketball coaches can hire recruits parents and get away with it, because they're not really important.) It takes both a good head coach and good assistants to produce a good football team.
Basically, it's a lot easier for a head coach to manage a basketball team(small!) than a football team(huge!)
-
Someone brought this up on the radio a week ago or so and the rationale that they gave was that in bball the assistants "don't do much" and in football the assistants do most of the coaching.
Made no sense to me, but they basically said that being a head fb coach is easier than being a head bball coach.
As was said, its a management/delegation issue. FB requires a coach to delegate b/c he can't control everything. Your talking about managing 100 players, 9 full-time coaches, 2 GA coaches, and many other people. In basketball its 15 players, 3 full-time coaches, DOB, and a few other people. You can't be nearly as hands on as a FB coach. Plus in FB you are talking about 8-10 (QB, RB, WR, TE, OL, DL, LB, DB) specialized positions to coach versus 2-3 (guards, posts, wings) in hoops.
-
All AD's read the same "How to be an AD" books.
-
Maybe the answer is as simple. Could it be because it generally takes longer to become a top assistant within a football program than it does within a basketball program? Sure there's the Venables of the world, but more often that not you've got grinders sitting in the OC/DC positions who are in line for the next open spot. Basketball seems to be a younger mans coaching world.
I don't buy the managment/delegation issue. Bill Snyder was as hands on as they come; when your head coach is checking the margarine/butter dishes you may have a problem on your hands.
-
Bill Snyder was probably as hands on as possible, but he still couldn't manage the entire football team himself. A basketball coach on the other hand could manage the entire basketball team themselves.
I'm not sure how else you can explain Snyder going from a 10 win coach to a 4-5 win coach. The talent level stayed pretty much the same. (As much as everyone wants to argue about it.) Maybe a slight drop off.
I think the only other explanation is that JUCOs are now a widely tapped resource, and juco recruiting has much stricter rules than it did back in the day.
I still put most of the blame on the assistant coaches. If you look and see how succesful some of his past assistants have gone on to be at other BCS schools, and the correlation between the "we're awesome!" and "we suck!" with their timeline here, you have to give them their credit for being good at developing players and scheming, and put blame on the failure assistants for when we sucked.
-
The talent level stayed pretty much the same. (As much as everyone wants to argue about it.)
:eek: :eek: :eek:
-
I honestly kind of wonder if we've accidently started a trend of hiring a head coach in order to land a top recruit. The trend of hiring assistants for this purpose is getting huge. Hiring a head coach is the next logical step a program could take in order to gain an advantage - especially if their program needs a little kick-start.
-
To add to phreak's post, the Big 12 North probably had the worst 2 years of its history as well in those 2 years.
-
The talent level stayed pretty much the same. (As much as everyone wants to argue about it.)
:eek: :eek: :eek:
It's true.
KSU never got many/any of the blue chip guys. Very rarely did we ever get a top 100 recruit. We would recruit mediocre talent that the big time programs passed on, and develop them.
You can argue "Yeah, but we haven't had any Michael Bishops, Terrence Newmans, or Mark Simeneau's on the teams lately." True. But for every underrated guy that has turned out to be completely awesome for us like those three, we've had a guy come on that's supposedly completely awesome that flakes out. Matt Boss anyone? Supposedly full of talent, but never really contributed. This has happened with a lot of the 'top level' recruits that come to K-state.
Basically I'm saying Snyder's 'talent' was developed, and not recruited, for 95% of his teams.
If you think the reason we were so good was recruiting, you're mistaken.
-
Great points Freak. This is quickly turning into a FB thread, but I'll add one more question anyway; who are some of KSU's highly rated (4-star or higher) recruits that actually lived up to their billing?
-
Snyder and his assistants evaluated talent very well. Just because their players didn't have a number of stars next to their names didn't mean they weren't talented. Dear Lord, we put how many in the NFL during that time? And compare that to now? And people can say with a straight face that the talent level didn't drop?
-
No doubt something dropped. Either the talent level, development of talent, ability to get talent in the right spots, or ability to motivate talent. Likely a combination of all 4. For one of the greatest coaches in history to not get his team in contention for a north crown in the worst 2 years of the north, something had to be going very wrong.
-
Snyder and his assistants evaluated talent very well. Just because their players didn't have a number of stars next to their names didn't mean they weren't talented. Dear Lord, we put how many in the NFL during that time? And compare that to now? And people can say with a straight face that the talent level didn't drop?
Exactly. To say the '04-'05 teams were equally talented to the late nineties and early 2000's teams is borderline ridiculous.
-
look at how many of the '98 squad went on to play in the nfl. damn near all of them.
just because the rivals star counts remained about the same does not mean the talent levels remained the same.
