Miami Herald Kirk Herbstreit

[OrangetieFatface]

You're not smart. Go read what I said, then check out Mike shula on wiki.

You're beyond dumb, you chinstrapped moron. According to you, what happened TWO years prior to a coach taking over is more relevant than what happened the YEAR prior. Nobody gives a **** about your irrelevant statistics--Nick Saban took over a team with a worse record than Golden did.

That had had more success closer to the time he took over.

No, that had LESS success closer to the time he took over, you clown. You're an incompetent child.

a 10-2 season is is better than a 9-4 season.. no matter how you look at it. bama at the very least had 1 good season closer to Saban's arrival, our best was a 4 loss season closest to golden's arrival.

Al Golden > Nick Saban.

Youre a very astute fella.

 

[weownfsu]

Lrg: who had a worse record the season before the new coach took over? Alabama or Miani?

 

[DaU83]

Lrg: who had a worse record the season before the new coach took over? Alabama or Miani?

bama did.. i think they were a 6? win team.. and we were a MUCH better 7? win team.. and yet that doesn't change the fact that Bama had a more successful season closer to saban's arrival.

 

[DaU83]

You're beyond dumb, you chinstrapped moron. According to you, what happened TWO years prior to a coach taking over is more relevant than what happened the YEAR prior. Nobody gives a **** about your irrelevant statistics--Nick Saban took over a team with a worse record than Golden did.

That had had more success closer to the time he took over.

No, that had LESS success closer to the time he took over, you clown. You're an incompetent child.

a 10-2 season is is better than a 9-4 season.. no matter how you look at it. bama at the very least had 1 good season closer to Saban's arrival, our best was a 4 loss season closest to golden's arrival.

Al Golden > Nick Saban.

Youre a very astute fella.

this has nothing to with who is better between the two. way to be astute yourself.

 

[BoroCane83]

I don't know why this is even being debated. The impact of a program's record prior to a new coaches arrival on the length of time to resurge is minimal compared to the actual ability of a coach to lead the resurgence.

 

[weownfsu]

Lrg: who had a worse record the season before the new coach took over? Alabama or Miani?

bama did.. i think they were a 6? win team.. and we were a MUCH better 7? win team.. and yet that doesn't change the fact that Bama had a more successful season closer to saban's arrival.

So alabama was worse than Miami when saban took over. Thanks.

 

[ThomasM]

Without looking at the rosters, I'd be willing to bet every single one of those coaches inherited teams that gave them some signs of life on the roster. Tell me, where were the upperclassmen on our roster in 2012 and 2013? You know, the good players left by the last regime. Here's a clue for you... They were non-existent. There is the difference between what Golden inherited and what the other coaches took over. Those teams all had talent on the roster. Miami did not, and that is why you saw so many true freshmen starting for us the last few years. People can talk about recruiting classes, and that's fine, but a coach who inherits a talented roster, then recruits well, will have an easier time winning than one who recruits well but inherited a roster devoid of talent. One is starting from scratch, while the others did not. Recruiting and relying on those kids right away is not the same as recruiting well and not having to play those kids until they are ready.

Hey, Mr. Logic, Alabama was on probation when Saban took over. They had actual scholarship losses unlike what we got. How long did it take to get them turned around?

they were also 10-2 2 seasons before saban arrived.. they weren't terrible in the dumps like we were.

You're a dishonest piece of ****. Stop posting. The season before Saban got there, Alabama lost SEVEN games. So they were actually worse than UM was when Golden took over.

2005 10-2, 2006 6-7, 2007 7-6, 2008 12-2, 2009 14-0

By all accounts, those two seasons should have KILLED recruiting, and yet somehow Satan was able to go undefeated 3 years removed from a losing season. But yeah, had nothing to do with him as a coach and recruiter. Jimbo did the exact same thing at FSU without the 7-6 first year.


Edit: I would also note that Shula was fired after going 10-2 the season before going 6-7. Didn't get that one more chance to do well. Nope. FIRED.

Why don't we also look at how some other schools did before their NC winning coaches got there:

UF was 7-5 before Urban got there. NC in 2 years.
FSU was 7-6 before Jimbo took over. NC in 4 years.
OU was 5-6 before Stoops got there. NC in 2 years.
USC was 5-7 the year before Carroll got there. NC in 3 years.

