DONT KILL THE MESSENGER

[Consigliere]

Conman,

1. Every successful coach at Miami stayed at least 5 years and won a championship before they left for pro jobs. If Hue won a championship and stayed that long most people would not care. But like I said Hue has NEVER stayed at a job longer than 2 years. Is that going to be long enough to win a championship?

Who cares? Just win and have success.

2. a) Your arguments are all over the place. Sometimes its a HC record says who is. Other times he was a "success" because of what he had to deal with, pick argument and stick with it Conman.

b) It's funny that you define it as a "success" for O'Brien at PSU and Marrone at Cuse, when previous coaches have shown that success can occur at a much higher level than those two showed at their respective programs.

Wow you really are a Potato!

"Success" is not a set term, it is subjective. It can mean a lot of things.

For example:

Doing what Bill O'Brien did at PSU was a "success". Not because 8-4 or 7-5 is good but because he did it down 40 scholarships. Are you dense? Do you understand that certain variables can change the definition of what may be "success".

As for Doug Marrone, the last time Cuse had a winning season was 2001. The last time they won a bowl game was also 2001. In the 4 years before Doug Marrone arrived, Syracuse won 10 total games. That is not an exaggeration. They won 10 games. So for a coach to come in and win 2 bowl games and have (2) 8 win seasons for a dead program. That is "success". This doesn't mean this is good for Miami but a dormant program like Syracuse, this is "success".

c)Conman please define for me what "success" for Hue at UM would be, assuming he receives the position, to receive an NFL job?

Winning the ACC and a Championship.

3. Hue is up for a NFL HCing job soon. The question is how soon? Someone else posted a article that listed him as 12th in line for an NFL position, there won't be 12 NFL openings next year. But the year after next or the year after could be the time the NFL comes calling when they have job openings.

Moreover, Hue's career pattern has shown us that he will take a job to gain experience in that segment of coaching before he bolts to the next opportunity. Right now his resume is light on HCing experience. How do you know Hue would'nt use UM just to gain experience without winning a championship before he enters the NFL?

Bottom line Conman, are you going to consider it a "success" if Hue gets the job, goes 8-5 for two years, then bolts for the NFL?

No that wouldn't be "success". Al Golden was able to go 9-4 and he has less chromosomes than you.

Again, I don't care if our next HC uses Miami as a stepping stone because it would probably mean he was successful at Miami. I just want to win games, I don't need the coach to stay here for life.

 

[Cane Dynasty]

"This is how many games you lost with all that talent, Alfred."

View attachment 32387

 

[pimpcane1]

Conman,

1. Every successful coach at Miami stayed at least 5 years and won a championship before they left for pro jobs. If Hue won a championship and stayed that long most people would not care. But like I said Hue has NEVER stayed at a job longer than 2 years. Is that going to be long enough to win a championship?

Who cares? Just win and have success.

So by your definition of success for this program if he were to win the ACC and leave after 2 years that would be okay?

2. a) Your arguments are all over the place. Sometimes its a HC record says who is. Other times he was a "success" because of what he had to deal with, pick argument and stick with it Conman.

b) It's funny that you define it as a "success" for O'Brien at PSU and Marrone at Cuse, when previous coaches have shown that success can occur at a much higher level than those two showed at their respective programs.

Wow you really are a Potato!

"Success" is not a set term, it is subjective. It can mean a lot of things.

For example:

Doing what Bill O'Brien did at PSU was a "success". Not because 8-4 or 7-5 is good but because he did it down 40 scholarships. Are you dense? Do you understand that certain variables can change the definition of what may be "success".

As for Doug Marrone, the last time Cuse had a winning season was 2001. The last time they won a bowl game was also 2001. In the 4 years before Doug Marrone arrived, Syracuse won 10 total games. That is not an exaggeration. They won 10 games. So for a coach to come in and win 2 bowl games and have (2) 8 win seasons for a dead program. That is "success". This doesn't mean this is good for Miami but a dormant program like Syracuse, this is "success".

