If you are a sports fan, you hear every year about coaches that need to be fired, hired, slapped in the face, etc. Sometimes, very successful coaches are shown the door. Other times, mediocre coaches are kept around. It's puzzling to say the least.
I consider myself pretty objective when it comes to gauging a coach's success. And, I basically think there are three types of coaches: (1) Not good enough for the job; (2) Perfect fit for the job; and (3) Program changers. Below is a list of coaches and where I think they fall in the coaching hierarchy. For the purposes of this analysis, I am limiting myself to college football and college basketball.
Mark Richt: Perfect fit. Richt has Georgia football where Georgia football should be. Georgia is better than the vast majority of college football programs. But, at the same time, Georgia isn't USC or Ohio State either. Rich averages ten wins a year. He's a perfect fit.
Phil Fulmer: Not good enough. Tennessee football is better than Phil Fulmer. Sure, he won a championship early on, but what has he done lately? He's had two losing seasons in his last three years. That shouldn't happen at Tennessee.
Tommy Bowden: Perfect fit. I know, I know, he's already been fired. But who does Clemson think it is? Bowden routinely won eight games and went to respectable bowl games. That's Clemson. In the grand scheme of things, Clemson is a notch above the Mississippi States and Kentuckys of the football world, but not as good as a Georgia, Florida or Tennessee.
Billy Donovan: Program changer. Florida was nothing in basketball before Donovan arrived. Lon Kruger had made it decent, but Donovan has made it a national power. He's doing to Florida what Coach K did at Duke ten years before.
Tubby Smith: Perfect fit.....for Minnesota. Tubby is a class act and a good coach, but he wasn't good enough for Kentucky. He just wasn't. Five good years in ten tries won't work at Kentucky. Tubby inherited a team that had been to back-to-back championship games. Tubby led it to back-to-back 8-seeds. On the other hand, he's perfect for a place like Minnesota. he'll go to the tournament, win 20 games, and they'll love him. Kentucky asks for more.
Billy Gillispie: The jury is out at Kentucky, but I think this guy is a program changer. Keep in mind he inherited a Kentucky team that had been fading for years. Also, keep in mind what he did at Texas A&M. He made that school relevant in basketball for the first time ever. I think by the end of this year, people will see what I'm talking about.
Dennis Felton: Perfect fit. This guy has received a lot of criticism. But, again, who does Georgia basketball think it is? The only time it's ever been great is when Herrick was there...and cheating. Georgia basketball is a .500 program. Some years, it'll make the Dance. Others it'll be awful. That's the way it's always been.
Rich Rodriguez: Program changer. Give him time at Michigan. Look what he did at West Virginia. It took Lloyd Carr ten years to slow down the Michigan football team. Give Rodriguez more than one to speed it up again.
Ron Zook: Perfect fit....for Illinois. The Zooker couldn't cut it at Florida. The proof is what Urban Meyer has been doing the last four years. Zook is perfect for Illinois though. Win seven games, and you're a hero.
Steve Lavin: Not good enough. UCLA caught heat for firing this guy. I mean, really? UCLA basketball is better than Steve Lavin. Want proof?
Ben Howland: Program changer. He took over the mess Lavin had left behind. After a tough couple years, he's now been in the Final Four three straight times.
The point of all this is, certain programs have certain expectations. It takes a program changer to take a middle-of-the-road school to the next level. Those guys are few and far between. If you're at Clemson, don't be so quick to think you're better than Tommy Bowden. If you're one of the crazies calling for Mark Richt's head, you're an idiot.
But, if you're at a top notch program, don't settle for a Phil Fulmer, Lloyd Carr or Steve Lavin. You're better than that. Hey, I didn't make the rules. I just play by them.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
The Fountain of Youth
As legend has it, Juan Ponce de Leon was searching for the Fountain of Youth when he traveled to what we now call Florida. If he found it, it was likely because he stumbled across a highly contested match-up between the Seminoles and the Gators.
Don't know what I'm talking about? Think about it. Sports give an excuse for grown-ups to act like bumbling, immature idiots. Think about the players. Where else besides sports do you find full-grown men chest-bumping, screaming incoherently for no reason, shaving strange designs in their facial hair, and making up little dances for when they've done something well?
Think about the fans. Where else do you find 50-year-olds painting their faces and chests, wearing fake tattoos, high-fiving perfect strangers cause they're wearing the same color shirt, and pouting for hours because something doesn't go their way? I mean, last night I was cursing at my television because a 17-year-old kid made a mistake.
For better or worse, sports bring out the kid in all of us. And I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way.
Don't know what I'm talking about? Think about it. Sports give an excuse for grown-ups to act like bumbling, immature idiots. Think about the players. Where else besides sports do you find full-grown men chest-bumping, screaming incoherently for no reason, shaving strange designs in their facial hair, and making up little dances for when they've done something well?
Think about the fans. Where else do you find 50-year-olds painting their faces and chests, wearing fake tattoos, high-fiving perfect strangers cause they're wearing the same color shirt, and pouting for hours because something doesn't go their way? I mean, last night I was cursing at my television because a 17-year-old kid made a mistake.
