Athlon: Doc ranks in bottom half

[jocktalker]

I know he had a bad year last year and there's been a lot of bitching and moaning on this board about him since the end of the 2016 season, but I still thought he would be ranked higher.

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-all-130-college-football-head-coaches-2017

 

[bklyneer]

I disagree with a lot on this list and Doc probably should be higher but overall, I dont think it was a big slap in the face at him since he was ranked higher then Kiffin and Orgeron

 

[Marine03]

I know he had a bad year last year and there's been a lot of bitching and moaning on this board about him since the end of the 2016 season, but I still thought he would be ranked higher.

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-all-130-college-football-head-coaches-2017

He should be ranked lower as a HC, but high as a good recruiter (on paper.)

 

[pdbailey]

You don't go 53-37 in 7 seasons without being a good coach and recruiter when the school has little to zero recruiting base, is in a poor town and state, and is only in a G5 conference. Is he a great coach? Probably not, but he is a good coach based on the resources available.

 

[i am herdman]

You don't go 53-37 in 7 seasons without being a good coach and recruiter when the school has little to zero recruiting base, is in a poor town and state, and is only in a G5 conference. Is he a great coach? Probably not, but he is a good coach based on the resources available.

Yehh he does have one CUSA championship.

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

You don't go 53-37 in 7 seasons without being a good coach and recruiter when the school has little to zero recruiting base, is in a poor town and state, and is only in a G5 conference. Is he a great coach? Probably not, but he is a good coach based on the resources available.

That's an average record of about 7-5 per year. Marshall has some of the best, if not the best, facilities in the conference. They have the best history in the conference. They have some of the lowest academic requirements and behavioral issue acceptance in the conference. They have some of the best coaching salaries, only recently being surpassed by some programs. They play against three programs that are so young, they can't even spell F-B-S. They play two more in the division that get outdrawn by college gymnastic matches.

Marshall could be located in Alaska and still should dominate those teams I listed based on all of their advantages.

Going 7-5 with the advantages that Marshall has over so many other teams in the conference is not good, especially when you consider one win each year is against an FCS.

 

[i am herdman]

That's an average record of about 7-5 per year. Marshall has some of the best, if not the best, facilities in the conference. They have the best history in the conference. They have some of the lowest academic requirements and behavioral issue acceptance in the conference. They have some of the best coaching salaries, only recently being surpassed by some programs. They play against three programs that are so young, they can't even spell F-B-S. they play two more in the division that gets outdrawn by college gymnastic matches.

Marshall could be located in Alaska and still should dominate those teams I listed based on all of their advantages.

Going 7-5 with the advantages that Marshall has over so many other teams in the conference is not good, especially when you consider one win each year is against an FCS.

Amen, Dave.

The record is abysmal when you look at it objectively. One championship and averaging 7 wins in this league? Marshall and Doc have every advantage they need to win and they don't take advantage of it. One championship? Really?

A lot of excuse making going on that makes no sense. I can't believe the school nor the fans are not demanding better.

 

[pdbailey]

That's an average record of about 7-5 per year. Marshall has some of the best, if not the best, facilities in the conference. They have the best history in the conference. They have some of the lowest academic requirements and behavioral issue acceptance in the conference. They have some of the best coaching salaries, only recently being surpassed by some programs. They play against three programs that are so young, they can't even spell F-B-S. they play two more in the division that gets outdrawn by college gymnastic matches.

Marshall could be located in Alaska and still should dominate those teams I listed based on all of their advantages.

Going 7-5 with the advantages that Marshall has over so many other teams in the conference is not good, especially when you consider one win each year is against an FCS.

We have the best facilities now, but that wasn't the case his first few years in the conference. It takes time to rebuild a program and it took 3 recruiting classes to fill the roster with players that fit the systems we run and that lead to 33-8. As far as coaching salaries, Doc was at about the average level for the conference and still is while our assistants are now paid about average overall. It isn't that easy to get players when you have to get about 20+ recruits per year from outside your local recruiting area. Doc is 41-24 with his recruits making up a majority of his roster and with some being upperclassmen. Like I said, I'm not saying he is a great coach, I'm just saying he is a good one for our level.

