Sick of Schiano’s BS

[rutgersguy1]

BTW just as an example of how buzz can be created without some super duper name. Look at Longo above. He's not Lincoln Riley but a very capable solid name for offense. Wisconsin isn't noted for qb play, it's noted for OL and RBs generally. Fickell isn't someone you think of with regards to that either. They hire Longo and boom this past offseason IIRC they got 4-5 potentially capable qbs between the portal and recruiting class. I'm actually kinda shocked at how many they were able to pull in. On top of that, he was able to keep their RBs on board too showing them how the running game will be used and is important (a point I have made often here when talking about these spread tempo offenses).

 

[NickRU714]

Yet there was some logic to the sentiment that he was the only one who could get the funding needed to turn things around. Not only his salary, but the assistants salary.

I've always found that to be suspect.
So if HC Hobbs wanted to hire anyone else - the $4m was going to disappear?

If HC Schiano doesn't work out - are we stuck paying $1m/year for the next HC?
Because donors will only pay for HC Schiano - come hell or high water?
How exactly is that supposed to work out for the program going forward.

 

[NickRU714]

If we r worry about a competitive salary for our coaches we shouldn’t be in the Big 10

If only they got rid of all that pesky HC NIL money then it would be an even playing field for all of college athletics.
It's not fair that schools like Miami can just buy a better HC with more money.
Every Big Ten school should be able to outspend most all other schools since we have the largest conference payouts.

Oh wait - my bad.
I'm mixing the good NIL/donor money (coaches) with bad NIL/donor money (players).

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

the problem is, not a dinosaur if you win and the running game still is an important part of college ball.
Michigan had more rushing yardage than yards by air in 2022.
Old Miss and Arkansas were two more.
Passing is the weapon of choice for many programs, winners and losers, but don't think relying on a running game and good D makes any HC a dinosaur .

There is a phenomena I first saw mentioned in the NFL and that is how division members might construct their team to win their division and that these trends develop and then someone has success bucking that trend.. going the other way. Example..

historic NFL yards per carry or pass attempt

You see that upward tick in passing yards per play in the 60s to mid-70s and the corresponding downward slide of rush yards? Well, teams adjusted in the secondary (and in their own needs for skill players on O) making stopping the pass more important. That led to smaller faster DBs.. who could not help in the run game as much. Then a team like Washington goes the other way and puts together the hogs on the OL and Riggins at RB and runs over teams.

Here's a story from 2013 on what happened in the NFL from 2003 to that point (and is a trend still going on and what we see in college too). You see it in the NFL draft as well.. run/pass QBs and WRs and DBs and edge DEs to stop that are the most important. But a change might be on the way.. we'll see. But it would probably have to come with refs being guided to allow defenses to succeed a bit more often.

College is a different game and now with NIL the way it is, it will be back to the 60s and 70s where a few teams have 100 top players and they will likely have the bodies who can run stop along with teh bodies who can stop the pass. And offenses that can do either as long as they have the superior talent.. which they will in most of their games.

The B1G TEN teams seem to construct themselves to win in cold windy weather in the important part of the season.. November and beyond. So they will always be more run-oriented than other conferences and thus must stop the run. Maybe global warming will change that.

I think, perhaps, we Rutgers fans are from an NFL-heavy area and are tainted by that. And we see the pass-happy offenses going nuts in the NFL and elsewhere in college and think we need that. I just think we need defenses to have to respect the pass.. something we have yet to do since we first joined the B1G TEN. 2014 Nova had a great year throwing for 2800+. 2015 Laviano did okay.. 2200+.. but since then only Vedral came close to 2000 in 2021 going for over 1800. The pass game has been a non-factor.

So, I suggest, we do not write off the running game and a balanced offense until we see it alongside a legit passing game.

 

[NickRU714]

It took a fan revolt to get Schiano at his (and his assistants) salary. Do I guess you're saying Rutgers shouldn't be in the Big 10

An audit of the AD and what exactly all this Big Ten money is being spent on wouldn't hurt.
Would probably cost many people their jobs though.
If you can't adequately fund the coaching staff for the #1 sport in the department then what exactly are they doing?