For better or worse, sports bring out the kid in all of us. And I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way.
Friday, November 7, 2008
The Future of the Republican Party
The Republican Party is in shambles. It lost the White House. It lost more seats in the Senate and the House. The McCain campaign is now blaming Sarah Palin for its struggles. And, it appears that there's no way out.
Don't panic, fellow conservatives. Six short years ago, the Democrats were in the same boat. Bush was president and wildly popular (yes, six short years ago, he was). The 2002 elections were an absolute landslide for the Republicans. And, Democrats were shaking their heads wondering where to look for some help. Keep this in mind: six years ago, none of you had ever heard of Barack Obama.
So, where do the Republicans go from here? I'll tell you where they won't go...Sarah Palin. I think she'll never be heard from again. I don't think that's fair, but I think it's true. McCain's chance at the White House is gone, so it won't be him in four years. Who will it be?
In 2012, I suspect you'll hear a lot about Tim Pawlenty (Gov. - Minn.) and perhaps Mitch McConnell (Sen. - Ken.). I'd also like to see Mitch Daniels (Gov. - Ind.) in the mix. A lot of people think the future of the party lies with Bobby Jindal (Gov. - La.). Jindal is only 37 years old though, so 2012 might be a bit ambitious.
I think the Republican Party will be just fine. I think it will gain some seats back in 2010 based purely on the fact that Americans typically don't like all the power in one party. In 1994, Clinton lost seats in Congress despite being extremely popular. I think the GOP will have a very difficult time winning in 2012 regardless of who runs. Obama is too smart to do anything in his first four years that might cost him a second four. BUT, I think by the time 2012 rolls around, the Republicans will have more seats in Congress and won't be seen as the mess that people think of right now.
The bottom line is that this is all cyclical. Reagan was unbeatable in 1984. Eight years later, Clinton took over. Clinton was unbeatable in 1996, but four years later, Bush won. Now, Obama wins easily. The days of one party being in control for decades at a time are over. The GOP is a disaster right now, but give it a few years. Just remember, in 2002, no one thought the Dems. could recover. Now look where we are today.
Don't panic, fellow conservatives. Six short years ago, the Democrats were in the same boat. Bush was president and wildly popular (yes, six short years ago, he was). The 2002 elections were an absolute landslide for the Republicans. And, Democrats were shaking their heads wondering where to look for some help. Keep this in mind: six years ago, none of you had ever heard of Barack Obama.
So, where do the Republicans go from here? I'll tell you where they won't go...Sarah Palin. I think she'll never be heard from again. I don't think that's fair, but I think it's true. McCain's chance at the White House is gone, so it won't be him in four years. Who will it be?
In 2012, I suspect you'll hear a lot about Tim Pawlenty (Gov. - Minn.) and perhaps Mitch McConnell (Sen. - Ken.). I'd also like to see Mitch Daniels (Gov. - Ind.) in the mix. A lot of people think the future of the party lies with Bobby Jindal (Gov. - La.). Jindal is only 37 years old though, so 2012 might be a bit ambitious.
I think the Republican Party will be just fine. I think it will gain some seats back in 2010 based purely on the fact that Americans typically don't like all the power in one party. In 1994, Clinton lost seats in Congress despite being extremely popular. I think the GOP will have a very difficult time winning in 2012 regardless of who runs. Obama is too smart to do anything in his first four years that might cost him a second four. BUT, I think by the time 2012 rolls around, the Republicans will have more seats in Congress and won't be seen as the mess that people think of right now.
The bottom line is that this is all cyclical. Reagan was unbeatable in 1984. Eight years later, Clinton took over. Clinton was unbeatable in 1996, but four years later, Bush won. Now, Obama wins easily. The days of one party being in control for decades at a time are over. The GOP is a disaster right now, but give it a few years. Just remember, in 2002, no one thought the Dems. could recover. Now look where we are today.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Pride and Disappointment.....A Strange Paradox
I did not vote for Barack Obama. I do not think he is qualified to be president of the United States. I do not agree with the very large majority of his policies. And, yes, I am supremely disappointed that he is now the President-elect.
Having said all of that, I awakened this morning with an overwhelming sense of pride in our country. First, I am proud of the incredible turnout at voting precincts around the country. This election was personal to people for a variety of reasons, and I appreciate the fact that more people than ever seemed to be genuinely interested in the outcome of the election. I waited more than two hours to cast my ballot, and there were a thousand others there with me. I think that says a lot.
The other reason I am proud today is that after all the tough talk, all the criticisms of both parties, all the debates, etc., we just elected an African American man to be President of the United States. That, in and of itself, is amazing. But, that's not what is so important to me. What fills me with pride is that Barack Obama's status as a black candidate wasn't really what people were talking about. It really wasn't a big campaign issue.
Obviously, there was some discussion about that very real chance that this election would make history. But, the very large majority of the political conversations I heard during the last few months (both in person and on television) had nothing to do with race. They had to do with Obama's policies and associations, McCain's policies and experience, and how individual people felt about those issues. I heard VERY few people discuss the fact that Obama is African American.
