RIP Coach Leach

[TheOriginalCane]

So are they going to change the rule for Howard Schnellenberger too?

Of course not.

 

[caneingville]

So are they going to change the rule for Howard Schnellenberger too?

Of course not.

Beat me to it.

I was wondering what Schnellenberger's % was and what they lowered it to.

 

[Ironmanfootball]

Beat me to it.

I was wondering what Schnellenberger's % was and what they lowered it to.

They moved it from 60% to 59.5%, Schnelly was 51.1%, Leach was 59.6%. Win% for a guy like Leach or Schnelly is a joke considering their impact on the game

 

[caneingville]

They moved it from 60% to 59.5%, Schnelly was 51.1%, Leach was 59.6%. Win% for a guy like Leach or Schnelly is a joke considering their impact on the game

Thank you for looking it up! 100% agree that it’s a ridiculous and arbitrary rule that doesn’t make any sense.

It’s like those kids who argue that Super Bowl rings are the definitive proof of a QBs quality, thus Eli Manning is a better QB than Dan Marino.

 

[ScoJacks]

Beat me to it.

I was wondering what Schnellenberger's % was and what they lowered it to.

They moved it from 60% to 59.5%, Schnelly was 51.1%, Leach was 59.6%. Win% for a guy like Leach or Schnelly is a joke considering their impact on the game

Am I crazy to think the win% qualifier isn’t necessary? In what scenario are they saying sorry coach but your 30% win% means you can’t enter. Why would that coach even be up for consideration?

There should be room for innovators, program builders, etc that are qualified to get in based on overall impact. Would someone even be considered an innovator if their “innovation” caused them to lose all the time? Kind of seems self explanatory.

 

[Ironmanfootball]

Thank you for looking it up! 100% agree that it’s a ridiculous and arbitrary rule that doesn’t make any sense.

It’s like those kids who argue that Super Bowl rings are the definitive proof of a QBs quality, thus Eli Manning is a better QB than Dan Marino.

Marino is in the HOF without a ring so while I DO think SB wins matter they aren't my ONLY data point like the CFB HOF and win%

 

[Ironmanfootball]

Am I crazy to think the win% qualifier isn’t necessary? In what scenario are they saying sorry coach but your 30% win% means you can’t enter. Why would that coach even be up for consideration?

There should be room for innovators, program builders, etc that are qualified to get in based on overall impact. Would someone even be considered an innovator if their “innovation” caused them to lose all the time? Kind of seems self explanatory.

I agree. Paul Johnson's win% is 59% at the FBS level, does FCS count for him?

 

[caneingville]

Marino is in the HOF without a ring so while I DO think SB wins matter they aren't my ONLY data point like the CFB HOF and win%

Yeah, I’m not talking about NFL HOF though. There’s a huge segment of the younger generation that believes that players with rings > players without rings no matter what, in any sport. That’s all. It was probably a bad analogy though.

 

[ScoJacks]

Am I crazy to think the win% qualifier isn’t necessary? In what scenario are they saying sorry coach but your 30% win% means you can’t enter. Why would that coach even be up for consideration?

There should be room for innovators, program builders, etc that are qualified to get in based on overall impact. Would someone even be considered an innovator if their “innovation” caused them to lose all the time? Kind of seems self explanatory.

I agree. Paul Johnson's win% is 59% at the FBS level, does FCS count for him?

I mean even Cristobal. I believe he has a long career ahead of him, but he currently stands at .551. If you just looked at FIU at face value, sub .400, you’d think it wasn’t a great tenure. But turning that program around made a huge impact. Winning multiple PAC12 championships at Oregon. Rebuilding Miami, going to national championship….I think eventually he’ll get over 59.5, but does it mean he’s a bad coach now because he rebuilt multiple programs?