 

[mildone]

But you need to start somewhere.
You close the gap and eek out a couple more wins through scheme and superior coaching.
Then you take that proof of concept and say "hey you better recruits - come here. Look what I did what those guys. Your much better. Think of what I could do with you".

That closes the talent gap. Which compounds to more wins and more competitive games.
It's literally what HC Pike has done with basketball. He didn't just wait until Bailey, Harper were interested. He improved the team he had and could recruit at the time.

This notion of a "big name coach" just coming in and getting recruits only works if it's actually a big name coach (see Deion at Colorado).
It also only works while there are no actual results yet (good or bad).

What's the recruiting pitch after 3 years of poor results and the team going backwards?
"Trust me. I know we haven't even been competitive. But trust me I know what I'm doing and sign on."

IMO, fans being the fanatics they are, they tend to greatly exaggerate a coaches positives when winning, and greatly exaggerate that same coaches negatives when they lose.

Because the coaching level in the Big Ten is already so high, having a better coach might mean 1-2 more wins, on average, per season, for teams that are currently struggling. But then we bump up against another team's excellent coach and the great coaching on both sides cancels out and the results depend entirely on the players and luck.

My point is superior coaching seems unlikely to lead to winning many more games than now.

To win consistently, we need good enough coaching AND good enough players AND good enough luck. There are no shortcuts, there is no quick fix - although luck can play a huge role in any single season.

Some coaches can do more with less. But when playing other coaches who can do the same thing but have the luxury of doing more with way more, the value of doing more with less is greatly diminished.

 

[Kbee3]

IMO, fans being the fanatics they are, they tend to greatly exaggerate a coaches positives when winning, and greatly exaggerate that same coaches negatives when they lose.

Because the coaching level in the Big Ten is already so high, having a better coach might mean 1-2 more wins, on average, per season, for teams that are currently struggling. But then we bump up against another team's excellent coach and the great coaching on both sides cancels out and the results depend entirely on the players and luck.

My point is superior coaching seems unlikely to lead to winning many more games than now.

To win consistently, we need good enough coaching AND good enough players AND good enough luck. There are no shortcuts, there is no quick fix - although luck can play a huge role in any single season.

Some coaches can do more with less. But when playing other coaches who can do the same thing but have the luxury of doing more with way more, the value of doing more with less is greatly diminished.

Your post reminded me of one of the greatest coaches I've ever seen....Ara Parseghian. He coached at Northwestern and then Notre Dame in the Fifties and the Sixties. Commenting on him, some rival coach said that he could beat you with his players, then switch rosters with you and beat you with your players.

 

[mildone]

I'm not so intimidated by the B10 east schedule as others and that's about to change soon anyway. I've said it before here, OSU is the only one I think is Mount Everest. Michigan/PSU and anyone else are beatable teams or teams we can compete with from time to time. Hell we've had close games with Michigan very recently. TCU did a nice job on them in the playoff. Purdue just challenged PSU in a thriller last season. I don't have that notion that it's impossible outside of OSU. Plus now there won't be divisions in a couple years. Is the new excuse that USC is another one that can't be beat too? Tulane just did it and others not high on the landscape have challenged them or beat them too.

IU would've made a 12 teams playoff in the pandemic year. Maryland has had 7-8 win seasons in the last couple years. Meyer and Saban weren't standing on their sidelines. By year 2 and 3 Mike Leach had Miss State at 7-8 wins and .500 in conference in the SEC west. TCU won the B12 with OU/Texas and all their money and recruiting power and made the champ game knocking off B10 champ Michigan. So it is hard and uphill but not as much as some make it out to be imo.

Intimidation isn't the point. It's that that all the coaches in the Big Ten East are good coaches, even the ones who aren't winning a whole lot. The elite teams are coaching great players with great coaching. The mid-level teams are coaching a mix of players with great coaching. The losing teams are coaching mostly not-so-great players with great coaching.

Coaching makes a difference, especially in this or that game where one team's staff got the game-specific planning wrong. But on average, they're ALL great coaches.

