Our next head coach?

[Lobodawg92]

Obviously, we have all been wondering who will be our next head coach. Many of us have wanted Leach, but also have wondered if we could get him to come here. He already has a reputation for building a program, and we can't offer what many other programs will $ wise. We don't get a Leach kinda guy, what are we left with? I keep thinking back to the basketball program (this has been discussed before) and seeing similarities. We were not happy with Rocky (Bliss) getting us to bowl games (NCAA) and we go out and get a guy who is going to bring in big talent, Locksley (Fran F) and it bombs like hedoubletoothpicks. Who will we now bring in for football? Are we gonna have to go through a McKay era to get us ready for the next guy? If the next hire is not a big splash kinda guy, can he turn it around. Miles did it for csu in hoops. And, if we go that route, where does it leave us in the conference realignment? I don't mean to be negative, but I sure don't like where we are sittin right now. :-(

We really need a football equivalent of Alford. I am wondering can we get him right now, or must we first clean up some of the mess left by Locksley?

opinions, with some reasoning to back it up?

[GiJoeRay]

I dont think we will get the football version of SA. What we will probably end up with is going to be a transitional coach who can get us back to 5-7 win a season. I suspect a coach who will get us to a bowl game by year 3, with the help of scheduling some games vs MAC and Sun Belt schools (on the road). Our football savior will most likely be a young coordinantor who will be on the new staff from day one. My hope is for Mazzone to take over the program eventually.

[Roob]

I dont think we will get the football version of SA. What we will probably end up with is going to be a transitional coach who can get us back to 5-7 win a season. I suspect a coach who will get us to a bowl game by year 3, with the help of scheduling some games vs MAC and Sun Belt schools (on the road). Our football savior will most likely be a young coordinantor who will be on the new staff from day one. My hope is for Mazzone to take over the program eventually.

If ever a thanks and a groan was warranted for the same post, this is it. LOL

[GiJoeRay]

Its a hard pill to swallow. But its the realization that i have come to. Its going to be a slow rebuilding process in contrast to what most fans want. the thing is that its just too hard to flip a program like ours in 1 or 2 years. This isnt basketball where one player (JR) can make the team relevant, you need depth across the board, more importantly there cant be a drop from the starters to the 2's.

[Roob]

Its a hard pill to swallow. But its the realization that i have come to. Its going to be a slow rebuilding process in contrast to what most fans want. the thing is that its just too hard to flip a program like ours in 1 or 2 years. This isnt basketball where one player (JR) can make the team relevant, you need depth across the board, more importantly there cant be a drop from the starters to the 2's.

Honestly, I've never bought into that argument, i.e, it's much harder to turn a team around in FB than it is in BB.

In BB, you bring in a Granger (mega superstar) and you have an immediatel impact. In FB if we were to bring in a top gun QB, RB, or DB, he won't have the same impact. That part of the argument I absolutely agree with. One player does not have as much impact in FB where (because of the platoon system on Offense and Defense) you need 22 players to play the game rather than 5 players. In other words 1 player (in a group of 5) can have a much bigger impact than 1 player in a group of 22. That much I understand.

However, it's also important to note that in MBB you typically can recruit 3-4 players onto your team each year. If you're fortunate, maybe one of those players emerges as a superstar. However in FB, you recruit 20-25 players a year. If 4 of those players emerge as impact players, then they can have an overall impact similar to 1 impact player in BB. Yes, it takes more than 1 player to have a significant impact on a team, but you're also pulling in more new players in a given year.

Take a look at what Jim Harbaugh did at Stanford and now with the 49ers. He made an immediate impact at both programs. Those programs had dramatic turnarounds, similar to what Alford did in his first couple of years at UNM. Dramatic turnarounds can occur in FB, too. Don't buy into the "it's a lot easier to accomplish that in BB than it is in FB because in BB 1 player can turn things around" argument.

[loboaddict]

Take a look at what Jim Harbaugh did at Stanford and now with the 49ers. He made an immediate impact at both programs. Those programs had dramatic turnarounds, similar to what Alford did in his first couple of years at UNM. Dramatic turnarounds can occur in FB, too. Don't buy into the "it's a lot easier to accomplish that in BB than it is in FB because in BB 1 player can turn things around" argument.

Agreed. There are many examples of head coaches that have turned programs around in a short period of time. Imo, coaches can make a big immediate impact in football, probably moreso than basketball, where I think the talent of one or two players can sometimes overcome bad coaching.

I don't expect a head coach to come to UNM and immediately make us bowl eligible in his first year. I'll be happy with being competitive and winning a few games in the first year.

Dennis Franchione is an example at UNM of a head coach who turned things around to respectability pretty quickly. He took over for Sheppard at a time when UNM was at its lowest point (until now) and went 3-8 in his first year and 6-5 in his second. I think something similar can happen again.