 

[pdbailey]

Amen, Dave.

The record is abysmal when you look at it objectively. One championship and averaging 7 wins in this league? Marshall and Doc have every advantage they need to win and they don't take advantage of it. One championship? Really?

A lot of excuse making going on that makes no sense. I can't believe the school nor the fans are not demanding better.

The first three years was a transition from "Little Big10" football and athlete type to systems based on "speed". Those first few years we had a lot of square pegs in round holes and it lead to 17-20 and no way we could compete for the conference title. We are 36-17 the last 4 years, which is a 9-win avg., and have been to 2 title games with 1-title. We also have a pretty talented roster thanks to our 2016/2017 recruiting classes that "should" lead to a bunch of wins in the future. If you are expecting 10+ wins and a title every year, then you have unrealistic expectations as the conference has upped their recruiting game just like the MAC schools did after we dominated for a few years. The difference is that recruiting is easier for them based on their locations and most of those schools have increased the money support in recent years as well, which leads to more competition in recruiting and on the field. We all want to win 10+ games per year and conference titles but it isn't going to be as easy as it was in the MAC days when our opponents couldn't compete on the field or financially with MU.

 

[sistersville]

Worst conference in america We lost to Charlotte. We are getting less talent. 3 yrs and get a top notch qb

 

[HerdFan73]

We have the best facilities now, but that wasn't the case his first few years in the conference. It takes time to rebuild a program and it took 3 recruiting classes to fill the roster with players that fit the systems we run and that lead to 33-8. As far as coaching salaries, Doc was at about the average level for the conference and still is while our assistants are now paid about average overall. It isn't that easy to get players when you have to get about 20+ recruits per year from outside your local recruiting area. Doc is 41-24 with his recruits making up a majority of his roster and with some being upperclassmen. Like I said, I'm not saying he is a great coach, I'm just saying he is a good one for our level.

We've gotten worse, our recruiting has gotten worse, and our retention has gotten worse since we finished the best facilities in the conference.

 

[oldeherd]

You can make some interesting "comparisons" of Doc's tenure at MU thus far with our "neighbors" up "north".

First, WVU has facilities comparable or better than many, if not most, of its Big 12 brethren. And don't tell me that WVU's admission standards are harder than the other Big 12 schools.

Yep, Doc has, or should have, "feasted" on CUSA's lesser lights. Just like WVU has on Big 12 Powers like KU and ISU.

Question for Herd fans and for Doc is that was 2016 an anomaly or the start of a downward spiral? Only time will tell.

As for Doc's overall record averaging 7-5. Let's see how Coach "wildhair" has faired up in the Hole. After 6 seasons, Holgy's W-L record is 46-31, with bookend 10-3 records in both 2011 and 2016. That averages out to an astonishing, you guessed it, 7.5-5 record!!

And among those 46 wins, in addition to many coming against KU and ISU in the conference, the EERS have also defeated FCS opponents Norfolk St., JMU, Wm. & Mary, Towson, Liberty, Youngtown State, and G5 opponents Ga. State, Ga. Southern, Bowling Green, and Marshall, twice.

Moreover, by any objective criteria, one would have to conclude that Doc came into the MU program under worse circumstances, following Snyder's unsuccessful tenure. Meanwhile, Holgerson followed Bill Stewart's succession of 9-3 seasons, IIR, when Stu was unceremoniously dumped by horseface Ollie the Schmuck Luck!!

Not saying that I am "overjoyed" with Doc's overall record and some aspects of his program. But am willing to see if improvements off and on the field this season, and down the road, will indicate that program has been turned in the right direction.

