1st or 2nd year coaches right now

[Canezum5]

Which ones are actually doing great?

Everyone complaining about Mario please show me better coaches who took over **** rosters doing well in?

Louisville is 1 and their schedule is the weakest **** of all time
SMU? Who cares it’s a weak conference.


Now how many are struggling just like Mario. This is college football now. It takes a few year to turn around programs and rosters. That’s just reality.

Please share more coaches if you think of them.

How many years does it take to take a knee to close a game, manage timeouts, approve successful play calls out of said timeouts, trust your team and your development of them on 4th and short, and bench players who make costly errors to the teams detriment?

When you talk about the process of turning over a team, the list I made isn't a part of it. It's typically culture, conditioning, and acquiring talent to fit your philosophy/scheme.

Our struggles have nothing to do with the typical difficulty of team turnover. BTW, the portal absolutely eliminates multi year build BS excuse fans and coaches have become accustomed to make.

 

[bornagaincane]

This will be a fun thread. Here’s the answer to your slurpism + lack of college football knowledge.

Brett Venebles
Year 1: 5-7
Year 2: 9-2 (losses to #7 Texas, #23 Oklahoma State)

Mike Elko
Year 1: 9-4
Year 2: 6-5 (*Lost starting QB after beginning year 6-1, key wins include Clemson and NC State)

Dan Lanning
Year 1: 10-3
Year 2: 10-1 (loss to #4 Washington)

Kalen DeBoer
Year 1: 11-2
Year 2: 11-0

Brian Kelly
Year 1: 10-4
Year 2: 8-3 (losses to #4 FSU, #7 Alabama, #13 Ole Miss)

Sonny Dykes
Year 1: 13-1
Year 2: 5-6 (lost 11 starters + slew of contributors from his Natty team)

Rhett Lashlee
Year 1: 7-6
Year 2: 9-2 (7-0 in conference)

Marcus Freeman
Year 1: 9-4
Year 2: 8-3 (losses to #1 Ohio State, #10 Louisville, @Clemson)

Billy Napier
Year 1: 6-7
Year 2: 5-6

Joey McGuire (Texas Tech)
Year 1: 8-4
Year 2: 6-5 (also lost his starting QB for a fair portion of the year)


Mario Cristobal is performing like Billy Napier. Not even accounting for first-year coaches like Jeff Brohm (10-1).

Most of your coaches here regressed after year 1. There should be progress not regression. The progress will not all be the same due to the dynamics of each program, but there should be tangible progress from year 1 to year 2.

 

[Allabouttheu95]

This will be a fun thread. Here’s the answer to your slurpism + lack of college football knowledge.

Brett Venebles
Year 1: 5-7
Year 2: 9-2 (losses to #7 Texas, #23 Oklahoma State)

Mike Elko
Year 1: 9-4
Year 2: 6-5 (*Lost starting QB after beginning year 6-1, key wins include Clemson and NC State)

Dan Lanning
Year 1: 10-3
Year 2: 10-1 (loss to #4 Washington)

Kalen DeBoer
Year 1: 11-2
Year 2: 11-0

Brian Kelly
Year 1: 10-4
Year 2: 8-3 (losses to #4 FSU, #7 Alabama, #13 Ole Miss)

Sonny Dykes
Year 1: 13-1
Year 2: 5-6 (lost 11 starters + slew of contributors from his Natty team)

Rhett Lashlee
Year 1: 7-6
Year 2: 9-2 (7-0 in conference)

Marcus Freeman
Year 1: 9-4
Year 2: 8-3 (losses to #1 Ohio State, #10 Louisville, @Clemson)

Billy Napier
Year 1: 6-7
Year 2: 5-6

Joey McGuire (Texas Tech)
Year 1: 8-4
Year 2: 6-5 (also lost his starting QB for a fair portion of the year)


Mario Cristobal is performing like Billy Napier. Not even accounting for first-year coaches like Jeff Brohm (10-1).

Thank you sir these dudes write jokes for themselves without knowing. Never will get old

 

[WeBallinBoyz]

I literally can’t believe the fan base I was once so proud of b/c of confident we were, are now slowly but surely becoming pussified, not wanting or expecting more.

It’s embarrassing at times. I wanted to highlight this point because while everything else was on the money as usual, this needs addressing.

