Let me ask the corollary question ... How many programs have found lasting success changing coaches every 4-5 years?
Serious question: what coach comes into program avg 9 wins/year and...
- Thread starter WVUDisciples
- Start date
Let me ask the corollary question ... How many programs have found lasting success changing coaches every 4-5 years?
They had a few things that we didn't have like a place to meet, a place to practice including a functional indoor practice facility , state of the art training facilities, a new stadium, a great recruiting location, higher paid coaches, and a supporting fan base even through a 4-8 season. Naturally they were going to reach the top before we did, but WVU will still get there.
We are talking about one place in the rankings vs. repeatedly distorting his overall record at WVU in every posting. Go read the memo and come back in two years.
One of the interesting quirks of the new board format is that every so often when I click on a thread, people on my ignore list momentarily reappear until I click to return to the top of the board.
I can see wbgvwbgv hasn't changed a bit since I put him on ignore 2 years ago. He's losing the battle to defend DH on the merits, so he has to resort to fudging the numbers to bolster an increasingly difficult position.
Instead of saying "3 or 4 top 15" wins, which would've been true and not drawn a raised eyebrow, he bumped it up a little to "3 or 4 top 10" wins to artificially make his case look better--figuring that nobody would know the difference.
He indulges in these lies and manipulations all the time, like with his silly attempt to throw out 2013 from Uncle Dana's record for no valid data-based reason other than that he again wanted to make Holgorsen's ledger look artificially better than it is.
Yet, oddly, when someone presents the actual 100% incontrovertible facts he gets indignant and outraged.
He may even develop an obsession, like he did with me 2 years ago when he started following me around threads claiming that I was using "selective statistics calculated in a biased manner...blah blah blah."
Funny that he now seems strangely unconcerned with the hypocrisy of him actually doing exactly that.
He's right about one thing, though: The thread did degenerate into nothing but trolls and low-information fans...as soon as he started posting in it.
Back to the ignore list, clown.
I can see wbgvwbgv hasn't changed a bit since I put him on ignore 2 years ago. He's losing the battle to defend DH on the merits, so he has to resort to fudging the numbers to bolster an increasingly difficult position.
Instead of saying "3 or 4 top 15" wins, which would've been true and not drawn a raised eyebrow, he bumped it up a little to "3 or 4 top 10" wins to artificially make his case look better--figuring that nobody would know the difference.
He indulges in these lies and manipulations all the time, like with his silly attempt to throw out 2013 from Uncle Dana's record for no valid data-based reason other than that he again wanted to make Holgorsen's ledger look artificially better than it is.
Yet, oddly, when someone presents the actual 100% incontrovertible facts he gets indignant and outraged.
He may even develop an obsession, like he did with me 2 years ago when he started following me around threads claiming that I was using "selective statistics calculated in a biased manner...blah blah blah."
Funny that he now seems strangely unconcerned with the hypocrisy of him actually doing exactly that.
He's right about one thing, though: The thread did degenerate into nothing but trolls and low-information fans...as soon as he started posting in it.
Back to the ignore list, clown.
You do realize they just completed the stadium in 2012 and they had 45,000 fans at our game this year. They were ranked #5 in the country at the time and didn't fill the stadium. Our fans are much more loyal and faithful than theirs. They might have a great recruiting location, but they are competing with Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor.
See my previous posting and for the record there isn't anyone who distorts numbers like California go-go boy. And stop pretending like you don't read every one of my postings. Holgorsen's overall record is 35-28 at WVU as I stated in my previous postings and it won't change until after the Bowl game. Hard to misinterpret that one. If you throw out his one and only losing season, it is 31-20. Hard to misinterpret that one.
Last edited:
Small private school who had no problem raising the money for a new stadium and great facilities - sorry but we don't compare. Give Dana the same circumstances and he wins a national championship within 5 years. WVU is not at their level of support financially and it is going take Dana longer to do it here.
People keep asking this as if we're some kind of revolving-door program.
In fact, we're actually more stable than most programs. We've had just 9 head coaches since the Korean War began in 1950, and only fired 2 of them to the best of my knowledge. They've averaged 7.3 seasons on the job.
Even if you threw out Lewis' 10-year span and Nehlen's 21 seasons, our other 7 coaches since then have averaged 5 seasons in Morgantown.
