Owl69/70,
First, thank you for openness and balanced demeanor when responding to my posted thoughts. As I said, I never played above HS football, and I know some of ya'll did, so I approach my analysis as a fan more than a player's perspective. I appreciate your (and other posters') more knowledgeable insights from that perspective.
(11-18-2014 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: ...we've had in the past that's averaging 2 to 4 wins a season (for reference, we won 28 in the decade of the 70s and 22 in the decade of the 80s).
I was here during those '80s years. Watson Brown and Jerry Burndt.
Many of those losses were to what today are considered P-5 schools back in the SWC mostly, so although it still stunk losing, it was overall to seemingly better competition.
Since we've dropped down so far (or been left behind so far-take your pick; tomato, tomahto)
I equate a 7-5 season with most (or all) of the wins against current C-USA 3.1 members to going about 2-10 in the old SWC, hence perhaps you can see why I'm not very satisfied with the alleged improvement the same way some other posters are. To me, we haven't really improved all that much. (Some, yes, but not enough.)
I know your post preaches some more patience, but Lord have mercy, my hair's literally starting to fall out these days (not to mention the gray), so how much longer?
(11-18-2014 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I guess what I'm saying is that I could see Bailiff as the leadoff guy in something like a Koetter/Hawkins/Petersen progression...
Great. When can we go ahead and get to the Hawkins/Petersen in that equation? Why do we have to stay with the first guy so long?
(11-18-2014 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: As for Muschamp, he's a very capable DC, but by no means did Florida overachieve during his tenure there. He came from Texas, where underachieving with great talent has been the recent norm. He was the heir apparent because he looked better in that role than Greg Davis, but that's not saying a lot. I don't know that he can't do it, but I do know that he hasn't done it.
I know Muschamp hasn't done it yet. Maybe he never will. All I saw was here's a guy to Top 10 programs had in their sites to hire for the Head Coach job (one did, the other designated in waiting). He has a depth of connections to the SEC, premier college football conference in the USA currently, and a strong Texas connection for recruiting purposes.
My point is: would Texas (before or today, or at any time) ever consider David Bailiff as its Head Coach or Head Coach in waiting? Would Florida ever hire David Bailiff for its Head Coach?
I think the answer was, is and probably always will be a very strong NO.
Nothing personal, "it's just business."
That is the difference to me. I'm not saying Muschamp is the only guy or end-all be-all. He's just an opportunity because he became available, that's all. We should take a serious look at it.
I know we don't spend like those schools do on coaches. I'm moving more to the mindset/camp of maybe I'd rather Rice spend a few million on top-level coaches and let them do their thing here (win big) and then do the EZF after fans start packing the stands and other name p-5 schools we need to play in Non-conference rotation (LSU, OLE MISS, MISS STATE, and yeah, I'd like to see us play Georgia and GA Tech sometime in my lifetime just because it's where I'm from).
(11-18-2014 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: What we need is someone who:
1) represents well the values of the university,
2) can maintain recruiting at the current level, or perhaps turn it up another notch or two, and
3) can get that talent to overachieve.
Bailiff is as good as we can reasonably expect with regard to 1 and 2. So far, he hasn't shown the ability to do 3. Muschamp is not a slam dunk with any of them.
+1 totally agree with this. I don't want to cheat. But if you can't do #3 after 8 years, well... maybe time to tell that girl she's just not the one, but thanks for the fun.
Again, thanks for your response, Owl69/70. Always enjoy coming to the boards here and reading what you have to say.