The people making endless excuses for Mario and defending the longer process/rationalizing close defeats are worse fans than the ones that call it like it is - a 6-5 team hampered by poor gameday decisions and an inept, outdated offensive approach. A head coach that’s under .500, and 5-10 in a weak, weak conference.

There’s no swagger, there’s no desire to be great again, there’s no passion or fire. There’s constant spinning of close losses and moral victories. There’s rationalizations of mediocre recruits, sheep-ish nature regarding 3-star evaluations, something that we saw under Manny, and under Golden, and under Richt, and under Shannon…

I criticize because I want to be great again. Others cope and rationalize because it not only makes them feel better, but avoids the hard-hitting questions when all the data is LITERALLY right under their noses. Their biggest fear is if Mario can’t do it, no one can…

All it takes is some innovation and actually winning on the field, and recruiting takes care of itself. The sooner y'all stop making excuses for .500 play (or in terms of conference record, 33% lol), the better.

 

[TaylorWalls]

It’s embarrassing at times. I wanted to highlight this point because while everything else was on the money as usual, this needs addressing.

The people making endless excuses for Mario and defending the longer process/rationalizing close defeats are worse fans than the ones that call it like it is - a 6-5 team hampered by poor gameday decisions and an inept, outdated offensive approach. A head coach that’s under .500, and 5-10 in a weak, weak conference.

There’s no swagger, there’s no desire to be great again, there’s no passion or fire. There’s constant spinning of close losses and moral victories. There’s rationalizations of mediocre recruits, sheep-ish nature regarding 3-star evaluations, something that we saw under Manny, and under Golden, and under Richt, and under Shannon…

I criticize because I want to be great again. Others cope and rationalize because it not only makes them feel better, but avoids the hard-hitting questions when all the data is LITERALLY right under their noses. Their biggest fear is if Mario can’t do it, no one can…

All it takes is some innovation and actually winning on the field, and recruiting takes care of itself. The sooner y'all stop making excuses for .500 play (or in terms of conference record, 33% lol), the better.

You asked, I answered. No thoughts on this?

At Miami, we want sustained success, meaning, we expect to at least be in the conversation for ACC titles and playoff spots. Do we agree on that?

In reality, we never even sniff the ACC title game, much less a playoff spot. We are a mid-tier program and have been for 20 years. There is not an example of a coach who has fixed a program like ours to a level we expect, outside of maybe Nick Saban. But here we are less than two years in and we're ready to fire another coach. He's not good enough. He was good enough at Oregon, but he can't do it here. Rinse, repeat, and we continue the same cycle for another 10 years.

The guys you listed who make an impact do so on a very temporary basis. Everything has to fall into place for those guys to have their one year of success, like Dave Clawson. They are not long-term solutions.

 

[252cane]

look the team has improved I think everybody can see that but I’m not into moral victories. All these close games and losses you got to win some of them. Mario is what he is. He is a guy that’s always going to lose a game or 2 despite having the talent

 

[crossover22[]_[]]

That's so typical of our fan base to point at a 4-7 coach and talk about how good he is. Yeah, crushing it.

So you, like everyone else, can't come up with a guy who has taken a mid program and turned it around by year two for sustained success.

Dude they lost hartman to ND. Do you even watch college football?

Lmao!!!!

 

[razrcane]

It’s embarrassing at times. I wanted to highlight this point because while everything else was on the money as usual, this needs addressing.

The people making endless excuses for Mario and defending the longer process/rationalizing close defeats are worse fans than the ones that call it like it is - a 6-5 team hampered by poor gameday decisions and an inept, outdated offensive approach. A head coach that’s under .500, and 5-10 in a weak, weak conference.

There’s no swagger, there’s no desire to be great again, there’s no passion or fire. There’s constant spinning of close losses and moral victories. There’s rationalizations of mediocre recruits, sheep-ish nature regarding 3-star evaluations, something that we saw under Manny, and under Golden, and under Richt, and under Shannon…

I criticize because I want to be great again. Others cope and rationalize because it not only makes them feel better, but avoids the hard-hitting questions when all the data is LITERALLY right under their noses. Their biggest fear is if Mario can’t do it, no one can…

All it takes is some innovation and actually winning on the field, and recruiting takes care of itself. The sooner y'all stop making excuses for .500 play (or in terms of conference record, 33% lol), the better.