Wow you really are a Conman

Success is subjective, no sh:t sherlock. That's why I put it under quotes and asked you to define it. But your opinions are based on **** and that's why I called you out on it, move on.

Also, please explain to me how O'Brien was down 40 scholarships after his 2 years? I would love to hear it.

So let me get this straight, Doug Marrone was a considered a success in your eyes for resurrecting a "dead program" but Greg Schiano was not for uplifting a non existent program like Rutgers? Rutgers had 11 wins in a 5 year period before Schiano arrived. I don't think I have to quote his bowl success because you have been so adamant he accomplished little Rutgers.

c)Conman please define for me what "success" for Hue at UM would be, assuming he receives the position, to receive an NFL job?

Winning the ACC and a Championship.

3. Hue is up for a NFL HCing job soon. The question is how soon? Someone else posted a article that listed him as 12th in line for an NFL position, there won't be 12 NFL openings next year. But the year after next or the year after could be the time the NFL comes calling when they have job openings.

Moreover, Hue's career pattern has shown us that he will take a job to gain experience in that segment of coaching before he bolts to the next opportunity. Right now his resume is light on HCing experience. How do you know Hue would'nt use UM just to gain experience without winning a championship before he enters the NFL?

Bottom line Conman, are you going to consider it a "success" if Hue gets the job, goes 8-5 for two years, then bolts for the NFL?

No that wouldn't be "success". Al Golden was able to go 9-4 and he has less chromosomes than you.

Again, I don't care if our next HC uses Miami as a stepping stone because it would probably mean he was successful at Miami. I just want to win games, I don't need the coach to stay here for life.

Great, because I have 46 chromosomes and Golden must have less making him a ******. You must have thought that was an insult but judging by your constant condescension in this and other post you may think you have more than 46 but in essence that would make you a ****** as well.

 

[da truth]

If Hue comes here... wow does that make this miami team legit next yr

 

[wherrera8]

Conman,

1. Every successful coach at Miami stayed at least 5 years and won a championship before they left for pro jobs. If Hue won a championship and stayed that long most people would not care. But like I said Hue has NEVER stayed at a job longer than 2 years. Is that going to be long enough to win a championship?

Who cares? Just win and have success.

So by your definition of success for this program if he were to win the ACC and leave after 2 years that would be okay?

2. a) Your arguments are all over the place. Sometimes its a HC record says who is. Other times he was a "success" because of what he had to deal with, pick argument and stick with it Conman.

b) It's funny that you define it as a "success" for O'Brien at PSU and Marrone at Cuse, when previous coaches have shown that success can occur at a much higher level than those two showed at their respective programs.

Wow you really are a Potato!

"Success" is not a set term, it is subjective. It can mean a lot of things.

For example:

Doing what Bill O'Brien did at PSU was a "success". Not because 8-4 or 7-5 is good but because he did it down 40 scholarships. Are you dense? Do you understand that certain variables can change the definition of what may be "success".

As for Doug Marrone, the last time Cuse had a winning season was 2001. The last time they won a bowl game was also 2001. In the 4 years before Doug Marrone arrived, Syracuse won 10 total games. That is not an exaggeration. They won 10 games. So for a coach to come in and win 2 bowl games and have (2) 8 win seasons for a dead program. That is "success". This doesn't mean this is good for Miami but a dormant program like Syracuse, this is "success".

Wow you really are a Conman

Success is subjective, no sh:t sherlock. That's why I put it under quotes and asked you to define it. But your opinions are based on **** and that's why I called you out on it, move on.

Also, please explain to me how O'Brien was down 40 scholarships after his 2 years? I would love to hear it.

So let me get this straight, Doug Marrone was a considered a success in your eyes for resurrecting a "dead program" but Greg Schiano was not for uplifting a non existent program like Rutgers? Rutgers had 11 wins in a 5 year period before Schiano arrived. I don't think I have to quote his bowl success because you have been so adamant he accomplished little Rutgers.

c)Conman please define for me what "success" for Hue at UM would be, assuming he receives the position, to receive an NFL job?