 

[jrod64]

You don't go 53-37 in 7 seasons without being a good coach and recruiter when the school has little to zero recruiting base, is in a poor town and state, and is only in a G5 conference. Is he a great coach? Probably not, but he is a good coach based on the resources available.

You can go 53-37 and be a horrible coach if the quality of your opponents is poor. His record against teams with a winning record shows how good a coach he really is

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

First, WVU has facilities comparable or better than many, if not most, of its Big 12 brethren. And don't tell me that WVU's admission standards are harder than the other Big 12 schools.

No. wvu's football facilities are in the bottom third of Big 12 programs. There are nine other Big 12 schools besides wvu.

I was in Stillwater in May. Their football facilities are jaw-dropping. Their fan store inside the stadium is like shopping at Barney's. The entrance into their coaching offices looks like the lobby of a major DC law firm - the lobby is so big, they have secretaries at desks on each side. I was in Norman last month. Their facilities were already better than wvu's, and they were in the midst of major construction for football facilities. Texas' crushes wvu's. TCU and Kansas State have invested over $220 million over the last few years in their football facilities. Both surpass what wvu offers. Baylor's new stadium and facilities, which I toured last week, pushes them past wvu. Texas Tech, which was already on par with wvu, opens their new $48 million indoor in September. That pushes them ahead of wvu. Iowa State is much closer to wvu in facilities than you would think. They, along with Kansas, are the only two teams in the Big 12 that have inferior facilities to wvu . . . and Kansas just announced a $300 million project for football only.

Holgorsen has some of the worst facilities in the Big 12, yet his average record is about the same as Doc's, who has one of the top two facilities in his conference.

 

[oldeherd]

No. wvu's football facilities are in the bottom third of Big 12 programs. There are nine other Big 12 schools besides wvu.

I was in Stillwater in May. Their football facilities are jaw-dropping. Their fan store inside the stadium is like shopping at Barney's. The entrance into their coaching offices looks like the lobby of a major DC law firm - the lobby is so big, they have secretaries at desks on each side. I was in Norman last month. Their facilities were already better than wvu's, and they were in the midst of major construction for football facilities. Texas' crushes wvu's. TCU and Kansas State have invested over $220 million over the last few years in their football facilities. Both surpass what wvu offers. Baylor's new stadium and facilities, which I toured last week, pushes them past wvu. Texas Tech, which was already on par with wvu, opens their new $48 million indoor in September. That pushes them ahead of wvu. Iowa State is much closer to wvu in facilities than you would think. They, along with Kansas, are the only two teams in the Big 12 that have inferior facilities to wvu . . . and Kansas just announced a $300 million project for football only.

Holgorsen has some of the worst facilities in the Big 12, yet his average record is about the same as Doc's, who has one of the top two facilities in his conference.

YAG, well, WVU is certainly not standing "pat". In last year or so, and continuing, complete upgrades on all sides, end zones, concourses, etc., of Mountaineer Field at a total cost of $40 to 50 million or so, I believe. WVU Stadium, capacity wise as big or bigger than all other Big 12 venues except Texas and OU, I believe even with the improvements that you noted. WVU probably behind many others in indoor facilities as the Caperton Center is getting a little "old".

As for CUSA, you do know that UTSA plays in the 60000 seat Alamo Dome don't you? UTEP in 50,000 seat Sun Bowl. UAB spending millions to upgrade football facilities. WKU spent more on upgrades to Houchens Stadium than MU spent on originally spent on Edwards Stadium. Believe ODU planning a new football stadium also.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

WVU Stadium, capacity wise as big or bigger than all other Big 12 venues except Texas and OU, I believe even with the improvements that you noted.

That's not correct. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Iowa State all have capacities bigger than the 'Pusk.

wvu not standing pat in facilities may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the schools I listed in the other post all have superior facilities. As it stands, wvu only beats Kansas and Iowa State in facilities. I am guessing Kansas' $300 million football only improvements will push them ahead, also.