[Kent]

http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/raider-buzz/2011-11-06/espncom-source-says-mizzou-sec-done-be-announced-days#.TrgRz4Zt_v4

"If we want to be smart and create a rivalry for the ages and continued interest in the Big-12, we should all pray that Mike Leach is offered the job at UNM. If this happens and we in the Big-12 could assist in this selection by making a tentative offer to UNM based on such a selection. UNM offers some solid competition in other athletic programs as well as a solid TV audience across NM, Eastern AZ, and Southern CO."

It is this type of opinion that makes it important for the next coach to be a game changer not just an interim coach.

[GiJoeRay]

Its harder to turn around a college football program than it is an NFL team. free agency gives a team the ability to get the players they wants. Granted this season is the exception, but its not like Harbaugh took over a team with a bunch of has beens. He got good talent, and brought in the players he needed to play his style. I always felt bad for Alex Smith, dude had a new OC every year of his career. He finally got a coach that is willing to play to his strengths and they are on a roll.

It took Harbaugh 3 years to turn around Stanford, 9-16 his first 2 years. we will be really lucky to have that same level of impact with our next coach.

[BYF]

Honestly, I've never bought into that argument, i.e, it's much harder to turn a team around in FB than it is in BB.

In BB, you bring in a Granger (mega superstar) and you have an immediatel impact. In FB if we were to bring in a top gun QB, RB, or DB, he won't have the same impact. That part of the argument I absolutely agree with. One player does not have as much impact in FB where (because of the platoon system on Offense and Defense) you need 22 players to play the game rather than 5 players. In other words 1 player (in a group of 5) can have a much bigger impact than 1 player in a group of 22. That much I understand.

However, it's also important to note that in MBB you typically can recruit 3-4 players onto your team each year. If you're fortunate, maybe one of those players emerges as a superstar. However in FB, you recruit 20-25 players a year. If 4 of those players emerge as impact players, then they can have an overall impact similar to 1 impact player in BB. Yes, it takes more than 1 player to have a significant impact on a team, but you're also pulling in more new players in a given year.

Take a look at what Jim Harbaugh did at Stanford and now with the 49ers. He made an immediate impact at both programs. Those programs had dramatic turnarounds, similar to what Alford did in his first couple of years at UNM. Dramatic turnarounds can occur in FB, too. Don't buy into the "it's a lot easier to accomplish that in BB than it is in FB because in BB 1 player can turn things around" argument.

I don’t buy into this argument either. I understand why people might think that it is more challenging to turn football program around rather than a basketball program, but if you follow college football closely enough, you know that this simply isn’t the case. There are programs all across the nation that have experiences remarkable turnarounds and all because they brought in the right coach and a few key players.

I listed just a few examples below. I tried to pick a coach/story that represented a variety of cirmcumstances (a program take-over, a mid-tier take-over, and a bottom-dweller take-over) .

-USC was a .500 team under Paul Hackett when Pete Carroll took over the program. In his first year he was 6-6, 2nd 11-2, 3rd, 12-1, etc...

-Oklahoma State had one winning season under Bob Simmons and was 3-8 when Les Miles took over. In his first year the team finished 4-7. Miles followed that season with a trip to the Houston Bowl, followed by a trip to the Cotton Bowl, and finally a trip to the Alamo Bowl in his last year with the Cowboys

-Tulsa was 2-21 in Keith Burns last two years at Tulsa.Between Burns and his predecessor Dave Radar they had one winning season over their combined 14 years as head coach of Tulsa. Steve Kragthorpe, in his first year, won 8 games and took Tulsa to the Humanitarian Bowl.

[Kent]

“If this happens and we in the Big-12 could assist in this selection by making a tentative offer to UNM based on such a selection.”

If these types of conversations are time place within the hiring process, which I believe they are. Who is the right coach? It is my opinion that Mike Leach is black balled by ESPN and that make his hire almost impossible by and school in an AQ conference, or wants into an AQ conference. I would not want to be Paul Krebs in this hirer.

[Lobodawg92]

Its a hard pill to swallow. But its the realization that i have come to. Its going to be a slow rebuilding process in contrast to what most fans want. the thing is that its just too hard to flip a program like ours in 1 or 2 years. This isnt basketball where one player (JR) can make the team relevant, you need depth across the board, more importantly there cant be a drop from the starters to the 2's.

That is my fear right there! I sure hope Krebs can pull it off.

Just fwiw, I agree that it is easier to turn around a basketball program. Roob is full of balogna! ;-) :biggrin:

[Loco Lobo 05]

Honestly, I've never bought into that argument, i.e, it's much harder to turn a team around in FB than it is in BB.

In BB, you bring in a Granger (mega superstar) and you have an immediatel impact. In FB if we were to bring in a top gun QB, RB, or DB, he won't have the same impact. That part of the argument I absolutely agree with. One player does not have as much impact in FB where (because of the platoon system on Offense and Defense) you need 22 players to play the game rather than 5 players. In other words 1 player (in a group of 5) can have a much bigger impact than 1 player in a group of 22. That much I understand.

