|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 25, 2017 11:56:31 GMT -8
Lol... equating Casey and Rueck hires to this is very far fetched. Baseball was considered an afterthought for the most part. Jack had some good years and the program was successful earlier, but was a very minor sport. Casey to a mediocre North division baseball squad from Fox was a typical move and with over 300 D1 jobs happened often and with successes. The OSU WBB program was in shambles, paid very little, drew no national interest. The fact that both have been so successful is truly amazing, but an outlier, the exceptions not the rule, not a hiring model to live by in hiring the most important job in the athletic department. I don't disagree with you, baseball, but I think the argument ISN'T that it's a guarantee Baldwin will repeat what Rueck and Casey have accomplished, RATHER that it's erroneous to use the fact that Baldwin hasn't been a D1 HC as a reason he is more likely to fail than succeed. I'm somewhat on with that logic, but the facts are clear... FCS coaches over the past 12-15 years moving straight to FBS HCs are failures. It is not a Baldwin thing, it's the proven track record, lack thereof, of other hirings. Of course people can have their own opinion... and hopes. I'm just saying my opinion is swayed by facts that lead me to think Baldwin is an extreme long shot to succeed AND (not knowing who was really interested) that we can hire better.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 25, 2017 11:59:23 GMT -8
The Legend of Pat Casey continues to grow...
Let's compare his first 9 years with Jack Riley's (Casey's predecessor for all you youngsters) last 9 years:
2003 .292 Pat Casey 2002 .417 Pat Casey 2001 .458 Pat Casey 2000 .375 Pat Casey 1999 .292 Pat Casey 1998 .625 Pat Casey 1997 .750 Pat Casey 1996 .583 Pat Casey 1995 .467 Pat Casey 1994 .733 Jack Riley 1993 .667 Jack Riley 1992 .333 Jack Riley 1991 .600 Jack Riley 1990 .625 Jack Riley 1989 .625 Jack Riley 1988 .583 Jack Riley 1987 .625 Jack Riley 1986 .783 Jack Riley
Riley had one year below a .600 winning percentage, that 5 year stretch Casey had from '99-'03 would probably get him fired these days. Casey didn't build up a program from scratch, more likely the argument could be made that he let the program slip for a while.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 25, 2017 12:03:32 GMT -8
OSU won the 1994 North Division championship, rather handily. We were not a mediocre North Division team when Casey took over, we were the North Division champions. And, the North was basically nothing baseball for much of the time. If baseball was (a) important to the school, (b) a big deal regionally or nationally Casey would have long been fired before he garnered success. Jack ran a good program, had success and got little recognition. To me he often ignored talent in Oregon thinking he had to bring it in, but Casey foundered when he first got here. You can spout all the crap you want, baseball, northern teams garnered little interest... division champs or not. My/opponents best players didn't give OSU, UW, WSU (although Bobo was intimidating as a recruiter) UP, Zags... the time of day. I can tell you for a fact there was zero big time industry when Jack stepped away. It was basically Casey and some CC coaches...
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 25, 2017 12:05:21 GMT -8
I don't disagree with you, baseball, but I think the argument ISN'T that it's a guarantee Baldwin will repeat what Rueck and Casey have accomplished, RATHER that it's erroneous to use the fact that Baldwin hasn't been a D1 HC as a reason he is more likely to fail than succeed. I'm somewhat on with that logic, but the facts are clear... FCS coaches over the past 12-15 years moving straight to FBS HCs are failures. It is not a Baldwin thing, it's the proven track record, lack thereof, of other hirings. Of course people can have their own opinion... and hopes. I'm just saying my opinion is swayed by facts that lead me to think Baldwin is an extreme long shot to succeed AND (not knowing who was really interested) that we can hire better. You calling Craig Bohl a failure? He's won 15 games and counting in the last two years. How About Harbaugh or Brian Kelly? That stat you've been throwing out very well could statistically be junk. I found an article that uses that that stat, probably the same one you used, nowhere does it give the track record of the individual coaches it used. It's just one big group. There's no telling how many of them even coached at the FCS level for 4-5 years, much less with a 10 year track record like Bohl and Baldwin have.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 25, 2017 12:08:27 GMT -8
I'm somewhat on with that logic, but the facts are clear... FCS coaches over the past 12-15 years moving straight to FBS HCs are failures. It is not a Baldwin thing, it's the proven track record, lack thereof, of other hirings. Of course people can have their own opinion... and hopes. I'm just saying my opinion is swayed by facts that lead me to think Baldwin is an extreme long shot to succeed AND (not knowing who was really interested) that we can hire better. You calling Craig Bohl a failure? He's won 15 games and counting in the last two years. That stat you've been throwing out very well could statistically be junk. I found an article that uses that that stat, probably the same one you used, nowhere does it give the track record of the individual coaches it used. It's just one big group. There's no telling how many of them even coached at the FCS level for 4-5 years, much less with a 10 year track record like Bohl and Baldwin have. That "big group" is statistically more valid than picking one guy and saying Baldwin will follow that scenario. Not counting this year Bohls record are part of those compiled numbers.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 25, 2017 12:16:42 GMT -8