 

[Golsen82]

They moved it from 60% to 59.5%, Schnelly was 51.1%, Leach was 59.6%. Win% for a guy like Leach or Schnelly is a joke considering their impact on the game

Really Leach is 100%. College football knows that if he coached Miami he would never have lost a game

 

[Ironmanfootball]

Am I crazy to think the win% qualifier isn’t necessary? In what scenario are they saying sorry coach but your 30% win% means you can’t enter. Why would that coach even be up for consideration?

There should be room for innovators, program builders, etc that are qualified to get in based on overall impact. Would someone even be considered an innovator if their “innovation” caused them to lose all the time? Kind of seems self explanatory.

I agree. Paul Johnson's win% is 59% at the FBS level, does FCS count for him?

I mean even Cristobal. I believe he has a long career ahead of him, but he currently stands at .551. If you just looked at FIU at face value, sub .400, you’d think it wasn’t a great tenure. But turning that program around made a huge impact. Winning multiple PAC12 championships at Oregon. Rebuilding Miami, going to national championship….I think eventually he’ll get over 59.5, but does it mean he’s a bad coach now because he rebuilt multiple programs?

Cristobal hasn’t won chit or innovated chit. Copying Saban’s 2012 program manual without the same results ≠ HOF levels of innovation.

 

[ScoJacks]

Am I crazy to think the win% qualifier isn’t necessary? In what scenario are they saying sorry coach but your 30% win% means you can’t enter. Why would that coach even be up for consideration?

There should be room for innovators, program builders, etc that are qualified to get in based on overall impact. Would someone even be considered an innovator if their “innovation” caused them to lose all the time? Kind of seems self explanatory.

I agree. Paul Johnson's win% is 59% at the FBS level, does FCS count for him?

I mean even Cristobal. I believe he has a long career ahead of him, but he currently stands at .551. If you just looked at FIU at face value, sub .400, you’d think it wasn’t a great tenure. But turning that program around made a huge impact. Winning multiple PAC12 championships at Oregon. Rebuilding Miami, going to national championship….I think eventually he’ll get over 59.5, but does it mean he’s a bad coach now because he rebuilt multiple programs?

Cristobal hasn’t won chit or innovated chit. Copying Saban’s 2012 program manual without the same results ≠ HOF levels of innovation.

I understand that. My point was his win% is lower because he’s taken on 3 rebuilds

 

[Ispyin]

The rule is stupid as **** Schnellenberger revived two programs and started another one from scratch that wind percentage thing doesn’t measure his impact and should be completely discarded. It’s so ******* stupid.

 

[Ironmanfootball]

Am I crazy to think the win% qualifier isn’t necessary? In what scenario are they saying sorry coach but your 30% win% means you can’t enter. Why would that coach even be up for consideration?

There should be room for innovators, program builders, etc that are qualified to get in based on overall impact. Would someone even be considered an innovator if their “innovation” caused them to lose all the time? Kind of seems self explanatory.

I agree. Paul Johnson's win% is 59% at the FBS level, does FCS count for him?

I mean even Cristobal. I believe he has a long career ahead of him, but he currently stands at .551. If you just looked at FIU at face value, sub .400, you’d think it wasn’t a great tenure. But turning that program around made a huge impact. Winning multiple PAC12 championships at Oregon. Rebuilding Miami, going to national championship….I think eventually he’ll get over 59.5, but does it mean he’s a bad coach now because he rebuilt multiple programs?

Cristobal hasn’t won chit or innovated chit. Copying Saban’s 2012 program manual without the same results ≠ HOF levels of innovation.

I understand that. My point was his win% is lower because he’s taken on 3 rebuilds

Oregon and Miami ain’t exactly Texas Tech Wazzu and Miss St. The Cristobrew is some strong Kool-Aid

 

[ScoJacks]

Am I crazy to think the win% qualifier isn’t necessary? In what scenario are they saying sorry coach but your 30% win% means you can’t enter. Why would that coach even be up for consideration?

There should be room for innovators, program builders, etc that are qualified to get in based on overall impact. Would someone even be considered an innovator if their “innovation” caused them to lose all the time? Kind of seems self explanatory.

I agree. Paul Johnson's win% is 59% at the FBS level, does FCS count for him?