The list goes on and on and on of great coaches who were able to quickly turn around schools that were in the dumps. Golden can't even win double digit games. He can't win the division. He can't beat FSU. He can beat a ranked team once in a blue moon. Know why that is? It's because he sucks. Not because he hasn't had enough time. It's because he sucks. He's a loser that cannot win on this level, and anybody who supports Golden at this point is the equivalent of a Penn State cultist.

 

[OzarCaneSaw]

Lots of guys said after Shannon it was a five year rebuild. They may have been dead right. Tough to build championship depth sooner than that after recruiting tanks.

Over the past 4 years we've out recruited GaTech, Nebraska and Louisville. Please, tell me again how our recruiting tanked.

It takes at least 5 years WITHOUT sanctions or a "cloud" to get top ten worthy depth after a clusterfark. We are playing with 75 scholarships. We are 4 years in one year removed from "the cloud". Talk to me this time next year

Stop lying. One, we aren't playing with 75 scholarships--at least not because of the NCAA. IF we're playing with that few this season, it is our fault and nobody else's.

Two, there are plenty of examples of coaches who dealt with "clusterfark" [sic] and turned it around within 4 years.

Three, if we can't beat the teams whom we out-recruit now, why do you think that would magically change next year?

I think he was being sarcastic. Didn't seem like a serious post. At least not to me.

 

[OrangetieFatface]

That had had more success closer to the time he took over.

No, that had LESS success closer to the time he took over, you clown. You're an incompetent child.

a 10-2 season is is better than a 9-4 season.. no matter how you look at it. bama at the very least had 1 good season closer to Saban's arrival, our best was a 4 loss season closest to golden's arrival.

Al Golden > Nick Saban.

Youre a very astute fella.

this has nothing to with who is better between the two. way to be astute yourself.

So what are you arguing? It reads to me like you're saying "Al Golden inherited a harder job than Nick Saban. If Nick Saban were doing as good as Al Golden is doing everyone would be happy."

 

[weownfsu]

Without looking at the rosters, I'd be willing to bet every single one of those coaches inherited teams that gave them some signs of life on the roster. Tell me, where were the upperclassmen on our roster in 2012 and 2013? You know, the good players left by the last regime. Here's a clue for you... They were non-existent. There is the difference between what Golden inherited and what the other coaches took over. Those teams all had talent on the roster. Miami did not, and that is why you saw so many true freshmen starting for us the last few years. People can talk about recruiting classes, and that's fine, but a coach who inherits a talented roster, then recruits well, will have an easier time winning than one who recruits well but inherited a roster devoid of talent. One is starting from scratch, while the others did not. Recruiting and relying on those kids right away is not the same as recruiting well and not having to play those kids until they are ready.

they were also 10-2 2 seasons before saban arrived.. they weren't terrible in the dumps like we were.

You're a dishonest piece of ****. Stop posting. The season before Saban got there, Alabama lost SEVEN games. So they were actually worse than UM was when Golden took over.

2005 10-2, 2006 6-7, 2007 7-6, 2008 12-2, 2009 14-0

By all accounts, those two seasons should have KILLED recruiting, and yet somehow Satan was able to go undefeated 3 years removed from a losing season. But yeah, had nothing to do with him as a coach and recruiter. Jimbo did the exact same thing at FSU without the 7-6 first year.


Edit: I would also note that Shula was fired after going 10-2 the season before going 6-7. Didn't get that one more chance to do well. Nope. FIRED.

Why don't we also look at how some other schools did before their NC winning coaches got there:

UF was 7-5 before Urban got there. NC in 2 years.
FSU was 7-6 before Jimbo took over. NC in 4 years.
OU was 5-6 before Stoops got there. NC in 2 years.
USC was 5-7 the year before Carroll got there. NC in 3 years.

The list goes on and on and on of great coaches who were able to quickly turn around schools that were in the dumps. Golden can't even win double digit games. He can't win the division. He can't beat FSU. He can beat a ranked team once in a blue moon. Know why that is? It's because he sucks. Not because he hasn't had enough time. It's because he sucks. He's a loser that cannot win on this level, and anybody who supports Golden at this point is the equivalent of a Penn State cultist.