Here's the thing about the "big group" You could have 4-5 guys with a hundred wins each at the FCS level who have moved up and only been at it 2-3 years at the FBS level, and 13 guys who had one or two good seasons at the FCS level that moved up and have had 5-6 bad years at the FBS level and account for those statistics. At no point is there any indication of what the track records of those 18 coaches that moved up actually were.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 25, 2017 12:27:18 GMT -8
Here's the thing about the "big group" You could have 4-5 guys with a hundred wins each at the FCS level who have moved up and only been at it 2-3 years at the FBS level, and 13 guys who had one or two good seasons at the FCS level that moved up and have had 5-6 bad years at the FBS level and account for those statistics. At no point is there any indication of what the track records of those 18 coaches that moved up actually were. Yes there is... staring you in the face. FCS HC to FBS HC does not have a good track record... period. Now if you want to analyze each coach, each school he went to great. But, each FCS coach was very successful or he'd not have been hired. Whether a few... and to be at a 36% winning clip and others to be successful it'd be few... had success isn't the point. They are outliers. Sell Baldwin "stock" all you want... he has some great quantities... but zero as a P5 HC, recruiter, builder of a quality P5 staff. The latter being the major undoing of most FCS coaches moving up. Not only are they a risk, but most experienced P5 assts aren't going to go coach with a less experienced guy. Hence, the staff they build lack P5 experience... younger position coaches/GA types get thrust into key roles. And, recruiting follows the same pattern... experienced staffs use that against OSU. Hell... not even the losers on the current staff would leave another job to come work with Baldwin. In their current situation I'm sure they'd all stay. That's the staff Baldwin gets... younger and more inexperienced than him... sans maybe an older fart that needs one last job... aka our current Baldwin.
|
|
|
Post by xman68 on Nov 25, 2017 13:15:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 25, 2017 13:26:04 GMT -8
They had other experiences... much more... before FBS HC job... didn't go FCS HC to FBS HC. It's the same experience BB needs.
|
|
|
Post by xman68 on Nov 25, 2017 14:00:31 GMT -8
That does seem reasonable. But here we are, or maybe not. The plot thickens with each tweet, post, and gasp actual report from a bona fide news outlet. I remember when football was about maintaining my block on offense and gap on defense, that was more fun, and when you didn't do that, the coach let everyone know, and then I worked harder.
Aah those were the days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2017 14:16:54 GMT -8
They had other experiences... much more... before FBS HC job... didn't go FCS HC to FBS HC. It's the same experience BB needs. How much experience do you require? Because from any research I can do, it seems that coaches with tons of experience fail, coaches with tons of experience succeed, coaches with limited experience fail, coaches with limited experience succeed. At the end of the day, Beau Baldwin is Beau Baldwin and what other coaches did or didn't do will be irrelevant to rather Beau Baldwin succeeds. Odds are he fails and you'll get to claim you were right (for many reasons beyond his lack of FBS experience) but I'd argue that if he fails he likely would have failed even if he was an OC for 3 more years first.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 25, 2017 14:33:15 GMT -8
Here's the thing about the "big group" You could have 4-5 guys with a hundred wins each at the FCS level who have moved up and only been at it 2-3 years at the FBS level, and 13 guys who had one or two good seasons at the FCS level that moved up and have had 5-6 bad years at the FBS level and account for those statistics. At no point is there any indication of what the track records of those 18 coaches that moved up actually were. Yes there is... staring you in the face. FCS HC to FBS HC does not have a good track record... period. Now if you want to analyze each coach, each school he went to great. But, each FCS coach was very successful or he'd not have been hired. Whether a few... and to be at a 36% winning clip and others to be successful it'd be few... had success isn't the point. They are outliers. Sell Baldwin "stock" all you want... he has some great quantities... but zero as a P5 HC, recruiter, builder of a quality P5 staff. The latter being the major undoing of most FCS coaches moving up. Not only are they a risk, but most experienced P5 assts aren't going to go coach with a less