Now, I'm not so stupid as to think there weren't racist voters who picked McCain only because Obama is black. And I'm not so stupid as to think there weren't black voters who picked Obama for that reason alone. BUT, during a history-making campaign such as this one, I would say 95 percent of what I saw and heard concerned only the legitimate issues facing our country. When Barack Obama was born, there were restaurants, hotels and even government buildings that he would not have been allowed to enter. Now, he's about to move into the White House. Regardless of how you feel about his policies, I think the progress our nation has made in the last half-century is something we can all take pride in.
Having said all of that, I awakened this morning with an overwhelming sense of pride in our country. First, I am proud of the incredible turnout at voting precincts around the country. This election was personal to people for a variety of reasons, and I appreciate the fact that more people than ever seemed to be genuinely interested in the outcome of the election. I waited more than two hours to cast my ballot, and there were a thousand others there with me. I think that says a lot.
The other reason I am proud today is that after all the tough talk, all the criticisms of both parties, all the debates, etc., we just elected an African American man to be President of the United States. That, in and of itself, is amazing. But, that's not what is so important to me. What fills me with pride is that Barack Obama's status as a black candidate wasn't really what people were talking about. It really wasn't a big campaign issue.
Obviously, there was some discussion about that very real chance that this election would make history. But, the very large majority of the political conversations I heard during the last few months (both in person and on television) had nothing to do with race. They had to do with Obama's policies and associations, McCain's policies and experience, and how individual people felt about those issues. I heard VERY few people discuss the fact that Obama is African American.
Now, I'm not so stupid as to think there weren't racist voters who picked McCain only because Obama is black. And I'm not so stupid as to think there weren't black voters who picked Obama for that reason alone. BUT, during a history-making campaign such as this one, I would say 95 percent of what I saw and heard concerned only the legitimate issues facing our country. When Barack Obama was born, there were restaurants, hotels and even government buildings that he would not have been allowed to enter. Now, he's about to move into the White House. Regardless of how you feel about his policies, I think the progress our nation has made in the last half-century is something we can all take pride in.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Let The Games Begin!
As Texas Tech pulled out miraculous victory over Texas last night, supporters of the BCS system had to feel like they'd been kicked in the groin. Why? Because once again, it's going to be a November to remember, and the BCS carousel is about the start moving.
Alabama is now at the top of both the AP and Coaches' polls. But I don't know a single person who thinks they'll beat Florida in the SEC Championship game.
Texas Tech is now second in one poll and third in another. Problem is, they still have to play Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, and a conference championship game (if they get there).
Penn State is in the mix is well, but no one thinks they're any good. They'll likely be the only undefeated team from a major conference at season's end. Too bad it's a pretty bad conference.
Oklahoma and Texas are both still in contention, but Texas beat the Sooners and lost to Texas Tech. What if Oklahoma beats Texas Tech, and they've all beaten each other? Confused yet?
Lost in all of this are Florida and USC, who most people think are the best two teams in the country.
For a long time, I supported the bowl system. I thought it made the regular season better. But can you imagine an eight-team playoff with the schools I just mentioned? And I didn't even talk about Georgia, Missouri, Ohio State, LSU, the non-BCS undefeated teams or a single school from the ACC.
Alabama is now at the top of both the AP and Coaches' polls. But I don't know a single person who thinks they'll beat Florida in the SEC Championship game.
Texas Tech is now second in one poll and third in another. Problem is, they still have to play Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, and a conference championship game (if they get there).
Penn State is in the mix is well, but no one thinks they're any good. They'll likely be the only undefeated team from a major conference at season's end. Too bad it's a pretty bad conference.
Oklahoma and Texas are both still in contention, but Texas beat the Sooners and lost to Texas Tech. What if Oklahoma beats Texas Tech, and they've all beaten each other? Confused yet?
Lost in all of this are Florida and USC, who most people think are the best two teams in the country.
For a long time, I supported the bowl system. I thought it made the regular season better. But can you imagine an eight-team playoff with the schools I just mentioned? And I didn't even talk about Georgia, Missouri, Ohio State, LSU, the non-BCS undefeated teams or a single school from the ACC.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
A Virtue Out Of Selfishness?
“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic." You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”
This is a direct quote from Barack Obama in response to the criticism that his tax plan has socialist implications. So, let me get this straight....It is now "selfish" to want to keep the money you worked hard for? It's "selfish" not to want the government to decide what should happen with your own income?
A couple months ago, Joe Biden said we needed to be "patriotic" by paying more taxes. Now, Obama says it's "selfish" if we don't want to pay more taxes. Hey, to all of you reading this (both of you), do you consider yourself "selfish?" No? Then give me all of your money. No? That's not very patriotic.
This is a direct quote from Barack Obama in response to the criticism that his tax plan has socialist implications. So, let me get this straight....It is now "selfish" to want to keep the money you worked hard for? It's "selfish" not to want the government to decide what should happen with your own income?
A couple months ago, Joe Biden said we needed to be "patriotic" by paying more taxes. Now, Obama says it's "selfish" if we don't want to pay more taxes. Hey, to all of you reading this (both of you), do you consider yourself "selfish?" No? Then give me all of your money. No? That's not very patriotic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