I mean even Cristobal. I believe he has a long career ahead of him, but he currently stands at .551. If you just looked at FIU at face value, sub .400, you’d think it wasn’t a great tenure. But turning that program around made a huge impact. Winning multiple PAC12 championships at Oregon. Rebuilding Miami, going to national championship….I think eventually he’ll get over 59.5, but does it mean he’s a bad coach now because he rebuilt multiple programs?

Cristobal hasn’t won chit or innovated chit. Copying Saban’s 2012 program manual without the same results ≠ HOF levels of innovation.

I understand that. My point was his win% is lower because he’s taken on 3 rebuilds

Oregon and Miami ain’t exactly Texas Tech Wazzu and Miss St. The Cristobrew is some strong Kool-Aid

You’re getting a little excited bud. I was purely using our coach as an example. I do think he’s a good coach but I also believe Cristobal has a LONG way to go to be a hall of famer. My criticism remains the win% qualifier is pointless. If the % is too low that coach would not be a candidate anyways. If coaches like Leach and Schnellenberger are even in the conversation with their “low” win%, then in my mind they should already be in. Their impact on the game has more significance than their win%. Schnellenberger **** near built two programs from scratch, and his win% took a hit during the process. That’s my point. Leach was a main driver of this new offense with a giant coaching tree which is more significant than his win%. That’s my point.

 

[Ironmanfootball]

Am I crazy to think the win% qualifier isn’t necessary? In what scenario are they saying sorry coach but your 30% win% means you can’t enter. Why would that coach even be up for consideration?

There should be room for innovators, program builders, etc that are qualified to get in based on overall impact. Would someone even be considered an innovator if their “innovation” caused them to lose all the time? Kind of seems self explanatory.

I agree. Paul Johnson's win% is 59% at the FBS level, does FCS count for him?

I mean even Cristobal. I believe he has a long career ahead of him, but he currently stands at .551. If you just looked at FIU at face value, sub .400, you’d think it wasn’t a great tenure. But turning that program around made a huge impact. Winning multiple PAC12 championships at Oregon. Rebuilding Miami, going to national championship….I think eventually he’ll get over 59.5, but does it mean he’s a bad coach now because he rebuilt multiple programs?

Cristobal hasn’t won chit or innovated chit. Copying Saban’s 2012 program manual without the same results ≠ HOF levels of innovation.

I understand that. My point was his win% is lower because he’s taken on 3 rebuilds

Oregon and Miami ain’t exactly Texas Tech Wazzu and Miss St. The Cristobrew is some strong Kool-Aid

You’re getting a little excited bud. I was purely using our coach as an example. I do think he’s a good coach but I also believe Cristobal has a LONG way to go to be a hall of famer. My criticism remains the win% qualifier is pointless. If the % is too low that coach would not be a candidate anyways. If coaches like Leach and Schnellenberger are even in the conversation with their “low” win%, then in my mind they should already be in. Their impact on the game has more significance than their win%. Schnellenberger **** near built two programs from scratch, and his win% took a hit during the process. That’s my point. Leach was a main driver of this new offense with a giant coaching tree which is more significant than his win%. That’s my point.

I can only go off the examples you’re offering. Rebuild + Mario is hilarious for 2/3 of his gigs.

 

[ScoJacks]

Am I crazy to think the win% qualifier isn’t necessary? In what scenario are they saying sorry coach but your 30% win% means you can’t enter. Why would that coach even be up for consideration?

There should be room for innovators, program builders, etc that are qualified to get in based on overall impact. Would someone even be considered an innovator if their “innovation” caused them to lose all the time? Kind of seems self explanatory.

I agree. Paul Johnson's win% is 59% at the FBS level, does FCS count for him?

I mean even Cristobal. I believe he has a long career ahead of him, but he currently stands at .551. If you just looked at FIU at face value, sub .400, you’d think it wasn’t a great tenure. But turning that program around made a huge impact. Winning multiple PAC12 championships at Oregon. Rebuilding Miami, going to national championship….I think eventually he’ll get over 59.5, but does it mean he’s a bad coach now because he rebuilt multiple programs?