Stop it with this bull**** that UM didn't have talent. It's an outright lie. There are 20 players from the 2011 team that played in the NFL and Golden went 6-6. He's awful.

 

[weownfsu]

No, that had LESS success closer to the time he took over, you clown. You're an incompetent child.

a 10-2 season is is better than a 9-4 season.. no matter how you look at it. bama at the very least had 1 good season closer to Saban's arrival, our best was a 4 loss season closest to golden's arrival.

Al Golden > Nick Saban.

Youre a very astute fella.

this has nothing to with who is better between the two. way to be astute yourself.

So what are you arguing? It reads to me like you're saying "Al Golden inherited a harder job than Nick Saban. If Nick Saban were doing as good as Al Golden is doing everyone would be happy."

Exactly, what is this guys point? That Alabama had one more win and 2 less losses than UM two years before Saban took over, so it's completely understandable for UM to be going 6-4 in year 4? Huh? But nevermind the fact that 2006 Alabama was a worse team than 2010 Miami--the year before Saban and Golden took over respectively. Nah, Alabama having a 10-2 season in 2005 as opposed to uM's 9-4 season in 2009 obviously shows that Alabama was just so far advanced as a program it would be unfair to expect any results.

 

[DaU83]

I don't know why this is even being debated. The impact of a program's record prior to a new coaches arrival on the length of time to resurge is minimal compared to the actual ability of a coach to lead the resurgence.

really? Because logically speaking, taking over for dumpster fire temple, and taking over for an average UF team is completely different in terms of "resurge" time. As an example, michigan will not be a year 2 turn around after however many years of carr, rich rod, and hoke.. even if they were to bring saban in.

 

[DaU83]

Without looking at the rosters, I'd be willing to bet every single one of those coaches inherited teams that gave them some signs of life on the roster. Tell me, where were the upperclassmen on our roster in 2012 and 2013? You know, the good players left by the last regime. Here's a clue for you... They were non-existent. There is the difference between what Golden inherited and what the other coaches took over. Those teams all had talent on the roster. Miami did not, and that is why you saw so many true freshmen starting for us the last few years. People can talk about recruiting classes, and that's fine, but a coach who inherits a talented roster, then recruits well, will have an easier time winning than one who recruits well but inherited a roster devoid of talent. One is starting from scratch, while the others did not. Recruiting and relying on those kids right away is not the same as recruiting well and not having to play those kids until they are ready.

You're a dishonest piece of ****. Stop posting. The season before Saban got there, Alabama lost SEVEN games. So they were actually worse than UM was when Golden took over.

2005 10-2, 2006 6-7, 2007 7-6, 2008 12-2, 2009 14-0

By all accounts, those two seasons should have KILLED recruiting, and yet somehow Satan was able to go undefeated 3 years removed from a losing season. But yeah, had nothing to do with him as a coach and recruiter. Jimbo did the exact same thing at FSU without the 7-6 first year.


Edit: I would also note that Shula was fired after going 10-2 the season before going 6-7. Didn't get that one more chance to do well. Nope. FIRED.

Why don't we also look at how some other schools did before their NC winning coaches got there:

UF was 7-5 before Urban got there. NC in 2 years.
FSU was 7-6 before Jimbo took over. NC in 4 years.
OU was 5-6 before Stoops got there. NC in 2 years.
USC was 5-7 the year before Carroll got there. NC in 3 years.

The list goes on and on and on of great coaches who were able to quickly turn around schools that were in the dumps. Golden can't even win double digit games. He can't win the division. He can't beat FSU. He can beat a ranked team once in a blue moon. Know why that is? It's because he sucks. Not because he hasn't had enough time. It's because he sucks. He's a loser that cannot win on this level, and anybody who supports Golden at this point is the equivalent of a Penn State cultist.

Stop it with this bull**** that UM didn't have talent. It's an outright lie. There are 20 players from the 2011 team that played in the NFL and Golden went 6-6. He's awful.

that "played" in the NFL .. that's a joke.. how many of those guys played well, succeeded, are still playing in the NFL. that's what matters, not that they had a chance.

