schedule and qb

The way for any coach to have a really good record is to have a heisman level qb combined with a weak schedule. It’s worked for years for ACC teams like Florida St. and Louisville. Strong had a heisman level qb when he was at Louisville and only lost 1 or 2 games a year for a couple of years. Petrino has had the same thing at Louisville this year. Louisville this year has also only beaten 2 teams over 500. It’s talent, particularly qb talent, which is better than the competition one plays against which leads to a lot of wins. In other words, it’s recruiting that wins games, while coaching is a small part of it. If any other coach, including CBB, would have coached Louisville this year, they too would have only lost at most a couple of games. If Strong would have stayed at Louisville and Texas would have hired Petrino, then Strong would be the one still winning big at Louisville, and Petrino would be the one struggling at Texas.

Arkansas’s record this year is the result of a lack of talent needed to play against ranked teams every week. So how does a coach become really good? The answer is by consistently having better players than the team he’s playing against has. The way to have a good coach is by having good players.

A coach must have talent, no doubt about that. However this stuff about coaching being a small part is not accurate.

Motivation is a huge factor in college football as well as X’s & O’s. Those factors come solely from coaching. Also the coach is responsible for recruiting and developing that talent aspect.

There is definitely a lot to a winning football program. The buck in every aspect stops with the head coach. If he has bad players after 3 or 4 recruiting cycles. It is nobody’s fault but his own.

I am aware coaches must recruit harder at Arkansas as the D1 talent to field a major college power is not produced yearly within its borders. That is what it is. However Arkansas coaches have recruited at a Top 10 level here to at least some degree in the past. We just need to get a coach that can do it again.

Miss St. has the same coach now that they had a couple of years ago when they were the number one team late in the season. Mack Brown and the Auburn coach both won a NC and got let go later for not winning enough. Strong won at Louisville like Petrino is doing now but has been struggling ever since he got to Texas. Holtz was 0-11 his first year at SC. Did all of the these coaches forget how to motivate and develop talent? Did Oregeron take a class or something after getting let go from Ole Miss and that’s why he’s now winning with LSU? If coaching was as big a part as so many think, then how do you explain all of that? I think coaching only really matters when you have comparable talent to the teams you play. It can probably make a small difference in that case.

In college, I agree that it is on the head coach because he’s the one responsible for recruiting and putting the team together. I think coaches find good players much more than they develop them.

The many variables within building a highly successful college football program explain all the examples you gave. Talent is a very important aspect or element but it not the overbearing strict deciding factor you imply. A good coach can develop and win with three star athletes. Petrino was an example of that but they exist all over this country.

How was Boise State ever a powerhouse with their recruiting? Alabama has recruited great since Bear Bryant days. Why was Alabama so lousy all those years between Stallings & Saban?

The answer to the questions above is just head coaches but there are many other variables as I stated earlier. As good recruiting & good coaching highly motivational assistant coaches. A good weight training coach to develop players. All these things are important in success with winning. And just like I said. The buck with it all including the available talent you so highly emphasize stops with the head coach.

Just a thought, not to take sides in this debate. I wonder how the South Carolina fans thought of Lou Holtz when he went 0-11 and if it was any different than Arkansas fans felt about CBB when he went 0-8/3-9 in his first year? Just a thought. Carry on with your debate.

Probably somewhat similar with the previous coaching staff suffering the blame. However since you brought Holtz and Bielema directly into this discussion respective of South Carolina and Arkansas. Let’s logically bring this back closer to home as both Holtz and Bielema have coaching records here.

Lou Holtz’s first three seasons at Arkansas as a young fiery coach:

What has Bielema done here to closely compare to any of those three seasons?

Nothing, but in the interest of clarity (and not an attempt to justify anything done yet), Arkansas had won the Cotton Bowl before Broyles resigned, and we know winning the SWC is a lot easier than winning in the SEC. Broyles left a good foundation. John L. didn’t. But you are most definitely right about those records. I think we all had hoped Holtz would stay longer had there not been off-the-field issues (recruiting, political endorsements, etc.).

I believe Holtz would have stayed longer if it was not for his political endorsement. Most likely, that also hurt recruiting black players.

I had commented on the old board in detail about Holtz doing the campaign ads for Jesse Helms, an old friend from Holtz’s days at North Carolina State. I stated accurately that Broyles was displeased about the ads with regards to the recruiting of blacks.

However I went back later and read a lot more about this subject on the internet. After Holtz told Broyles about the ads and saw Broyles’ displeasure. Hottz immediately called Helms and requested the ads to be never aired on TV. Helms quickly agreed to never air the ads for Holtz who as I said, was his friend. The Helms TV ads with Holtz were never aired or shown on TV anywhere. Holtz was still fired and that is all what embittered Holtz towards Broyles for many years.