So even a coach that can do more with less isn't exactly competing against coaches whom can be taken advantage of through some magical schemes. That stuff might win a game or two more per season. But it's not going to beat teams who have that same coaching ability in their staff, but also have great players.

 

[mildone]

Your post reminded me of one of the greatest coaches I've ever seen....Ara Parseghian. He coached at Northwestern and then Notre Dame in the Fifties and the Sixties. Commenting on him, some rival coach said that he could beat you with his players, then switch rosters with you and beat you with your players.

It's a nice story. And it might even be true if the two teams in question had roughly similar levels of players. But if the players were all 4-5 stars on one side, and 0-3 on the other? Call me skeptical.

In any event, there are always some outliers out there. Brilliant coaches who come along once or twice per generation. Chose your favorite name-brand hall of fame coach.

But what are the odds that RUFB is able to discover, and hire, that coach instead of some other already elite CFB program?

 

[NickRU714]

It's a nice story. And it might even be true if the two teams in question had roughly similar levels of players. But if the players were all 4-5 stars on one side, and 0-3 on the other? Call me skeptical.

In any event, there are always some outliers out there. Brilliant coaches who come along once or twice per generation. Chose your favorite name-brand hall of fame coach.

But what are the odds that RUFB is able to discover, and hire, that coach instead of some other already elite CFB program?

The alternative is shutting down the program. Wrap it up.

We have to start somewhere.
It's either coaching or players.

Despite what people said with hiring HS Schiano, you can't get the players first.
You need to start with better coaching of current players to entice better players.

If the current AD can't find that better coaching then get someone who can.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Intimidation isn't the point. It's that that all the coaches in the Big Ten East are good coaches, even the ones who aren't winning a whole lot. The elite teams are coaching great players with great coaching. The mid-level teams are coaching a mix of players with great coaching. The losing teams are coaching mostly not-so-great players with great coaching.

Coaching makes a difference, especially in this or that game where one team's staff got the game-specific planning wrong. But on average, they're ALL great coaches.

So even a coach that can do more with less isn't exactly competing against coaches whom can be taken advantage of through some magical schemes. That stuff might win a game or two more per season. But it's not going to beat teams who have that same coaching ability in their staff, but also have great players.

I'd really only say Day and Harbaugh are top notch in the B10 east but Harbaugh's style of play is beatable IMO. The rest of the B10 east are average coaches and that includes Franklin (but he recruits very well).

Sure there are coaches out there who are good and have superior talent (on paper) but if you think they all squeeze out every last drop of that talent week in and week out, year in and year out I don't agree. Saban yes, Smart maybe (want to see how he does with the change at OC this year) but many others not really. They field teams that aren't so dominant to the point they can't be beat or challenged.

And again there likely won't be a B10 east after this year.

 

[rutgersguy1]

There is a phenomena I first saw mentioned in the NFL and that is how division members might construct their team to win their division and that these trends develop and then someone has success bucking that trend.. going the other way. Example..

historic NFL yards per carry or pass attempt

You see that upward tick in passing yards per play in the 60s to mid-70s and the corresponding downward slide of rush yards? Well, teams adjusted in the secondary (and in their own needs for skill players on O) making stopping the pass more important. That led to smaller faster DBs.. who could not help in the run game as much. Then a team like Washington goes the other way and puts together the hogs on the OL and Riggins at RB and runs over teams.

Here's a story from 2013 on what happened in the NFL from 2003 to that point (and is a trend still going on and what we see in college too). You see it in the NFL draft as well.. run/pass QBs and WRs and DBs and edge DEs to stop that are the most important. But a change might be on the way.. we'll see. But it would probably have to come with refs being guided to allow defenses to succeed a bit more often.

College is a different game and now with NIL the way it is, it will be back to the 60s and 70s where a few teams have 100 top players and they will likely have the bodies who can run stop along with teh bodies who can stop the pass. And offenses that can do either as long as they have the superior talent.. which they will in most of their games.