Winning the ACC and a Championship.

3. Hue is up for a NFL HCing job soon. The question is how soon? Someone else posted a article that listed him as 12th in line for an NFL position, there won't be 12 NFL openings next year. But the year after next or the year after could be the time the NFL comes calling when they have job openings.

Moreover, Hue's career pattern has shown us that he will take a job to gain experience in that segment of coaching before he bolts to the next opportunity. Right now his resume is light on HCing experience. How do you know Hue would'nt use UM just to gain experience without winning a championship before he enters the NFL?

Bottom line Conman, are you going to consider it a "success" if Hue gets the job, goes 8-5 for two years, then bolts for the NFL?

No that wouldn't be "success". Al Golden was able to go 9-4 and he has less chromosomes than you.

Again, I don't care if our next HC uses Miami as a stepping stone because it would probably mean he was successful at Miami. I just want to win games, I don't need the coach to stay here for life.

Great, because I have 46 chromosomes and Golden must have less making him a ******. You must have thought that was an insult but judging by your constant condescension in this and other post you may think you have more than 46 but in essence that would make you a ****** as well.

A pimp with fundamental biology knowledge? Nice!

 

[Hurracanes]

Thanks for sharing the info OP.

 

[FullyERicht]

Jeremy Pruitt, Chad Morris......are you kidding me? These guys have no business anywhere near our program.

Herman is the only young cat I would consider.....and I'd consider him strongly. He reminds me of a young Harbaugh in a way, very intense but an amazing teacher of QBs at the same time. I usually don't go for young unproven dudes, but Herman just has something about him that screams special.

 

[calinative umstudent]

Literally anyone who still thinks an ace recruiter make a great HC is just stupid.
We should hire a guy like Hue Jackson over a guy like Lane Kiffen literally no matter what.
You guys act like positional coaches can't be good recruiters. And you guys act like you need CFB head coaching experience when Hue jackson already has College coaching experience as well as NFL HC experience and OC experience. Plus like 2 years ago he was the Bengals DB coach! Hue Jackson knows what the **** he's doing. However, He'd probably be pretty expensive to take away from the NFL, and we are cheap as ****.

 

[bobbydigius]

If Hue comes here... wow does that make this miami team legit next yr

Miami will be legit next year as long as it gets a legitimate HC. We are stacked next year....

 

[Consigliere]

PotatoCane,

I said win the ACC and a Championship. I don't care if the coach leaves after 2 years because all that matters is winning.
We can always gets a new coach.

Clearly you don't know what subjective means. As for Bill O'Brien and his "success" he won the coach of the year in 2012 after the bullchit that occurred with sanctions and everything. What does everything include? How about those transfers? All the players they lost via transfers and scholarships made 8 wins pretty darn good...at least according to the voters.


The 2012 Penn State football exodus: Where are they now? - SBNation.com

As for Schiano and Marrone, again things are different. Rutgers and Cuse both had downtimes but it is easy to see the difference. It took Schiano 5 years to post a winning season. It took Marrone 2 seasons. Yes 2 seasons. Schiano it took 5 seasons. Marrone won a bowl game in year 2 and it took Schiano 6 seasons. Schiano NEVER won the Big East and Marrone won it. Correct Schiano accomplished little at Rutgers, his 28-48 conference record and zero Big East champs are evidence of that. Winning conference champ and turning a program around quickly is a "success".

Cool beans Potato?

 

[pimpcane1]

PotatoCane,

I said win the ACC and a Championship. I don't care if the coach leaves after 2 years because all that matters is winning.
We can always gets a new coach.

You clearly not as wise as you think you are if you truly believe that a coach leaving every two years is sustainable for winning ACC and Championships.

Clearly you don't know what subjective means. As for Bill O'Brien and his "success" he won the coach of the year in 2012 after the bullchit that occurred with sanctions and everything. What does everything include? How about those transfers? All the players they lost via transfers and scholarships made 8 wins pretty darn good...at least according to the voters.