 

[WeBallinBoyz]

Dude they lost hartman to ND. Do you even watch college football?

Lmao!!!!

He doesn’t, he’s been a troll on this board for awhile especially under another name. I’ll just stop feeding them and when he loses an argument, he pivots to a completely different point.

He was like this with Richt and Manny.

 

[TaylorWalls]

Dude they lost hartman to ND. Do you even watch college football?

Lmao!!!!

So in 10 years, Wake has been able to have one great season only because of an elite quarterback, but "CLAWSON IS A GREAT COACH".

You prove my point better than I did. Clawson is a decent coach but is far from elite, and this proves it. Without a generational QB, he's just Wake Forest.

 

[Canezum5]

This will be a fun thread. Here’s the answer to your slurpism + lack of college football knowledge.

Brett Venebles
Year 1: 5-7
Year 2: 9-2 (losses to #7 Texas, #23 Oklahoma State)

Mike Elko
Year 1: 9-4
Year 2: 6-5 (*Lost starting QB after beginning year 6-1, key wins include Clemson and NC State)

Dan Lanning
Year 1: 10-3
Year 2: 10-1 (loss to #4 Washington)

Kalen DeBoer
Year 1: 11-2
Year 2: 11-0

Brian Kelly
Year 1: 10-4
Year 2: 8-3 (losses to #4 FSU, #7 Alabama, #13 Ole Miss)

Sonny Dykes
Year 1: 13-1
Year 2: 5-6 (lost 11 starters + slew of contributors from his Natty team)

Rhett Lashlee
Year 1: 7-6
Year 2: 9-2 (7-0 in conference)

Marcus Freeman
Year 1: 9-4
Year 2: 8-3 (losses to #1 Ohio State, #10 Louisville, @Clemson)

Billy Napier
Year 1: 6-7
Year 2: 5-6

Joey McGuire (Texas Tech)
Year 1: 8-4
Year 2: 6-5 (also lost his starting QB for a fair portion of the year)


Mario Cristobal is performing like Billy Napier. Not even accounting for first-year coaches like Jeff Brohm (10-1).

These dudes trying to say coaches regressed in their 2nd year are quite hilarious. They STILL have competitive/ better teams and records than Mario. Even with the said 2nd year "regression" at lesser schools. So what is Mario excuse for having better talent but doing worse in his 1st and 2nd year? Does anyone really believe Mario could've had similar success if he was to replace any of those coaches with the same teams?

Would Mario have done as well as Elko first year if he went to Duke? We all know the answer to that. Why is this a debate?

Ironic thing is, regression isn't and shouldn't be judged solely on record but expectations of that team. None of those teams are losing games the way we lose them either.

 

[TaylorWalls]

He doesn’t, he’s been a troll on this board for awhile especially under another name. I’ll just stop feeding them and when he loses an argument, he pivots to a completely different point.

He was like this with Richt and Manny.

I gave you a straight-up answer, and your response is "he's a troll"? That just shows me that you're not sophisticated enough to have an adult discussion.

I've asked the same question all day long, and not one person has been able to answer it. Your only option to save face is to ignore me and claim I'm a troll.

Shrug. If making you go away is that easy.....

 

[Rellyrell]

It’s embarrassing at times. I wanted to highlight this point because while everything else was on the money as usual, this needs addressing.

The people making endless excuses for Mario and defending the longer process/rationalizing close defeats are worse fans than the ones that call it like it is - a 6-5 team hampered by poor gameday decisions and an inept, outdated offensive approach. A head coach that’s under .500, and 5-10 in a weak, weak conference.

There’s no swagger, there’s no desire to be great again, there’s no passion or fire. There’s constant spinning of close losses and moral victories. There’s rationalizations of mediocre recruits, sheep-ish nature regarding 3-star evaluations, something that we saw under Manny, and under Golden, and under Richt, and under Shannon…

I criticize because I want to be great again. Others cope and rationalize because it not only makes them feel better, but avoids the hard-hitting questions when all the data is LITERALLY right under their noses. Their biggest fear is if Mario can’t do it, no one can…

All it takes is some innovation and actually winning on the field, and recruiting takes care of itself. The sooner y'all stop making excuses for .500 play, the better.