-
Great points Freak. This is quickly turning into a FB thread, but I'll add one more question anyway; who are some of KSU's highly rated (4-star or higher) recruits that actually lived up to their billing?
Scobey and Beisel are the only two I can think of...Kyle Williams and Randy Jordan to a lesser degree. Cartwright was bigtime out of highschool, but was only a 2-star when he came to K-State after JUCO. Looks like Freeman and Johnson are going to work out. I followed recruiting for ten years in both sports for 10 years. Basketball is a lot better predictor of how players will turn out. Football, at least when K-State has been concerned, may as well not even pay attention to the ratings. You could randomly guess who will be the best players and do a better job than Rivals. I finally stopped following football recruiting. Now I just wait until signing day.
-
:sleep:
-
Great points Freak. This is quickly turning into a FB thread, but I'll add one more question anyway; who are some of KSU's highly rated (4-star or higher) recruits that actually lived up to their billing?
Scobey and Beisel are the only two I can think of...Kyle Williams and Randy Jordan to a lesser degree. Cartwright was bigtime out of highschool, but was only a 2-star when he came to K-State after JUCO. Looks like Freeman and Johnson are going to work out. I followed recruiting for ten years in both sports for 10 years. Basketball is a lot better predictor of how players will turn out. Football, at least when K-State has been concerned, may as well not even pay attention to the ratings. You could randomly guess who will be the best players and do a better job than Rivals. I finally stopped following football recruiting. Now I just wait until signing day.
I am the same way with football recruiting. I used to really follow it closely, but the last few years I just wait until signing day. Read every update for hoops recruiting though.
-
I've always said basketball recruiting is simpler to follow, and you can see immediate impact of the recruiting in real life games. It's possible for a four star FB prospect to not even see the field until three years after he signs.
:sleep:
-
I've always said basketball recruiting is simpler to follow, and you can see immediate impact of the recruiting in real life games. It's possible for a four star FB prospect to not even see the field until three years after he signs.
:sleep:
I suppose that's why you put BB recruiting updates on the FB board. :)
-
Our moderators aren't earning their paychecks.
-
My take on what happened, was that Snyder hit a wall. It happens, and after 17 years, shouldn't have been too surprising. From hiring the right assistants to recruiting, game planning and relating to players, you must be able to balance those dynamics. All the top-notch coaches Snyder had employed through the years, the final two seasons had a drop in coaching talent. This filtered down to recruiting (how much turnover was there in this position toward the end), game planning and training the players. As hands on Snyder was, he still must delegate. Even if he wouldn't admit it, if there's even the slightest lack of trust that your assistants can't manage their responsibilities, you have to make a change. It was speculated (maybe reported) that Snyder wasn't prepared to make such changes, and instead, chose to bow out of the game.
R.J.
-
If anyone else wants to weigh in on this topic with their unique perspective that has up until now never even been imagined, now seems to be the time.
-
Just because X number of guys from the 98 team went to the NFL, and X number of guys from the 04-05 teams went to the NFL, doesn't necessarily mean Snyder was a great recruiter. It means the end product, recruiting + developing, was very good. Why do you think that the 98 guys were so much better than the 04-05 guys, when really we had a lot more recent success to recruit with when the 04-05 seniors were in high school? I daresay it was easier for Snyder to recruit in 99-03(including redshirt freshman all the way to juco juniors) than it was for him to recruit from 93-97. Did his eye for evaluating talent suddenly stop working as effectively?
I don't think so. I think it's because the coaches we had 97-03 were very good at DEVELOPING the often mediocre talent that was brought in.
-
Just because X number of guys from the 98 team went to the NFL, and X number of guys from the 04-05 teams went to the NFL, doesn't necessarily mean Snyder was a great recruiter. It means the end product, recruiting + developing, was very good. Why do you think that the 98 guys were so much better than the 04-05 guys, when really we had a lot more recent success to recruit with when the 04-05 seniors were in high school? I daresay it was easier for Snyder to recruit in 99-03(including redshirt freshman all the way to juco juniors) than it was for him to recruit from 93-97. Did his eye for evaluating talent suddenly stop working as effectively?
I don't think so. I think it's because the coaches we had 97-03 were very good at DEVELOPING the often mediocre talent that was brought in.
No, it's because we recruited better. Alot better.
Why do you suppose when the class of 99' graduated (last class recruited by venables/stoops) in 2003, we fell off the map after that?
-
That's the point or one of the points I was trying to make.
In football, the assistants have to evaluate the talent, bring that talent in and then develop said talent. If the assistant coaches were brining in less talented players, the question should be "why?" Subsequently, once that talent was on campus, why were the coaches unable to mold those players into better players? In the early years, Snyder and his coaches had to find players that would come to K-State, that had coachable talent and had the potential to be better than expected. This happened time and again for the Wildcats.