The B1G TEN teams seem to construct themselves to win in cold windy weather in the important part of the season.. November and beyond. So they will always be more run-oriented than other conferences and thus must stop the run. Maybe global warming will change that.

I think, perhaps, we Rutgers fans are from an NFL-heavy area and are tainted by that. And we see the pass-happy offenses going nuts in the NFL and elsewhere in college and think we need that. I just think we need defenses to have to respect the pass.. something we have yet to do since we first joined the B1G TEN. 2014 Nova had a great year throwing for 2800+. 2015 Laviano did okay.. 2200+.. but since then only Vedral came close to 2000 in 2021 going for over 1800. The pass game has been a non-factor.

So, I suggest, we do not write off the running game and a balanced offense until we see it alongside a legit passing game.

I think it's a misconception to think these spread tempo guys don't run the ball. I've posted multiple articles and give rankings where they talk about the importance of running the ball and you see they have rushing offenses anywhere from top 5-25 in the country.

You've seen it with TCU, Heupel at Tenn, Briles' Baylor, Kendal's Ark, Longo at UNC etc..

Also quite a few mid majors in the cold midwest run these spread tempo offenses where they can throw the ball a bit. I feel like FCS teams do as well. Every game isn't a snow storm or rainy or windy. It's just cold at times. I think KSU had a top 5 offense a couple years ago and top 5 in rushing and it was run by Sean Lewis, a Briles tree guy via Babers. He's the OC now at Colorado. Regardless of the weather, rushing the ball is important but tempo and ability to pass with consistency and accuracy are important also imo.

 

[NorthernKnight]

from the apologist who believe in Greg, what is your timeline from today? 1yr, 3yrs, 5yrs?

Timeline for what?

 

[NickRU714]

the problem is, not a dinosaur if you win and the running game still is an important part of college ball.
Michigan had more rushing yardage than yards by air in 2022.
Old Miss and Arkansas were two more.
Passing is the weapon of choice for many programs, winners and losers, but don't think relying on a running game and good D makes any HC a dinosaur .

Michigan had as many rushing yards as we had had TOTAL YARDS.
Michigan passing yards: 3,078 (#55)
Michigan rushing yards: 3,345 (#3)
Michigan total yards: 6,423 (#15)
Michigan PPG: 40.4 (#6)
Michigan rushing touchdowns: 41 (#2)

Rutgers total yards: 3,385 (#127)

It's not like they were running out the clock and sitting on the ball.
There is a difference between "running the ball to slow down the game and avoid mistakes and keep it low scoring" and "running the ball to score points".
Yes, teams who use the run game to advance the offense is good. Just like teams using the pass to advance the offense is good.

The problem isn't just "running the ball" - it's why HCs choose to run the ball.
Our philosophy appears to be more of the "run the ball to avoid mistakes and limit the offense".

 

[bigmatt718]

Michigan had as many rushing yards as we had had TOTAL YARDS.
Michigan passing yards: 3,078 (#55)
Michigan rushing yards: 3,345 (#3)
Michigan total yards: 6,423 (#15)
Michigan PPG: 40.4 (#6)
Michigan rushing touchdowns: 41 (#2)

Rutgers total yards: 3,385 (#127)

It's not like they were running out the clock and sitting on the ball.
There is a difference between "running the ball to slow down the game and avoid mistakes and keep it low scoring" and "running the ball to score points".
Yes, teams who use the run game to advance the offense is good. Just like teams using the pass to advance the offense is good.

The problem isn't just "running the ball" - it's why HCs choose to run the ball.
Our philosophy appears to be more of the "run the ball to avoid mistakes and limit the offense".

Exactly. Even in the NFL today, offense first teams looking to score every possession are the ones who win big. Look at last year's SB for example between Andy Reid coached Chiefs and the Nick Sirianni coached Eagles. Game was 38-35 and came down to the very end. Doug Pederson made it cool to go for it on 4th down all the time. Defenses had to adjust knowing that. Those ultra aggressive offensive teams are how teams want to play today and that is at the highest level.