 

[DaU83]

No, that had LESS success closer to the time he took over, you clown. You're an incompetent child.

a 10-2 season is is better than a 9-4 season.. no matter how you look at it. bama at the very least had 1 good season closer to Saban's arrival, our best was a 4 loss season closest to golden's arrival.

Al Golden > Nick Saban.

Youre a very astute fella.

this has nothing to with who is better between the two. way to be astute yourself.

So what are you arguing? It reads to me like you're saying "Al Golden inherited a harder job than Nick Saban. If Nick Saban were doing as good as Al Golden is doing everyone would be happy."

my argument is solely, that more recent success lends itself more to future success. Granted Nick Saban is the best coach in college football.. so his learning curve is not as high.. but if i'm picking between jobs and one team was 10-2 and ranked 8th in the previous seasons and the other's best season was 9-4.. and 19th.. I think i'd have a better go at success with the 10-2 squad.

 

[BoroCane83]

I don't know why this is even being debated. The impact of a program's record prior to a new coaches arrival on the length of time to resurge is minimal compared to the actual ability of a coach to lead the resurgence.

really? Because logically speaking, taking over for dumpster fire temple, and taking over for an average UF team is completely different in terms of "resurge" time. As an example, michigan will not be a year 2 turn around after however many years of carr, rich rod, and hoke.. even if they were to bring saban in.

Saban, Carroll, Meyer. All could go into Michigan and win their DIVISION within four years.

 

[DaU83]

a 10-2 season is is better than a 9-4 season.. no matter how you look at it. bama at the very least had 1 good season closer to Saban's arrival, our best was a 4 loss season closest to golden's arrival.

Al Golden > Nick Saban.

Youre a very astute fella.

this has nothing to with who is better between the two. way to be astute yourself.

So what are you arguing? It reads to me like you're saying "Al Golden inherited a harder job than Nick Saban. If Nick Saban were doing as good as Al Golden is doing everyone would be happy."

Exactly, what is this guys point? That Alabama had one more win and 2 less losses than UM two years before Saban took over, so it's completely understandable for UM to be going 6-4 in year 4? Huh? But nevermind the fact that 2006 Alabama was a worse team than 2010 Miami--the year before Saban and Golden took over respectively. Nah, Alabama having a 10-2 season in 2005 as opposed to uM's 9-4 season in 2009 obviously shows that Alabama was just so far advanced as a program it would be unfair to expect any results.

funny how 2 more losses is all of a sudden nothing when comparing 10-2 bama and 9-4 miami...

 

[DaU83]

I don't know why this is even being debated. The impact of a program's record prior to a new coaches arrival on the length of time to resurge is minimal compared to the actual ability of a coach to lead the resurgence.

really? Because logically speaking, taking over for dumpster fire temple, and taking over for an average UF team is completely different in terms of "resurge" time. As an example, michigan will not be a year 2 turn around after however many years of carr, rich rod, and hoke.. even if they were to bring saban in.

Saban, Carroll, Meyer. All could go into Michigan and win their DIVISION within four years.

you're talking about the best of the best, and maybe you're right. but OSU (meyer) and Michigan State would have a lot to say about it. I don't know who michigan is going to hire, but i HIGHLY doubt they beat OSu or State for the division in the next 4 seasons.

 

[weownfsu]

Al Golden > Nick Saban.

Youre a very astute fella.

this has nothing to with who is better between the two. way to be astute yourself.

So what are you arguing? It reads to me like you're saying "Al Golden inherited a harder job than Nick Saban. If Nick Saban were doing as good as Al Golden is doing everyone would be happy."

Exactly, what is this guys point? That Alabama had one more win and 2 less losses than UM two years before Saban took over, so it's completely understandable for UM to be going 6-4 in year 4? Huh? But nevermind the fact that 2006 Alabama was a worse team than 2010 Miami--the year before Saban and Golden took over respectively. Nah, Alabama having a 10-2 season in 2005 as opposed to uM's 9-4 season in 2009 obviously shows that Alabama was just so far advanced as a program it would be unfair to expect any results.

funny how 2 more losses is all of a sudden nothing when comparing 10-2 bama and 9-4 miami...