Cristobal hasn’t won chit or innovated chit. Copying Saban’s 2012 program manual without the same results ≠ HOF levels of innovation.

I understand that. My point was his win% is lower because he’s taken on 3 rebuilds

Oregon and Miami ain’t exactly Texas Tech Wazzu and Miss St. The Cristobrew is some strong Kool-Aid

You’re getting a little excited bud. I was purely using our coach as an example. I do think he’s a good coach but I also believe Cristobal has a LONG way to go to be a hall of famer. My criticism remains the win% qualifier is pointless. If the % is too low that coach would not be a candidate anyways. If coaches like Leach and Schnellenberger are even in the conversation with their “low” win%, then in my mind they should already be in. Their impact on the game has more significance than their win%. Schnellenberger **** near built two programs from scratch, and his win% took a hit during the process. That’s my point. Leach was a main driver of this new offense with a giant coaching tree which is more significant than his win%. That’s my point.

I can only go off the examples you’re offering. Rebuild + Mario is hilarious for 2/3 of his gigs.

Oregon was 4-8 when they brought him in. Miami was going in the wrong direction hard. One player drafted in the 7th round and a joke of program to national championship appearance and multiple first rounders with more on the way. It’s not like he walked into winning teams like Kirby at Georgia.

 

[Zombie-Cane]

I can only go off the examples you’re offering. Rebuild + Mario is hilarious for 2/3 of his gigs.

Did Mario bang your girl? WTF. Your argument(s) are ridiculously sad.

 

[Ironmanfootball]

Am I crazy to think the win% qualifier isn’t necessary? In what scenario are they saying sorry coach but your 30% win% means you can’t enter. Why would that coach even be up for consideration?

There should be room for innovators, program builders, etc that are qualified to get in based on overall impact. Would someone even be considered an innovator if their “innovation” caused them to lose all the time? Kind of seems self explanatory.

I agree. Paul Johnson's win% is 59% at the FBS level, does FCS count for him?

I mean even Cristobal. I believe he has a long career ahead of him, but he currently stands at .551. If you just looked at FIU at face value, sub .400, you’d think it wasn’t a great tenure. But turning that program around made a huge impact. Winning multiple PAC12 championships at Oregon. Rebuilding Miami, going to national championship….I think eventually he’ll get over 59.5, but does it mean he’s a bad coach now because he rebuilt multiple programs?

Cristobal hasn’t won chit or innovated chit. Copying Saban’s 2012 program manual without the same results ≠ HOF levels of innovation.

I understand that. My point was his win% is lower because he’s taken on 3 rebuilds

Oregon and Miami ain’t exactly Texas Tech Wazzu and Miss St. The Cristobrew is some strong Kool-Aid

You’re getting a little excited bud. I was purely using our coach as an example. I do think he’s a good coach but I also believe Cristobal has a LONG way to go to be a hall of famer. My criticism remains the win% qualifier is pointless. If the % is too low that coach would not be a candidate anyways. If coaches like Leach and Schnellenberger are even in the conversation with their “low” win%, then in my mind they should already be in. Their impact on the game has more significance than their win%. Schnellenberger **** near built two programs from scratch, and his win% took a hit during the process. That’s my point. Leach was a main driver of this new offense with a giant coaching tree which is more significant than his win%. That’s my point.

I can only go off the examples you’re offering. Rebuild + Mario is hilarious for 2/3 of his gigs.

Oregon was 4-8 when they brought him in. Miami was going in the wrong direction hard. One player drafted in the 7th round and a joke of program to national championship appearance and multiple first rounders with more on the way. It’s not like he walked into winning teams like Kirby at Georgia.

Oregon was 7-5. Stop talking to me.

 

[Empirical Cane]

Did Mario bang your girl? WTF. Your argument(s) are ridiculously sad.

Well, considering Danny's history...

it's a fair question.