 

[NickRU714]

I think it's a misconception to think these spread tempo guys don't run the ball. I've posted multiple articles and give rankings where they talk about the importance of running the ball and you see they have rushing offenses anywhere from top 5-25 in the country.

You've seen it with TCU, Heupel at Tenn, Briles' Baylor, Kendal's Ark, Longo at UNC etc..

Also quite a few mid majors in the cold midwest run these spread tempo offenses where they can throw the ball a bit. I feel like FCS teams do as well. Every game isn't a snow storm or rainy or windy. It's just cold at times. I think KSU had a top 5 offense a couple years ago and top 5 in rushing and it was run by Sean Lewis, a Briles tree guy via Babers. He's the OC now at Colorado. Regardless of the weather, rushing the ball is important but tempo and ability to pass with consistency and accuracy are important also imo.

The "We play in the Northeast. Need an offense for the cold and snow" is one of the dumbest argument ever.
The season ends Thanksgiving weekend. This isn't the NFL with meaningful games in December and January.

Everyone remembers the WV game (I was there) because it's one of the few real snow games we have.

 

[bigmatt718]

The "We play in the Northeast. Need an offense for the cold and snow" is one of the dumbest argument ever.
The season ends Thanksgiving weekend. This isn't the NFL with meaningful games in December and January.

Everyone remembers the WV game (I was there) because it's one of the few real snow games we have.

Lol the Eagles have been a top tier offensive team since the Andy Reid era started over 2 decades ago and they play outdoors in Philly.

 

[mildone]

The alternative is shutting down the program. Wrap it up.

We have to start somewhere.
It's either coaching or players.

Despite what people said with hiring HS Schiano, you can't get the players first.
You need to start with better coaching of current players to entice better players.

If the current AD can't find that better coaching then get someone who can.

I don't mean to imply we should stop trying. We have to try.

I'm just explaining why I don't participate in coach-bashing or agonize over whom we might hire next. I don't think that just because school X was able to pull itself up from the basement after hiring whomever they hired, that it means that we can expect the same results. It's obvious that it's an immensely difficult challenge and while I continue to hope for better, I also remain realistic about the odds.

I'm not giving up as a fan. I just have realistic expectations and don't get too high or low over the state of the program. And, despite not wanting GS back in the first place, I'm not gonna participate in the coach-bashing stupidity that has become an RU tradition here whenever things aren't going well. To me, it's pointlessly toxic and ugly.

I'll repeat what I said when people started bashing Flood and Ash...

It's incredibly easy to fire the current guy. It's a hell of a lot harder to hire someone who does better. People never agree with me about that. Yet here we are. Again.

 

[mildone]

And again there likely won't be a B10 east after this year.

That should help some. The West is not nearly as tough.

 

[rutgersguy1]

That should help some. The West is not nearly as tough.

I think the west could be tougher than it has been with Fickell and Rhule at Wisconsin/Nebraska but we'll see.

I don't mean to imply we should stop trying. We have to try.

I'm just explaining why I don't participate in coach-bashing or agonize over whom we might hire next. I don't think that just because school X was able to pull itself up from the basement after hiring whomever they hired, that it means that we can expect the same results. It's obvious that it's an immensely difficult challenge and while I continue to hope for better, I also remain realistic about the odds.

I'm not giving up as a fan. I just have realistic expectations and don't get too high or low over the state of the program. And, despite not wanting GS back in the first place, I'm not gonna participate in the coach-bashing stupidity that has become an RU tradition here whenever things aren't going well. To me, it's pointlessly toxic and ugly.

I'll repeat what I said when people started bashing Flood and Ash...

It's incredibly easy to fire the current guy. It's a hell of a lot harder to hire someone who does better. People never agree with me about that. Yet here we are. Again.

I agree with realistic expectations (6-8 win team regularly with occasional forays above and below that is quite realistic IMO).

You don't have find a unicorn to get those kind of results and it doesn't have to be a Saban/Meyer type coach either.

 

[mildone]

I think the west could be tougher than it has been with Fickell and Rhule at Wisconsin/Nebraska but we'll see.