Lyons already announced DH will be back for a 6th season. Any suggestion that he has somehow been shortchanged on time is not supported by the facts--either by the previous standards of time at WVU or nationally.
Incidentally, one of those programs that is a revolving door up the road at Pitt just got to 8 wins in their new league WITH a first-year coach.
Last edited:
We've had 3 different coaches in 8 years and some people are saying we need to go to 4. Historically we haven't been a revolving door school, and we shouldn't be starting now.
You've reached rock bottom in your argument if you are holding up Pitt as an example to aspire to.
Who are we going to hire? What is the metric they have to reach to stay more than 4-5 years?
More specifically, who could/would we be able to hire now that would have us in a better place 2 years from now than we would by keeping stability and keeping Holgerson and his staff together. (except for DeForest)
Again, good question. Of top 25 programs all-time wins and wvu is right in the middle of that group, just off of the top of my head, in the past 12 years Unc, usc, Pitt, mich, Florida, Wisconsin, there may be more, all have had at least for coaches in the last 12 years. If memory serves correct, Pitt had the worst record out of all of those teams , with 8 wins.
Again, just facts. Good programs don't accept mediocrity for five straight years.
Again, just facts. Good programs don't accept mediocrity for five straight years.
Ok, let's take Pitt off that list. I was doing you a favor by including them. The other teams with 4 coaches in 12 years averaged NINE wins this year. NINE WINS. 3 of the 5 played in their conference championship game.
Tell me again how top 25 programs getting rid of mediocre coaches has hurt those teams.
Tell me again how top 25 programs getting rid of mediocre coaches has hurt those teams.
Then you didn't understand why I mentioned them.
Pitt was not cited as an example to which we should aspire, but rather as a counterargument to the implication that revolving-door situations automatically impede winning.
Furthermore, any notion that a program should not make a change unless they can guarantee better results is completely silly. There are no guarantees in life.
People inherently understand this when it comes to changing presidents and other politicians who carry far greater responsibilities, so why do they suddenly forget that lesson when it comes to sports coaches?
Under your rationale, no team could ever make a change because they can't guarantee it would lead to better results. That is clearly an untenable standard.
I agree with you WVU. It's the other guy I was responding to. He was saying I shouldn't include Pitt as a success , and I'm not saying they're great, but they definitely have a better coach than we do right now.
My main point is your main point. Worrying about whether the next guy is going to be worse than the mediocre coach you have is not something perennial top 25 teams do. If you have mediocrity after 4 years, not one person on this board can cite one example of a guy figuring it out in his 6th year. If they are going to get it done, you'll start seeing signs of that improvement by year 3. If it doesn't happen by the end of four years, it's not going to happen. You're wasting your time and money.
We all know this team is NOT going to be better next year. We had the best defense we've had in five years, a qb with experience, 12 guys make some list of all conference play, and we still got waxed by three top teams WORSE than we did last year. Last year we beat a good Baylor team. This year's TCU and Baylor were not as good but they beat us worse. We did not improve at all.
We all know next year we will have 12 new starters, Skyler is not getting taller or faster, we have a tougher schedule, any other top 25 program would see the writing on the wall and make a move. All I can see is We are trying to save a few bucks here and that's disappointing to me. I feel like we are the Cincinnati Reds, we are not trying to win next year. We say we are but offseason moves (or lack thereof) say otherwise.
My main point is your main point. Worrying about whether the next guy is going to be worse than the mediocre coach you have is not something perennial top 25 teams do. If you have mediocrity after 4 years, not one person on this board can cite one example of a guy figuring it out in his 6th year. If they are going to get it done, you'll start seeing signs of that improvement by year 3. If it doesn't happen by the end of four years, it's not going to happen. You're wasting your time and money.
We all know this team is NOT going to be better next year. We had the best defense we've had in five years, a qb with experience, 12 guys make some list of all conference play, and we still got waxed by three top teams WORSE than we did last year. Last year we beat a good Baylor team. This year's TCU and Baylor were not as good but they beat us worse. We did not improve at all.