Yes lrg, two more losses two years before the new coach took over (and MORE losses the year RIGHT BEFORE the new coach took over) obviously shows that the programs were at such drastically different points that it's not reasonable to expect UM to be able to beat teams like GT, Louisville, and Nebraska by year 4. And clearly Alabama is the only example of a program that got it turned around very quickly with a new coach.

 

[DaU83]

this has nothing to with who is better between the two. way to be astute yourself.

So what are you arguing? It reads to me like you're saying "Al Golden inherited a harder job than Nick Saban. If Nick Saban were doing as good as Al Golden is doing everyone would be happy."

Exactly, what is this guys point? That Alabama had one more win and 2 less losses than UM two years before Saban took over, so it's completely understandable for UM to be going 6-4 in year 4? Huh? But nevermind the fact that 2006 Alabama was a worse team than 2010 Miami--the year before Saban and Golden took over respectively. Nah, Alabama having a 10-2 season in 2005 as opposed to uM's 9-4 season in 2009 obviously shows that Alabama was just so far advanced as a program it would be unfair to expect any results.

funny how 2 more losses is all of a sudden nothing when comparing 10-2 bama and 9-4 miami...

Yes lrg, two more losses two years before the new coach took over (and MORE losses the year RIGHT BEFORE the new coach took over) obviously shows that the programs were at such drastically different points that it's not reasonable to expect UM to be able to beat teams like GT, Louisville, and Nebraska by year 4. And clearly Alabama is the only example of a program that got it turned around very quickly with a new coach.

there are more examples of new coaches that did nothing then there are of coaches that turned it around quickly. i can guarantee that without even looking up the numbers.
and the difference between a 6-7 team and a 7-6 team is minimal.. somehow 10-2 and 9-4 is almost the same thing to you.. but 6-7 bama and 7-6 miami is WORLDS of difference.. that bama team must have been putrid in comparison.

 

[ThomasM]

And **** near all those players left after the 2011 season. They couldn't get out of Dodge fast enough. Again, where were the upperclassmen in 2012? Where was the senior leadership in 2013?

Without looking at the rosters, I'd be willing to bet every single one of those coaches inherited teams that gave them some signs of life on the roster. Tell me, where were the upperclassmen on our roster in 2012 and 2013? You know, the good players left by the last regime. Here's a clue for you... They were non-existent. There is the difference between what Golden inherited and what the other coaches took over. Those teams all had talent on the roster. Miami did not, and that is why you saw so many true freshmen starting for us the last few years. People can talk about recruiting classes, and that's fine, but a coach who inherits a talented roster, then recruits well, will have an easier time winning than one who recruits well but inherited a roster devoid of talent. One is starting from scratch, while the others did not. Recruiting and relying on those kids right away is not the same as recruiting well and not having to play those kids until they are ready.

You're a dishonest piece of ****. Stop posting. The season before Saban got there, Alabama lost SEVEN games. So they were actually worse than UM was when Golden took over.

2005 10-2, 2006 6-7, 2007 7-6, 2008 12-2, 2009 14-0

By all accounts, those two seasons should have KILLED recruiting, and yet somehow Satan was able to go undefeated 3 years removed from a losing season. But yeah, had nothing to do with him as a coach and recruiter. Jimbo did the exact same thing at FSU without the 7-6 first year.


Edit: I would also note that Shula was fired after going 10-2 the season before going 6-7. Didn't get that one more chance to do well. Nope. FIRED.

Why don't we also look at how some other schools did before their NC winning coaches got there:

UF was 7-5 before Urban got there. NC in 2 years.
FSU was 7-6 before Jimbo took over. NC in 4 years.
OU was 5-6 before Stoops got there. NC in 2 years.
USC was 5-7 the year before Carroll got there. NC in 3 years.

The list goes on and on and on of great coaches who were able to quickly turn around schools that were in the dumps. Golden can't even win double digit games. He can't win the division. He can't beat FSU. He can beat a ranked team once in a blue moon. Know why that is? It's because he sucks. Not because he hasn't had enough time. It's because he sucks. He's a loser that cannot win on this level, and anybody who supports Golden at this point is the equivalent of a Penn State cultist.

Stop it with this bull**** that UM didn't have talent. It's an outright lie. There are 20 players from the 2011 team that played in the NFL and Golden went 6-6. He's awful.