I love how you are trying to change your argument. First it was O'Brien was a "success" because he was down 40 scholarships, now its because he had transfers and he won coaching awards. So which one is it, Conman?

And I'm still waiting on you to explain how O'Brien lost 40 scholorships after 2 season that made him successful. Where is it Conman?

Moreover, if you going to with your BS transfer argument please list all transfers that were impactful. The article you provide states that most of those players were backup type that were going to transfer regardless of sanctions.

The 2012 Penn State football exodus: Where are they now? - SBNation.com

As for Schiano and Marrone, again things are different. Rutgers and Cuse both had downtimes but it is easy to see the difference. It took Schiano 5 years to post a winning season. It took Marrone 2 seasons. Yes 2 seasons. Schiano it took 5 seasons. Marrone won a bowl game in year 2 and it took Schiano 6 seasons. Schiano NEVER won the Big East and Marrone won it. Correct Schiano accomplished little at Rutgers, his 28-48 conference record and zero Big East champs are evidence of that. Winning conference champ and turning a program around quickly is a "success".

Cool beans Potato?

Do you think him having to play Miami and VT in the BE had anything to do with Schiano not winning those first 5 years? Yes, if in fact you do because you have often ridiculed Schiano for only winning after they left but yet praise Marrone and define his success because he turned around a program quickly without having to face those same teams. Wow Conman...great logic but I guess Conman gonna Con.

Bottom line, Schiano posted his first winning season playing the same league schedule in the same time as Marrone did.

Moreover, Marrone never outright won sh:t. He tied for with four other teams for conference co-champ and wouldn't have won if the BE would have used overall record as a Tie beaker. One of those teams he tied with was a Schiano built Rutgers team.

 

[Consigliere]

Do you think him having to play Miami and VT in the BE had anything to do with Schiano not winning those first 5 years? Yes, if in fact you do because you have often ridiculed Schiano for only winning after they left but yet praise Marrone and define his success because he turned around a program quickly without having to face those same teams. Wow Conman...great logic but I guess Conman gonna Con.

Bottom line, Schiano posted his first winning season playing the same league schedule in the same time as Marrone did.

Moreover, Marrone never outright won sh:t. He tied for with four other teams for conference co-champ and wouldn't have won if the BE would have used overall record as a Tie beaker. One of those teams he tied with was a Schiano built Rutgers team.

Oh Potato,

I am glad you moved on from the other stuff. I also see that you're slightly obsessed with my posts, read them quite frequently? Loosen the tinfoil.

Schiano not playing Miami and VT is not relevant as Marrone didn't either. The Big East greatly changed before Marrone ever entered the equation.

Here is a fun fact, once Marrone entered the equation [between 09-11 when Marrone and Schiano were both coaching] Marronne was 2-1 against Schiano. So in head to head match-ups Marrone has the edge. Marrone may never have won the Big East outright, Schiano never won chit (he never tied for first). A tie for the Conference is more than Schiano ever sniffed.

Again, I praise Marrone for the SPEED he had success at Syracuse. What he accomplished in his second season took Schiano 6 seasons. That is why I think Marrone had success.

Are we done Potato?

 

[pimpcane1]

Do you think him having to play Miami and VT in the BE had anything to do with Schiano not winning those first 5 years? Yes, if in fact you do because you have often ridiculed Schiano for only winning after they left but yet praise Marrone and define his success because he turned around a program quickly without having to face those same teams. Wow Conman...great logic but I guess Conman gonna Con.

Bottom line, Schiano posted his first winning season playing the same league schedule in the same time as Marrone did.

Moreover, Marrone never outright won sh:t. He tied for with four other teams for conference co-champ and wouldn't have won if the BE would have used overall record as a Tie beaker. One of those teams he tied with was a Schiano built Rutgers team.

Oh Potato,

I am glad you moved on from the other stuff. I also see that you're slightly obsessed with my posts, read them quite frequently? Loosen the tinfoil.