We all know next year we will have 12 new starters, Skyler is not getting taller or faster, we have a tougher schedule, any other top 25 program would see the writing on the wall and make a move. All I can see is We are trying to save a few bucks here and that's disappointing to me. I feel like we are the Cincinnati Reds, we are not trying to win next year. We say we are but offseason moves (or lack thereof) say otherwise.
so Oklahoma and Baylor should be solid locks since they are playing two teams from the ACC..
My question is: since blowing out Clemson in the Orange Bowl where is WVU compared to Clemson?
That's a ridiculous statement. We don't vote for a new president or any other politician because we want to, the elections come around every 4 years whether we are happy with the current president or not, and after 8 years they are gone whether we want them gone or not.
And no, that wasn't my rationale at all ... not even close.
You haven't paid attention to this board much at all, and particularly not even this thread as several people have given examples of coaches that have done just that.
Well, do us a favor and list everyone who has been named.
I recall a grand total of 1 from a quarter century ago and no one from before or after.
That Beamer was an extreme exception seems pretty undeniable unless phantom candidates and ones whom the facts show don't fit the profile are included.
As I said above, that's largely because very very few schools give coaches a sixth season after ZERO improvement for five seasons, so the sample size is too small to mean much, but name ONE COACH besides Beamer.
I recall a grand total of 1 from a quarter century ago and no one from before or after.
That Beamer was an extreme exception seems pretty undeniable unless phantom candidates and ones whom the facts show don't fit the profile are included.
As I said above, that's largely because very very few schools give coaches a sixth season after ZERO improvement for five seasons, so the sample size is too small to mean much, but name ONE COACH besides Beamer.
Do your own homework junior.
Art Briles and Cutliffe were also listed, just off the top of my head, there may have been more, maybe not.
Do they fit the impossible criteria given to open the thread? Maybe not. But why was that impossible criteria given? Perhaps because without narrowing it down that far the OP actually has no point or rationale for their position.
You guys have changed my mind, we should absolutely fire him. Even though we don't have a plan and haven't identified any candidates that we could bring in with the recruiting ties and experience that would give a high probability of improvement. We should just fire him and then cross our fingers and hope somebody better comes along. That's a solid plan.
Well, he's not getting fired this year and will be the coach in 2016. I would suspect that Lyons would have feelers out and start identifying a replacement between now and then. If Lyons decides not to fire him next year, then no harm - no foul. If he does fire him, then he will have had time to do some homework. I would suspect a good AD with a coach that is borderline on whether to keep him or not would be looking for possible replacements months in advance.
And that's exactly what he should be doing. It's idiotic to just fire him without a plan and a strong candidate lined up.
Art Briles had 2 4-8 seasons, then a 7-6 season before a 10 win season in his 4th. After inheriting the team he had two crappy seasons before showing improvement that even further improved the next season. Dana has shown regression to utter crap (3rd season) and ability to claw into around .500 W/L record.
Then how about explaining your rationale? You definitely didn't understand my political example--senators and House reps have no term limits at all just to name one reason, although term limits really have nothing to do with why I made that analogy--so maybe we are both simply not following each other.
P.S. The reason why Briles and Cutcliffe are not relevant examples is because both of those programs were the worst in the league when those coaches got hired. Neither of those is remotely similar to where WVU was at the time, recently coming off some of its best years in history.
Last edited:
Briles took over a very weak program in terms of its immediate past and historically. He took over in 2008. From 1996-2007, Baylor was 35-101. In the 4 seasons before him it went 15-31.
There was zero dropoff from the start (not that there was far to fall) and even including his first two rebuilding seasons he went 25-25 to start. Years 3-5, he went 25-14.
Obviously, Briles does not fit into "showed no improvement over the first 5 and got a 6th season category of coaches. That some clueless poster threw his name blindly into the discussion just shows how utterly desperate people are.
Cutcliffe at Duke (is that whom we want to compare our program now, btw?) went only 21-40 his first 5 seasons but not only did they have the best year in that 5th, meaning they improved during that portion of his tenure---- Duke had gone 7-39 in the 4 seasons prior to him being hired. He won more games during his 1st 2 seasons than Duke had won the prior 4.
Obviously, again, Cutcliffe is far outside the profile of a coach who failed to register improvement over 5 seasons and then got a 6th.