experienced guy. Hence, the staff they build lack P5 experience... younger position coaches/GA types get thrust into key roles. And, recruiting follows the same pattern... experienced staffs use that against OSU. Hell... not even the losers on the current staff would leave another job to come work with Baldwin. In their current situation I'm sure they'd all stay. That's the staff Baldwin gets... younger and more inexperienced than him... sans maybe an older fart that needs one last job... aka our current Baldwin. We don't have anything that we can draw conclusions off of unless we have the actual data. I'm going to take it to an extreme to show you my point. The numbers you read were 18 coaches combining for 744 wins against 347 losses for a 68% win percentage at the FCS level, then those coaches combined for 225 wins againd 375 losses for a 38% winning percentage at the FBS level. Let's say those 18 coaches were 4 Craig Bohl's and 14 Dave Kragthorpes. Both were coaches that moved up to the FBS level from the FCS level. Their combined records at the FCS level (Bohl times 4, Kragthorpe times 14) would have been 752 wins and 312 losses, slightly better than the stats we have. Their combined record at the FBS level would be 238 wins against 672 losses, substantially worse than the numbers from the article. The main point is, you cannot draw any inferences from these stats. Bohl is sitting at 15 and 10 the last season and what of this season that has passed so far and appears to be building a good program. According to your statistical theory that lumps everyone together, he should only be winning 4 games a season right now. Nowhere in those articles does it state how many of those coaches coached for 10-11 years with zero to one losing seasons. Nowhere does it say that several of the coaches may have had overall losing records yet had one or two great 12 win seasons and moved up. We just don't know what the mix is. Without knowing the records of each and every coach in that group of 18, there is no way to draw a statistically relevant conclusion that a coach like Baldwin, who never had a losing season in 10 years at the FCS and won 10 or more games 6 of those years, would be a failure at the FBS level. Now if the article had said they took all FCS coaches that had 10 winning seasons in a row and made the jump to the FBS and only won 38% of their games, we'd have a pretty good indicator. That isn't the state with the stats from the aritcles you may have referenced. Here's a couple of the aritcles using those stats: trib.com/sports/college/wyoming/coaches-who-have-made-fcs-to-fbs-transition-lay-out/article_2c12eaca-ffa8-5b37-a1c6-65d78552ef7f.htmlfootballscoop.com/news/the-fundamentals-of-building-a-program-are-the-same-at-any-level/If anyone buys the possibility that the premise of the second article is correct, Baldwin is a coach that built a fundamentally strong program at the FCS level and it just may well transfer to the FBS level.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 25, 2017 15:31:17 GMT -8
Yes there is... staring you in the face. FCS HC to FBS HC does not have a good track record... period. Now if you want to analyze each coach, each school he went to great. But, each FCS coach was very successful or he'd not have been hired. Whether a few... and to be at a 36% winning clip and others to be successful it'd be few... had success isn't the point. They are outliers. Sell Baldwin "stock" all you want... he has some great quantities... but zero as a P5 HC, recruiter, builder of a quality P5 staff. The latter being the major undoing of most FCS coaches moving up. Not only are they a risk, but most experienced P5 assts aren't going to go coach with a less experienced guy. Hence, the staff they build lack P5 experience... younger position coaches/GA types get thrust into key roles. And, recruiting follows the same pattern... experienced staffs use that against OSU. Hell... not even the losers on the current staff would leave another job to come work with Baldwin. In their current situation I'm sure they'd all stay. That's the staff Baldwin gets... younger and more inexperienced than him... sans maybe an older fart that needs one last job... aka our current Baldwin. We don't have anything that we can draw conclusions off of unless we have the actual data. I'm going to take it to an extreme to show you my point. The numbers you read were 18 coaches combining for 744 wins against 347 losses for a 68% win percentage at the FCS level, then those coaches combined for 225 wins againd 375 losses for a 38% winning percentage at the FBS level. Let's say those 18 coaches were 4 Craig Bohl's and 14 Dave Kragthorpes. Both were coaches that moved up to the FBS level from the FCS level. Their combined records at the FCS level (Bohl times 4, Kragthorpe times 14) would have been 752 wins and 312 losses, slightly better than the stats we have. Their combined record at the FBS level would be 238 wins against 672 losses, substantially worse than the numbers from the article. The main point is, you cannot draw any inferences from these stats. Bohl is sitting at 15 and 10 the last season and what of this season that has passed so far and appears to be building a good program. According to your statistical theory that lumps everyone together, he should only be winning 4 games a season right now. Nowhere