Conman,

I see you are slightly obsessed with running your ****sucker and being condescending a-hole, condickliere.

Schiano not playing Miami and VT is not relevant as Marrone didn't either. The Big East greatly changed before Marrone ever entered the equation.

Again, I praise Marrone for the SPEED he had success at Syracuse. What he accomplished in his second season took Schiano 6 seasons. That is why I think Marrone had success.

For such a fart smeller that you claim to be you sure do seem to have trouble following. The point was when Schiano had to play the likes of West Virgina, Louisvillie, South Florida, Pitt., Cinn., UConn, in league play with most things being equal to Marrone he produced a winning season his second year with the same SPEED that seem to think is essential for "success". If Marrone would have coached in same BE and at the same time as Schiano did, he would have gotten his sh:t kicked in as well. You have routinely criticized schiano for not winning playing a much harder schedule than Marrone ever did but you still praise Marrone with this SPEED BS. For some reason in your pea brain mind you have concluded one to be successful and one not. Like I said your opinions are based on ****, I called you out on it, move on Conman

Here is a fun fact, once Marrone entered the equation [between 09-11 when Marrone and Schiano were both coaching] Marronne was 2-1 against Schiano. So in head to head match-ups Marrone has the edge. Marrone may never have won the Big East outright, Schiano never won chit (he never tied for first). A tie for the Conference is more than Schiano ever sniffed.

Oh, I see you are back to changing your argument now. Now its head to head match up that made one successful and other one not. I'm sure in your mind playing 3 games against each other is large enough sample size to draw some overwhelming conclusion.

Moreover, I bet you are the type to give Butch all the credit for building that National championship team while giving Schiano no credit for the team that tied with Marrone's team sharing the BE title. Conman gonna Con.

Are we done Potato?

I will be done when you start explaining how O'Brien was successful after being down 40 scholorships in his 2 years and all the hilarity that follows. Did you make that chit up, Conman?

 

[Al Foil]

Randy Shannon had arguably the #1 class in the country his second year here.

Al Golden had arguably the #1 class in the country his second year here.

Notice a trend?

Al and Randy were no longer able to recruit effectively because they were exposed as really bad coaches.

Miami is arguably the easiest recruiting job in the country based on geographical factors. On field performance and the inferior coaching staff is the only thing holding us back.

Literally anyone who still thinks an ace recruiter make a great HC is just stupid.
We should hire a guy like Hue Jackson over a guy like Lane Kiffen literally no matter what.
You guys act like positional coaches can't be good recruiters. And you guys act like you need CFB head coaching experience when Hue jackson already has College coaching experience as well as NFL HC experience and OC experience. Plus like 2 years ago he was the Bengals DB coach! Hue Jackson knows what the **** he's doing. However, He'd probably be pretty expensive to take away from the NFL, and we are cheap as ****.

 

[9oh4Cane]

Win and they will come. Do not need a top-notch recruiter to be successful at Miami; the talent will be there, need someone to coach all that talent.

 

[Big Sky Cane]

I have a coach who grew up in Miami, won at the hs level in Miami, coached in the pros, worked with Saban, coached at UM, considered a recruiter, and has an eye for qb talent. He also coaches a top 30 offense right now. Anyone want thi guy. This is hhow ridiculous everyone sounds about who is considered a good coach or a bad one. The fact is there is almost no good predictor for success unless you go and steal one of the best. . Heck some of the greats even sucker at other places. Jimmy Johnson was 28-24. You can say yeah well he coached at okie St. But this is hindsight except for the ad that hired him. Just cause Herman and Fuentes are doing well doesn't mean they can handle Miami. Can they work with handlers. What kind of staff can they attract? Maybe Cristobal has improved maybe not. Maybe hue Jackson would kill it. I get people have their choices but it's a total crap shoot. By the way the coach I described is James Coley. Lmao

This is a great post and is spot on (except the Cristobal comment...should be slapped for that).