And they’ve been doing this for a decade +. These so called “super fans” don’t require or expect greatness; they’re completely content w/ being mediocre. No, they’ll never say that out loud, but their repeated excuses per regime clarifies this. It’s quite amazing the mental gymnastics that are used to make believe a record that’s non-existent. Again, if we’re doing this for Cristobal, then we’ve should’ve been doing this for every single coach we’ve had b/c every last one of them have had us in games that we lost late or lost close.

 

[TaylorWalls]

These dudes trying to say coaches regressed in their 2nd year are quite hilarious. They STILL have competitive/ better teams and records than Mario. Even with the said 2nd year "regression" at lesser schools. So what is Mario excuse for having better talent but doing worse in his 1st and 2nd year? Does anyone really believe Mario could've had similar success if he was to replace any of those coaches with the same teams?

Would Mario have done as well as Elko first year if he went to Duke? We all know the answer to that. Why is this a debate?

Ironic thing is, regression isn't and shouldn't be judged solely on record but expectations of that team. None of those teams are losing games the way we lose them either.

So Mario is an imbecile who shouldn't even be coaching at Killian. We got that point.

But who is the magic bullet? Who is the guy who will satisfy you with 10-12 win seasons, and how do you know? Because I've got a very long list of guys who "killed it with lesser talent" who ended up doing nothing in elite P5 football.

 

[AUcane]

Is this what the Mario fluffers are now arguing? Talk about making up metrics to give Mario a pass. It reminds me of Alf Gluten’s famed “we’re actually good on money downs” when talking about his defense when we all knew his defense was dog ****.

 

[WeBallinBoyz]

I gave you a straight-up answer, and your response is "he's a troll"? That just shows me that you're not sophisticated enough to have an adult discussion.

I've asked the same question all day long, and not one person has been able to answer it. Your only option to save face is to ignore me and claim I'm a troll.

Shrug. If making you go away is that easy.....

You’re asking a question that has essentially no true answer. You’re implying that since taking a middling program for 20+ years to conference contender is rare (because the sample size is extremely small), Mario has the biggest uphill battle out of anyone in America.

Without saying it, you’re implying that Mariocre should be given ample amount of time to fix Miami, when all data shows quick fixes are extremely frequent. You were a vehement Manny apologist, and that goes for plenty of our predecessors before him.

Carry on.

 

[crossover22[]_[]]

He doesn’t, he’s been a troll on this board for awhile especially under another name. I’ll just stop feeding them and when he loses an argument, he pivots to a completely different point.

He was like this with Richt and Manny.

Yea I shouldn't respond to his dumb ****. Our fambase just annoys me.


No one expects miracles. I wanted 9 wins and finish in the top 25. Not difficult with our schedule and top 15 talent.

 

[WeBallinBoyz]

Yea I shouldn't respond to his dumb ****. Our fambase just annoys me.


No one expects miracles. I wanted 9 wins and finish in the top 25. Not difficult with our schedule and top 15 talent.

I’m right there with you. I enjoy the banter. Anyone excusing this season or rationalizing close wins either doesn’t know football, doesn’t watch football outside of Miami games, or is too oblivious to what’s in front of them and chooses not to acknowledge it.

There’s fans, there’s even super fans…then there’s slurpers. Even super fans can see when disappointment arises.

 

[crossover22[]_[]]

So in 10 years, Wake has been able to have one great season only because of an elite quarterback, but "CLAWSON IS A GREAT COACH".

You prove my point better than I did. Clawson is a decent coach but is far from elite, and this proves it. Without a generational QB, he's just Wake Forest.

Wake forest should never have a great season.

How many great seasons they have in the 70s through 2000?????


You dont know football.

 

[crossover22[]_[]]

I’m right there with you. I enjoy the banter. Anyone excusing this season or rationalizing close wins either doesn’t know football, doesn’t watch football outside of Miami games, or is too oblivious to what’s in front of them.

There’s fans, there’s even super fans…then there’s slurpers. Even super fans can see when disappointment arises.

Yep!!!

Slurpers annoy the **** out of me. Its extremely obvious we are a poorly coached team. To anyone with functioning eyes and a iq above 50.