in those articles does it state how many of those coaches coached for 10-11 years with zero to one losing seasons. Nowhere does it say that several of the coaches may have had overall losing records yet had one or two great 12 win seasons and moved up. We just don't know what the mix is. Without knowing the records of each and every coach in that group of 18, there is no way to draw a statistically relevant conclusion that a coach like Baldwin, who never had a losing season in 10 years at the FCS and won 10 or more games 6 of those years, would be a failure at the FBS level. Now if the article had said they took all FCS coaches that had 10 winning seasons in a row and made the jump to the FBS and only won 38% of their games, we'd have a pretty good indicator. That isn't the state with the stats from the aritcles you may have referenced. Here's a couple of the aritcles using those stats: trib.com/sports/college/wyoming/coaches-who-have-made-fcs-to-fbs-transition-lay-out/article_2c12eaca-ffa8-5b37-a1c6-65d78552ef7f.htmlfootballscoop.com/news/the-fundamentals-of-building-a-program-are-the-same-at-any-level/If anyone buys the possibility that the premise of the second article is correct, Baldwin is a coach that built a fundamentally strong program at the FCS level and it just may well transfer to the FBS level. Why you gotta love those who argue stats. You can just make up "14 Kragthropes" to attempt to make your point. Lol
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 25, 2017 15:42:00 GMT -8
And, the North was basically nothing baseball for much of the time. If baseball was (a) important to the school, (b) a big deal regionally or nationally Casey would have long been fired before he garnered success. Jack ran a good program, had success and got little recognition. To me he often ignored talent in Oregon thinking he had to bring it in, but Casey foundered when he first got here. You can spout all the crap you want, baseball, northern teams garnered little interest... division champs or not. My/opponents best players didn't give OSU, UW, WSU (although Bobo was intimidating as a recruiter) UP, Zags... the time of day. I can tell you for a fact there was zero big time industry when Jack stepped away. It was basically Casey and some CC coaches... You specifically said OSU was a mediocre Northern Division team. It wasn't. It was the Northern Division champion. The champion of a mediocre baseball league... given little regard... period. Keep arguing ridiculous moot points. Inane post.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 25, 2017 16:03:31 GMT -8
We don't have anything that we can draw conclusions off of unless we have the actual data. I'm going to take it to an extreme to show you my point. The numbers you read were 18 coaches combining for 744 wins against 347 losses for a 68% win percentage at the FCS level, then those coaches combined for 225 wins againd 375 losses for a 38% winning percentage at the FBS level. Let's say those 18 coaches were 4 Craig Bohl's and 14 Dave Kragthorpes. Both were coaches that moved up to the FBS level from the FCS level. Their combined records at the FCS level (Bohl times 4, Kragthorpe times 14) would have been 752 wins and 312 losses, slightly better than the stats we have. Their combined record at the FBS level would be 238 wins against 672 losses, substantially worse than the numbers from the article. The main point is, you cannot draw any inferences from these stats. Bohl is sitting at 15 and 10 the last season and what of this season that has passed so far and appears to be building a good program. According to your statistical theory that lumps everyone together, he should only be winning 4 games a season right now. Nowhere in those articles does it state how many of those coaches coached for 10-11 years with zero to one losing seasons. Nowhere does it say that several of the coaches may have had overall losing records yet had one or two great 12 win seasons and moved up. We just don't know what the mix is. Without knowing the records of each and every coach in that group of 18, there is no way to draw a statistically relevant conclusion that a coach like Baldwin, who never had a losing season in 10 years at the FCS and won 10 or more games 6 of those years, would be a failure at the FBS level. Now if the article had said they took all FCS coaches that had 10 winning seasons in a row and made the jump to the FBS and only won 38% of their games, we'd have a pretty good indicator. That isn't the state with the stats from the aritcles you may have referenced. Here's a couple of the aritcles using those stats: trib.com/sports/college/wyoming/coaches-who-have-made-fcs-to-fbs-transition-lay-out/article_2c12eaca-ffa8-5b37-a1c6-65d78552ef7f.htmlfootballscoop.com/news/the-fundamentals-of-building-a-program-are-the-same-at-any-level/If anyone buys the possibility that the premise of the second article is correct, Baldwin is a coach that built a fundamentally strong program at the FCS level and it just may well transfer to the FBS level. Why you gotta love those who argue stats. You can just make up "14 Kragthropes" to attempt to make your point. Lol Point being you can't tell us whether that group was a group of solid coaches, or a few good ones and a bunch of Kragthorpe/ Andersen types that made a career off a couple good seasons.
|
|