 

[cane since birth]

Top 5

Fuente
Herman
Morris
Pruitt
Montgomery

Of those 5 we should have at least 3 that would be interested in the job. I think all of the above would be great hires. I don't know much about Hue Jackson. But those five guys above I believe would kill it at Miami

This should be the list on the board of the BOT meeting as to who to hire

 

[cane since birth]

You can be a great recruiting head coach as long as you have really good OC and DC

 

[Consigliere]

Conman,

I see you are slightly obsessed with running your ****sucker and being condescending a-hole, condickliere.

Oh no the name calling...my feelings.

You really are obsessed with my posts, it is funny. Pathetic too.

For such a fart smeller that you claim to be you sure do seem to have trouble following. The point was when Schiano had to play the likes of West Virgina, Louisvillie, South Florida, Pitt., Cinn., UConn, in league play with most things being equal to Marrone he produced a winning season his second year with the same SPEED. If Marrone would have coached in same BE and at the same time as Schiano did, he would have gotten his sh:t kicked in as well. You have routinely criticized schiano for not winning playing a much harder schedule than Marrone ever did but you still praize him. For some reason in your pea brain mind you have concluded one to be successful and one not. Like I said your opinions are based on ****, I called you out on it, move on Conman


Oh, I see you are back to changing your argument now. Now its head to head match up that made one successful and other one not. I'm sure in your mind playing 3 games against each other is large enough sample size to draw some overwhelming conclusion. Conman gonna Con.

I think you really are simple. I have explained why Marrone had success and Schiano didn't have the same type of success. I didn't change the argument at all, I merely stated that:

1. Marrone had success quicker than Schiano (i.e. winning season and bowl win in year 2 v. Schiano taking 5/6 seasons),
2. Marrone beat Schiano head to head (2 to 1), and
3. Marrone won the conference and Schiano did not

None of these are opinions, they're all facts.

As for your speculations on Marrone and how he would have done at Cuse if he was there at 2001...I don't know. Considering he beat Schiano when Schiano already had Rutgers running and Cuse was down, I would say Marrone would have beaten Schiano a bunch more. Again, this is speculation. Also irrelevant.

One more fun fact, Marrone was actually improving Buffalo from 6 to 9 wins. Schiano regressed. One last time, I am really praising Marrone for the speed at how he turned it around at a dead program.

I will be done when you start explaining how O'Brien was successful after being down 40 scholorships in his 2 years and all the hilarity that follows. Did you make that chit up, Conman?

O'Brien/PSU lost the following kids:

1. Transfers: PSU lost about 18 kids via transfer (A complete list of Penn State's departures).

2. 2012 Recruits: 5 Kids de-commit and 2012 Total Commits: 19 Total (down -6) [to get down for 2014]

3. Sanctions Year in 2013-14 Academic Year or 15 New Ships available (down -10)

So he lost about 30-34 players over that time. He was successful (considering the sanctions/transfers) and he won coach of the year.

 

[pimpcane1]

Oh no the name calling...my feelings.

You really are obsessed with my posts, it is funny. Pathetic too.

I'm sure you would love to believe someone is obsessed with your posts, it goes with the rest of your narcissistic personality.

I think you really are simple. I have explained why Marrone had success and Schiano didn't have the same type of success. I didn't change the argument at all, I merely stated that:

1. Marrone had success quicker than Schiano (i.e. winning season and bowl win in year 2 v. Schiano taking 5/6 seasons),
2. Marrone beat Schiano head to head (2 to 1), and
3. Marrone won the conference and Schiano did not

None of these are opinions, they're all facts.

Oh, I'm the simple one but using these simple facts of yours to back up opinions I guess makes you the complex thinker. Nice bait and switch and thanks for posting your taking points, Al Golden. But since you like to keep it nice and simple here are some facts for you.

1. Marrone never played in a BE with Miami, VT, which have stated on record to be the reason for Schiano winning later on (side note: why are you not using the same criteria to judge both? Kind of contradictory don't you think?).