So, I need you to do some homework for me, professor. Show me ONE person other than Beamer who fits the profile into which Dana fits and got a 6th season!
There was zero dropoff from the start (not that there was far to fall) and even including his first two rebuilding seasons he went 25-25 to start. Years 3-5, he went 25-14.
Obviously, Briles does not fit into "showed no improvement over the first 5 and got a 6th season category of coaches. That some clueless poster threw his name blindly into the discussion just shows how utterly desperate people are.
Cutcliffe at Duke (is that whom we want to compare our program now, btw?) went only 21-40 his first 5 seasons but not only did they have the best year in that 5th, meaning they improved during that portion of his tenure---- Duke had gone 7-39 in the 4 seasons prior to him being hired. He won more games during his 1st 2 seasons than Duke had won the prior 4.
Obviously, again, Cutcliffe is far outside the profile of a coach who failed to register improvement over 5 seasons and then got a 6th.
So, I need you to do some homework for me, professor. Show me ONE person other than Beamer who fits the profile into which Dana fits and got a 6th season!
Last edited:
Not even Beamer fits. He did not inherit a program that had averaged 9+ wins for the past 10 years. It's really not hard to understand. There are the only two simple criteria and there are dozens of examples of teams who picked a new coach and he's still there and being successful. There are a dozen examples of coaches who, like Dana, came into a solid program, went .500, and got fired. There is obviously no top program other than wvu who would give a coach 5 years to get back to the success he inherited.
I thought maybe someone would have found one example, I really thought one possibly existed outside of my knowledge, but still not one example has been provided. The danapologists want to pick out guys who inherited losing programs, but not ones who were, like WVU, we're winning before the new coach arrived.
I agree Lyons will do like luck did and start gathering resumes in the off season. When Dana is sitting at 3-5 this fall, expect the hammer to drop.
I thought maybe someone would have found one example, I really thought one possibly existed outside of my knowledge, but still not one example has been provided. The danapologists want to pick out guys who inherited losing programs, but not ones who were, like WVU, we're winning before the new coach arrived.
I agree Lyons will do like luck did and start gathering resumes in the off season. When Dana is sitting at 3-5 this fall, expect the hammer to drop.
LOL - still crying about Lyons' memo this week. Like I told the trolls & low information fans several years ago, stay with it and there is always a chance that some day you will be heard.
DANA AND BOB HUGGINS ARE NOT LEAVING - READ THE MEMO
Last edited:
the "Big Least" was a tough place a few years ago..remember S Florida was very good until Leavitt got fired for slapping a player in the face..
You mean the memo where the AD came out and said nothing to support him other than he would be our coach in 2016? You do realize he had to make a statement because they were trying to decide if he should be fired with a 8 million price tag. Can you imagine you suck so much that someone is willing to pay you 8 million dollars to just go away!!
and yet here we are again, failing to understand the key point. This is the Big 12, not the Big East. There IS a difference. This team would likely have won 10-11 games this year in the AAC/Big East. Your point only makes sense if we were still in that conference and dropped to 7 wins.
Dana has had 5 years to develop the program into his likeness. He has been granted a 6th season as HC. For those who so diligently support him and seem dialed in to his ability what should we expect moving forward? Do you believe Dana can take us to a point we can win the conference and challenge the top 4 year in and year out or are you saying WVU can only expect to be a slightly above average team because the Big 12 to challenging? Maybe do better every now and again? I keep reading the never ending defense of Dana and how hard the Big 12 is but I really don't know what you believe he is capable of doing? If you think he can take us to the next step what is it you see in him that makes you believe? How long should WVU wait to see it through?
The 2016 team will be the first one that is entirely Holgorsen-constructed, and I'll admit to having some morbid curiosity as to what that will look like.
One thing is for sure: Considering that 5 of our top 9 tacklers this season (Kwiatkowski, Petteway, Barber, Rose, and Chestnut) came from Stewart's final class, the oft-touted "better and better" recruiting Holgorsen allegedly has brought to the table needs to produce some talented defensive replacements in a real hurry.
Last edited:
Dillon is a Dana recruit, he committed in December of 2011, nearly a year into Dana's tenure.
I have zero problem with the Big East, I have never said a thing diminishing our accomplishments then!! Not sure why you brought this up while quoting my post!!
