(09-02-2016 07:55 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(09-02-2016 09:48 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  Although Kaplony ruffles feathers, he has a point in this case. No matter what word he used, you can not deny that Duke, UNC and State did not place an emphasis on the sport of football like other universities. The programs could have been much stronger if that was not the case. I look at the Mack Brown era at Carolina and how it turned from mediocrity to a top 5 ranked program back to mediocrity because of the wrong hire. Mack actually changed the culture in Chapel Hill by showing you can have both an elite basketball programs as well as a football program that was trying to compete against FSU. Mack had closed the state's borders and top recruits were wanting to stay to play for him.

I also point to the Oregon Ducks who came out of nowhere to become the class of the PAC. OSU, with T Boone Pickens money improved vastly. There is no doubt that the "will" when applied to certain improvements can bring about a positive change in a sport that was dormant. If you don't believe that shiny new practice facilities, uniforms, etc don't attract top notch talent, then I really don't know what to believe. Only Miami, in that bastion of football talent, can sustain a program with local talent and not without the bells and whistles. They just need the right coach and even they are building a IPF.

Glad to know there's a simple formula for athletic success: Demonstrate "will" by hiring a great coach. Since we all know the secret now I guess every school can enjoy athletic success.

Everything is statistics, but paying for top notch facilities and coaches over a prolonged period of time will greatly increase an AD's chance of building an elite program capable of lasting success.

Some coaches are duds, and some are sleepers, but like everything else in life, you tend to get what you pay for. The same goes for facilities. Some schools luck into being in a great location and can coast on facilities. However, sustained investment tends to lead to heightened levels of success.

(09-02-2016 08:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-02-2016 07:55 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(09-02-2016 09:48 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  Although Kaplony ruffles feathers, he has a point in this case. No matter what word he used, you can not deny that Duke, UNC and State did not place an emphasis on the sport of football like other universities. The programs could have been much stronger if that was not the case. I look at the Mack Brown era at Carolina and how it turned from mediocrity to a top 5 ranked program back to mediocrity because of the wrong hire. Mack actually changed the culture in Chapel Hill by showing you can have both an elite basketball programs as well as a football program that was trying to compete against FSU. Mack had closed the state's borders and top recruits were wanting to stay to play for him.

I also point to the Oregon Ducks who came out of nowhere to become the class of the PAC. OSU, with T Boone Pickens money improved vastly. There is no doubt that the "will" when applied to certain improvements can bring about a positive change in a sport that was dormant. If you don't believe that shiny new practice facilities, uniforms, etc don't attract top notch talent, then I really don't know what to believe. Only Miami, in that bastion of football talent, can sustain a program with local talent and not without the bells and whistles. They just need the right coach and even they are building a IPF.

Glad to know there's a simple formula for athletic success: Demonstrate "will" by hiring a great coach. Since we all know the secret now I guess every school can enjoy athletic success.

Everything is statistics, but paying for top notch facilities and coaches over a prolonged period of time will greatly increase an AD's chance of building an elite program capable of lasting success.

Some coaches are duds, and some are sleepers, but like everything else in life, you tend to get what you pay for. The same goes for facilities. Some schools luck into being in a great location and can coast on facilities. However, sustained investment tends to lead to heightened levels of success.

We've witnessed it at Louisville. Coaches come and go and some will be duds, but an average coach (charlie strong, john L smith) can do well if the university and community give him the tools and the physical foundation to work from. If you give a good coach that same foundation they can vault you even farther up the ladder. We've also seen these average coaches mistakenly believe they are solely responsible for their success and fall flat on their faces at their next gig.