2. Marrone posted his first winning season playing NO team that finished the season ranked in conference or out of it. Three of those 8 wins were against Akron, Colgate, Maine (side note: Is season really the season your using as part of your quick turnaround argument for highly successful Marrone? Didn't you say Schiano started winning by beating these same type of teams? Again, Why are you not judging them using the same criteria?)

3. In Marrone's 2 winning seasons he played a total of 1 team that finished the season ranked

4.From the period of 2005 to 2011 (seven seasons) Schiano playing a revamped BE consisting of West Virgina, Louisvillie, South Florida, Pitt., Cinn., UConn, produced 1 losing season over a seven year period. During this time facing the teams above he had a 25-24 record. (Side note: often used by you as a criticism of Schiano but not for the highly successful Marrone, what gives?)

5. From the period 2009 to 2012 (four seasons) playing in a BE with West Virgina, Louisvillie, South Florida, Pitt., Cinn., UConn produced 2 losing seasons. Yes 2 over a 4 year period. During his time facing those teams had a conference record of 11-17 (side note: I guess this a success for you? And does this indicated he would have had a winning record in the old BE?)

6. During their time together in the BE from 2009 to 2011, Marrone's had a conference record of 6-15 and Schiano had a record of 8-13 (side note: Since were using a 2-1 head to head match to draw some conclusions, what does this say? Did Schiano outpreform Marrone when facing same conference competition or not?)

As for your speculations on Marrone and how he would have done at Cuse if he was there at 2001...I don't know. Considering he beat Schiano when Schiano already had Rutgers running and Cuse was down, I would say Marrone would have beaten Schiano a bunch more. Again, this is speculation. Also irrelevant.

One more fun fact, Marrone was actually improving Buffalo from 6 to 9 wins. Schiano regressed. One last time, I am really praising Marrone for the speed at how he turned it around at a dead program.

What is your point about listing these "fun facts"? This convo started with you saying that coaches need to be successful in order to leave college for the NFL. I named O'Brien as an example of someone that was mediocre and received a NFL job, you argued that he was successful then added Marrone was as well. According to you, O'Brien was highly successful because he sanctions/transfer. Marrone was highly successful because he tied for the BE and had two winning seasons producing one his second year. Did I get all that? So wtf does their records in the NFL have to do with anything about landing a job from college?

Marrone, Schiano, O'Brien produced similar mediocre records and all landed NFL jobs but you seem to think they were all highly successful to land those gigs. So why don't you go ahead and tell us what made Schiano so highly successful landing him an NFL gig?

O'Brien/PSU lost the following kids:

1. Transfers: PSU lost about 18 kids via transfer (A complete list of Penn State's departures).

So, out of those 18 transfers 9 left for personal reasons. 1 got kicked off. How did highly successful O'Brien compete without those studs that mostly ended up being career backups?

2. 2012 Recruits: 5 Kids de-commit and 2012 Total Commits: 19 Total (down -6) [to get down for 2014]

LMAO, how do decommits count as scholorships lost?

3. Sanctions Year in 2013-14 Academic Year or 15 New Ships available (down -10)

So he lost about 30-34 players over that time. He was successful (considering the sanctions/transfers) and he won coach of the year.

LMAO, what happened to 40? Even with your wonky numbers you don't get to 40, you're not making chit up are you? And the sanctions were reduced in 2013 then restored all together in 2014 (see usa today link). Keep on trying to figure out new ways to justify your silly arguments, Conman.

NCAA to gradually restore Penn State scholarships

Here let me help you out .

Getting to 67: A look at Penn State football's scholarship players for 2013 | PennLive.com

So a max of 18 scholarships players is what he was missing not 40. I'm sure these sanctions and scholarship reductions were crippling in your eyes even though PSU has a famed walk on program that doesn't count against scholarship limits. So tell why was O'Brien not subjected to your must win a conference championship criteria in order to a be success when he took over a team that was division co-champs the year before under Joe Paterno and only lost 1 impact player?