After '98, the coaching staff was raided, but Snyder did a fairly good job of reloading. My biggest concern was with the recruiting coordinator position. As I wrote before, so much turnover there, I think the program lost consistency and some foundation, not to mention contacts.
R.J.
-
No, it's because we recruited better. Alot better.
You would be contradicting yourself if there were star rankings at the time. People did actually rate classes back then. And ours weren't anything close to the the top ten/top twenty Jeff Blake classes that we routinely pounded. Ours were never anywhere near being on the charts.
I rate this thread at one star primarily due to the embarrassing KSU fans stuck in the past.
-
Just because X number of guys from the 98 team went to the NFL, and X number of guys from the 04-05 teams went to the NFL, doesn't necessarily mean Snyder was a great recruiter. It means the end product, recruiting + developing, was very good. Why do you think that the 98 guys were so much better than the 04-05 guys, when really we had a lot more recent success to recruit with when the 04-05 seniors were in high school? I daresay it was easier for Snyder to recruit in 99-03(including redshirt freshman all the way to juco juniors) than it was for him to recruit from 93-97. Did his eye for evaluating talent suddenly stop working as effectively?
I don't think so. I think it's because the coaches we had 97-03 were very good at DEVELOPING the often mediocre talent that was brought in.
No, it's because we recruited better. Alot better.
Why do you suppose when the class of 99' graduated (last class recruited by venables/stoops) in 2003, we fell off the map after that?
Probably at least 75% of the 99' class would have graduated in 04 (redshirts). This logic would imply that Snyder's worst year since he first started building the program(04) was due to bad recruiting on the part of Stoops/Venables.
-
Just because X number of guys from the 98 team went to the NFL, and X number of guys from the 04-05 teams went to the NFL, doesn't necessarily mean Snyder was a great recruiter. It means the end product, recruiting + developing, was very good. Why do you think that the 98 guys were so much better than the 04-05 guys, when really we had a lot more recent success to recruit with when the 04-05 seniors were in high school? I daresay it was easier for Snyder to recruit in 99-03(including redshirt freshman all the way to juco juniors) than it was for him to recruit from 93-97. Did his eye for evaluating talent suddenly stop working as effectively?
I don't think so. I think it's because the coaches we had 97-03 were very good at DEVELOPING the often mediocre talent that was brought in.
No, it's because we recruited better. Alot better.
Why do you suppose when the class of 99' graduated (last class recruited by venables/stoops) in 2003, we fell off the map after that?
Probably at least 75% of the 99' class would have graduated in 04 (redshirts). This logic would imply that Snyder's worst year since he first started building the program(04) was due to bad recruiting on the part of Stoops/Venables.
You're wrong, Buhl, Pierce, Ell, Shull, etc. were all 99 recruits that redshirted..
-
star rankings suck, especially ones from the late 90's. they've revamped their rating process so many times they can hardly be compared year over year.
and if those guys were equally talented, and only needed coaching, they would have still been picked up and made the league. and it's not like it's somewhat close.
someone dig up the '98 two deep and post it. i'll take it from there and show how many of those guys played in the nfl.
-
Just because X number of guys from the 98 team went to the NFL, and X number of guys from the 04-05 teams went to the NFL, doesn't necessarily mean Snyder was a great recruiter. It means the end product, recruiting + developing, was very good. Why do you think that the 98 guys were so much better than the 04-05 guys, when really we had a lot more recent success to recruit with when the 04-05 seniors were in high school? I daresay it was easier for Snyder to recruit in 99-03(including redshirt freshman all the way to juco juniors) than it was for him to recruit from 93-97. Did his eye for evaluating talent suddenly stop working as effectively?
I don't think so. I think it's because the coaches we had 97-03 were very good at DEVELOPING the often mediocre talent that was brought in.
No, it's because we recruited better. Alot better.
Why do you suppose when the class of 99' graduated (last class recruited by venables/stoops) in 2003, we fell off the map after that?
Probably at least 75% of the 99' class would have graduated in 04 (redshirts). This logic would imply that Snyder's worst year since he first started building the program(04) was due to bad recruiting on the part of Stoops/Venables.
You're wrong, Buhl, Pierce, Ell, Shull, etc. were all 99 recruits that redshirted..
My bad. Fatty was right. I was doing simple math in my head instead of actually working it out. "Class of 99 + 5 years = 04". Not taking into account that one of those five years included 99.
:notworthy:
I still give credit to Beleima for being good at developing talent/good scheming. He's doing pretty well at Wiscy, so it's hard to argue otherwise.
-
I've always said basketball recruiting is simpler to follow, and you can see immediate impact of the recruiting in real life games. It's possible for a four star FB prospect to not even see the field until three years after he signs.
:sleep:
I suppose that's why you put BB recruiting updates on the FB board. :)
thanks for the tip. not a bad trend really.