I agree with realistic expectations (6-8 win team regularly with occasional forays above and below that is quite realistic IMO).

You don't have find a unicorn to get those kind of results and it doesn't have to be a Saban/Meyer type coach either.

We'll see. I hope you're right. That would be way more fun than losing so much.

In any event, it's gonna be at least a couple more years until we see a HC change. In the meantime, I'm settled in and rooting for coaching staff we have. If and when we get a new coaching staff, I'll root for them instead. Easy.

That's mildone's approach to: zen and art of sportsfan relaxation. It's clearly not for everyone. 🤣

 

[mdk01]

It's incredibly easy to fire the current guy. It's a hell of a lot harder to hire someone who does better. People never agree with me about that. Yet here we are. Again.

The median salary for Big 10 HCs is $5.175 million. Someone who is "great" to come to Rutgers could well cost more. Will Rutgers be willing to pay that? And will they be willing to bump up the assistants as well? There is more talent on campus than when Schiano arrived, but not enough to match up with Ohio St. et. al. in a short period of time. I'm not sure I see a savior on the horizon. Sanders is an outlier and will have more leeway at UC than any coach would get at RU.

 

[rutgersguy1]

We'll see. I hope you're right. That would be way more fun than losing so much.

In any event, it's gonna be at least a couple more years until we see a HC change. In the meantime, I'm settled in and rooting for coaching staff we have. If and when we get a new coaching staff, I'll root for them instead. Easy.

That's mildone's approach to: zen and art of sportsfan relaxation. It's clearly not for everyone. 🤣

I've long (20 years plus) outgrown getting overly emotional about sports. I have no control over it and what will be will be. CFB is really the only sport I follow with regularity anymore.

But talking about coaches, philosophy etc is fun for me so I discuss it.

 

[mildone]

The median salary for Big 10 HCs is $5.175 million. Someone who is "great" to come to Rutgers could well cost more. Will Rutgers be willing to pay that? And will they be willing to bump up the assistants as well? There is more talent on campus than when Schiano arrived, but not enough to match up with Ohio St. et. al. in a short period of time. I'm not sure I see a savior on the horizon. Sanders is an outlier and will have more leeway at UC than any coach would get at RU.

While I agree with those who say throwing money at a coach isn't necessarily a great solution, I think it can improve the odds of success. But maybe not.

To me, there's a baseline of quality required for both coaches and players. If that baseline is met, then the differences between coaching staffs can be magnified in any one game (thus a blowout), but tend to be smoothed out over the course of one or more full seasons. I think all 3 elements, coaching, players, and good luck, are equally important and equally necessary for consistency in good outcomes.

There's a thought experiment we can all do. Consider what happens if we swap coaching staffs between Alabama and RU for 2023. The rosters and schedules stay the same.

I would guess that the season results for each team would be within 2 wins of whatever would've happened had we not swapped the coaches. And a lot of that difference is down to lack of familiarity with the players. So, while I think coaching is critically important, it's still only one of the three main elements required for success. Meet the baseline, and I think both coaching staffs do that, and the outcome isn't likely to be massively different.

Seems like an easy thing to answer at first. But I think, if one is somewhat intelligent and thinks about it a little more, they'll realize it's not quite so simple as they initially thought.

 

[RU4Real]

So by page 6 we've kinda drifted, here. Can we just take a bit to get it back on track? Are we sick of Schiano's BS, or nah?

 

[MADHAT1]

So by page 6 we've kinda drifted, here. Can we just take a bit to get it back on track? Are we sick of Schiano's BS, or nah?

this is the year it will really matter after the 2 steps forward then one step back in his first 3 years.
If the team doesn't show progress , by the end of year4 , most fans will cry BS.
But if the way the team plays ( especially the offense) implies there's hope for the future , good Greg will be the cry.
note: that doesn't include those that expect a top 10 program delivered yesterday

 

[Knightmoves]

Like it or not, the litmus test of Schiano 2.0 in year 4 is the home opener on 9/2/2023 vs Northwestern. A win gives hope to those that still believe in Greg’s ability to succeed here.