However, it's also important to note that in MBB you typically can recruit 3-4 players onto your team each year. If you're fortunate, maybe one of those players emerges as a superstar. However in FB, you recruit 20-25 players a year. If 4 of those players emerge as impact players, then they can have an overall impact similar to 1 impact player in BB. Yes, it takes more than 1 player to have a significant impact on a team, but you're also pulling in more new players in a given year.

Take a look at what Jim Harbaugh did at Stanford and now with the 49ers. He made an immediate impact at both programs. Those programs had dramatic turnarounds, similar to what Alford did in his first couple of years at UNM. Dramatic turnarounds can occur in FB, too. Don't buy into the "it's a lot easier to accomplish that in BB than it is in FB because in BB 1 player can turn things around" argument.


Jim Harbaugh doesn’t backup your argument Roob. It took Harbaugh two years at Stanford to have a winning season. He had two good years and two bad years and had an overall record of 29-21 in his four years at Stanford. Building a good football team doesn’t happen overnight like it does in basketball even if you have a great coach like Jim Harbaugh.

You don’t understand the dynamics of football. You could have Peyton Manning or Tom Brady under center for the Lobos and it wouldn’t matter if they don’t have an offensive line that could give them time to throw the ball down the field. Same scenario on defense, if you have shutdown corner Darrelle Revis, it won’t matter if the quarterback has all day to find a receiver because the defensive line can’t get in the backfield to put pressure on the quarterback.

[loboaddict]

You don’t understand the dynamics of football.

He doesn't?

[Mark]

Might be soon....

[GiJoeRay]

Com'on now Mark. You know we need more than that. What you hearing?

[judas_priest]

The fact that an occasional coaching change brings quick positive results (as opposed to the quick negative ones that we experienced at UNM) does not mean that doing so is easy or at all common.

From my perspective all or most of the following are necessary:
1. A large reservoir of talent. This was true at USC, for example,
2. Having such a reservoir when a coach has been fired or otherwise forced out clearly implies that he was not suited to that job and/or could not utilize that kind of talent he had very well.
3. The talent that remains is well suited to what the new coach wants. (That was one of Rodriguez's problems at Michigan)
4. A relatively down conference. Let's not forget that by and large, the PAC10 (now PAC12) was relatively down, so a resurgent Stanford didn't have to beat 4 or 5 really strong teams in the conference. (Even now there are only 3 good teams among all 12)
5. A relatively light, for the level of the school, OOC schedule. Starting off with and OOC schedule that seems likely to produce a 1-3 record is not an easy way to do a turn-around.
6. An excellent connection to the areas that the school recruits, or a really big reputation.
7. A lot of luck.

With respect to UNM, I lack sufficient information to assess "1. It is indeed there we'd all agree about #2. #3 is open. #4. remains unknown since we don't know who's in and who's out. Don/t know about #5. #6 awaits the new coach. #7. Who knows?

So, assuming there there is a decent talent base, it should be possible, if not likely.

[red wolf rob]

I believe a good coach can make an imediate impact. It is not in just wins and losses, but in the eye test. When fran was hired he took a terrible team and quickly won his very first game against tcu. We may have lost the next few games, but it was evedent that our team was going in the right direction. Same w/ when we brought in joe morrison, he won his first game against byu. You couled just tell that unm was a better coached team....On the flip side when locks, and shepard came in they both stunk it up their first games. You could tell that these guys were going to be failures.

[FONZ]

I think a great coach that knows how to coach Xs and Os can turn this program around in 1-2 years...

Why? Because we have the talent. I definitely think that Locksley was an overrated recruiter, but I still think he brought in good athletes. Locksley just never could "coach em up."
Unlike Reed's dad, I think we have D1 athletes... They just have no idea what to do and they're not mentally or emotionally capable of competing while under the current coaching staff.

[Gonzlobo]

Yeah right. We have talent. Two and 28 talent.

[FONZ]

Yeah right. We have talent. Two and 28 talent.

I'm not saying "undefeated talent." I'm saying "talent that can compete with schools like SDSU, Texas Tech, Nevada, Sam Houston State, Colorado State, and TCU."

I noticed you also said "two and 28 talent." Well, until this year, Rocky Long's players have been major contributors Locksley's 1st year, halfway his 2nd year, and some key guys this year.
Rocky Long wasn't losing games like Locksley did with Rocky's recruits.

[GiJoeRay]

Locksley lost because he couldnt see the trees through the forrest. He tried to flip the team to a style of play that he wanted but just didnt have the players for. That a huge sign of an unsuccessful leader. Every good leader, when coming into a new situation, asses what the strengths and weaknesses are, exploits the strengths, and builds up the weakness. I use Tuberville in Lubbock as an example. He never ran an Air Raid offense at Auburn, but hes running it now at Tech. But if you dig deeper, you will find that Texas Tech had the #1 RB recruiting class of 2011. Getting all those RB's now will make it easier for him to transition the team to something that resembles his 2004 undefeated Auburn team.

Locksley could not understand that his "system" was not a plug and play system, and it takes years of organic change to make that happen. The next coach is going to have the same issue if he does not run the spread, in particular the spread flex.