But a loss, especially a bad loss, will have the RU barbarians at the gate of Hobbs’ office to pull the plug on this regime.

This is a results oriented business. And the HC is accountable for the success of the program. In Year 4 there should be some measurable improvement in Conference record.

 

[Shelby65]

I'm not so intimidated by the B10 east schedule as others and that's about to change soon anyway. I've said it before here, OSU is the only one I think is Mount Everest. Michigan/PSU and anyone else are beatable teams or teams we can compete with from time to time. Hell we've had close games with Michigan very recently. TCU did a nice job on them in the playoff. Purdue just challenged PSU in a thriller last season. I don't have that notion that it's impossible outside of OSU. Plus now there won't be divisions in a couple years. Is the new excuse that USC is another one that can't be beat too? Tulane just did it and others not high on the landscape have challenged them or beat them too.

IU would've made a 12 teams playoff in the pandemic year. Maryland has had 7-8 win seasons in the last couple years. Meyer and Saban weren't standing on their sidelines. By year 2 and 3 Mike Leach had Miss State at 7-8 wins and .500 in conference in the SEC west. TCU won the B12 with OU/Texas and all their money and recruiting power and made the champ game knocking off B10 champ Michigan. So it is hard and uphill but not as much as some make it out to be imo.

I think you are overestimating Schiano. With someone else we’d have a fighting chance against PSU, UM, etc. Worse than Flood, we are considered a bye by most conference foes. He’s a water balloon in a gunfight. His goal is to avoid turnovers rather than score.

Anywhere else with real aspirations he’d be gone already but no other place would make such a blunder on a contract like Hobbs did. Well, maybe Michigan State did and would but that’s irrelevant to Schiano’s assessment.

 

[bigmatt718]

this is the year it will really matter after the 2 steps forward then one step back in his first 3 years.
If the team doesn't show progress , by the end of year4 , most fans will cry BS.
But if the way the team plays ( especially the offense) implies there's hope for the future , good Greg will be the cry.
note: that doesn't include those that expect a top 10 program delivered yesterday

That's fair. Tangible improvement especially offensively will buy him more time. If he goes out and throws a 3-9/4-8 type season with the offense looking like the 1980s and only scoring 14-15 points a game in Year 4, then Greg 2.0's seat will be rightfully radioactively hot going into 2024.

 

[yessir321]

LOL…..everyone is banging down the doors for the 7th place coach in the AAC. If winning the FCS NC is so prestigious, why didn’t he get a better job than ECU? #freeHouston Did I mention he tied Navy for 7th place?

so people ask for a realistic candidate who is affordable. I outline a phenominal, affordable candidate, and of course because you are soo bought in to GS you are looking at ridiculous pick and choose statistics. ECU tied Navy for 6th in the conference, so at least have your fact's straight as you try to downplay a phenominal potential coaching candidate in your defense of your lord Greg. Let's let the record show the were 1 win away from T-4th and 2 wins away from T-2nd.... Tell you what, if Greg Schiano EVER get's us to within 2 wins of 2nd place in the Big ten erect a statue for him! Particularly in his 4th year after inheriting a program that went 9-27 the previous 3 seasons prior to his arrival

 

[Shelby65]

I don't mean to imply we should stop trying. We have to try.

I'm just explaining why I don't participate in coach-bashing or agonize over whom we might hire next. I don't think that just because school X was able to pull itself up from the basement after hiring whomever they hired, that it means that we can expect the same results. It's obvious that it's an immensely difficult challenge and while I continue to hope for better, I also remain realistic about the odds.

I'm not giving up as a fan. I just have realistic expectations and don't get too high or low over the state of the program. And, despite not wanting GS back in the first place, I'm not gonna participate in the coach-bashing stupidity that has become an RU tradition here whenever things aren't going well. To me, it's pointlessly toxic and ugly.

I'll repeat what I said when people started bashing Flood and Ash...

It's incredibly easy to fire the current guy. It's a hell of a lot harder to hire someone who does better. People never agree with me about that. Yet here we are. Again.

The problem isn’t the whiff on Schiano. It’s being stuck with him for 5 more years already knowing he’ll be a failure in the end.

 

[mdk01]

So by page 6 we've kinda drifted, here. Can we just take a bit to get it back on track? Are we sick of Schiano's BS, or nah?

Depends on what you mean. The OP said it with respect to his saying anything meaningful at his press conferences. If you mean that, then my response remains "Neither does anyone else, including his potential replacements".

 

[RUTGERS95]

at least we all agree that Greg sucks and we need someone better

 

[yesrutgers01]

There are two takes I have for us a Greg.
Yes, he is handcuffed by NIL.
But, it doesn’t mean our offense should be worse that a mid major.

 

[yessir321]

the problem is, not a dinosaur if you win and the running game still is an important part of college ball.
Michigan had more rushing yardage than yards by air in 2022.
Old Miss and Arkansas were two more.
Passing is the weapon of choice for many programs, winners and losers, but don't think relying on a running game and good D makes any HC a dinosaur .

In order to successfully do this though, you need a monster O line.... When you don't have the line to support a power run, you have to move to a spread. Greg has no idea how to accomplish this and no, we do not have the line to support a power run offense like the teams you listed above. Few teams in CFB do to be honest, which is why 90% of P5 offenses are pass happy. Hell they don't even know what a running back is in the Big 12

 

[MADHAT1]

In order to successfully do this though, you need a monster O line.... When you don't have the line to support a power run, you have to move to a spread. Greg has no idea how to accomplish this and no, we do not have the line to support a power run offense like the teams you listed above. Few teams in CFB do to be honest, which is why 90% of P5 offenses are pass happy. Hell they don't even know what a running back is in the Big 12

Check out Oklahoma and KSU'A running games. Both had running games that were utilized close to how their passing attack went.
They might have been a little more pass happy, but most conference programs didn't neglect their running game one bit.
Spin it as you want, but the facts really don't support the aversion to running in that conference , just that the passing game was the bigger part of offense there.

 

[mildone]

So by page 6 we've kinda drifted, here. Can we just take a bit to get it back on track? Are we sick of Schiano's BS, or nah?

Nah. I don't really expect much out of press conferences from any coach in any sport ever. Most are comprised mainly of variations on coach speak.

Now and then there is interesting news that's impactful for fans, like injuries or whatever. But most coaches seem to approach press conferences as PR events when things are going well, or chores to get over as quickly and painlessly as possible, when things are going poorly.

 

[mildone]

at least we all agree that Greg sucks and we need someone better

I don't agree. He doesn't suck. Ash didn't suck. Flood didn't suck.

The latter two weren't able to get the job done here. GS has not, so far, gotten the job done, either.

But all of them have forgotten more about coaching football, just in the past week, than you or I or anybody else here on the forum judging them will ever know in our lifetimes.

I'm not about to disparage decent hardworking people for trying and failing. Just not my thing.

 

[Shelby65]

I don't agree. He doesn't suck. Ash didn't suck. Flood didn't suck.

The latter two weren't able to get the job done here. GS has not, so far, gotten the job done, either.

But all of them have forgotten more about coaching football, just in the past week, than you or I or anybody else here on the forum judging them will ever know in our lifetimes.

I'm not about to disparage decent hardworking people for trying and failing. Just not my thing.

Semantics. Suck can describe professional acumen and not character. Someone could suck as a chemist but be a great guy.

 

[mildone]

Semantics. Suck can describe professional acumen and not character. Someone could suck as a chemist but be a great guy.

Well, you know... I value accuracy in language use. It's all that separates us from the heathen hoards. 😀

Those coaches I mentioned are competent and capable coaches. They don't suck as coaches. In the Big Ten East, you don't have to suck to lose a lot. You just have to not be good enough which is quite a lot different than sucking at coaching.

They've all earned plenty of money being football coaches which wouldn't have happened if they sucked. They wouldn't be able to get hired if they sucked.

They might suck at producing wins at RUFB, if one feels compelled to phrase it that way. But then, so did most of the coaches in RUFB history. And it's a damn long history.