As for CUSA, you do know that UTSA plays in the 60000 seat Alamo Dome don't you? UTEP in 50,000 seat Sun Bowl. UAB spending millions to upgrade football facilities. WKU spent more on upgrades to Houchens Stadium than MU spent on originally spent on Edwards Stadium. Believe ODU planning a new football stadium also.

If stadium size encompassed the only thing that mattered in judging football facilities, then you may have a point. UAB's stadium holds 72,000, but it doesn't mean they have the best facilities in C-USA.

UTSA and UTEP don't have facilities anything like what Marshall does. As I have said repeatedly, Marshall has one of the top 2 overall football facilities in the conference. wvu is in the bottom third of their conference. The original comparison that the other poster tried making was widely inaccurate.

 

[oldeherd]

That's not correct. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Iowa State all have capacities bigger than the 'Pusk.

wvu not standing pat in facilities may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the schools I listed in the other post all have superior facilities. As it stands, wvu only beats Kansas and Iowa State in facilities. I am guessing Kansas' $300 million football only improvements will push them ahead, also.



If stadium size encompassed the only thing that mattered in judging football facilities, then you may have a point. UAB's stadium holds 72,000, but it doesn't mean they have the best facilities in C-USA.

UTSA and UTEP don't have facilities anything like what Marshall does. As I have said repeatedly, Marshall has one of the top 2 overall football facilities in the conference. wvu is in the bottom third of their conference. The original comparison that the other poster tried making was widely inaccurate.

Incorrect, YAG.

Per Wikiedia, "List of American football stadiums by capacity", the following is found:

Iowa State, Tice Stadium: 61,500 capacity
WVU, Mountaineer Field: 60,549 capacity
Tex. Tech, Jones AT&T: 60,454 capacity
OK State-Pickens Stad: 60,218 capacity
Kansas-Memorial Stad: 50,071 capacity
Kan. St. Snyder Family Stad: 50,000 capacity
Baylor, McLane Stad: 45,140 capacity
TCU, Amon Carter Stad: 45,000 capacity.

So in Big 12, WVU stadium only behind Texas, OU, and ISU in capacity.

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

Incorrect, YAG.
.

Not incorrect. You've been respectable, so I don't mean to be a dick to you, but I don't understand how some people still think I'm going to post something factually wrong. Debate my opinion based comments all you want, but I'm not going to post something that can be refuted with facts.

From your same source- scroll down to the "facilities" section. Note that your same source has wvu at 60,000 capacity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_12_Conference

Then, to further cement the fact, look at wvu's official page for their stadium. Scroll down to where it says "capacity." Not coincidentally, both the official wvu page and the wiki page have it as 60,000.

http://www.wvusports.com/page.cfm?section=7920

So, again, the 'Pusk is behind Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Iowa State in capacity.

 

[JudgeDD]

It seems to me, when comparing stadium capacities numbers shared by oldherd, that these below should all be considered essentially the same. Even given CK's adjustment. Differences of a couple thousand, let alone a few hundred, are really meaningless.

Iowa State
WVU
Tex. Tech
OK State

 

[oldeherd]

Point really is, with 4 schools having stadium seating capacities within 1200 of the other 3, that no school has a dramatic advantage over the other 3 in terms of facilities, as one poster seems to want to argue.

Hell, at one game, in the then named Mountaineer Field, WVU had an announced crowd of over 70,000. When these schools spend millions to upgrade, etc., their facilities, the overall seating capacities often change, for a variety of reasons. I would imagine that WVU, Iowa State, OK State and Texas Tech could manage to accommodate several hundred or more fans in their respective football stadiums if warranted over the stated seating capacities of said facilities.

Its a rather "slow" time of the year in terms of college sports. Just a topic for discussion and/or debate, and not of that earth shaking consequence in the grand scheme of things. Next subject!

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Point really is, with 4 schools having stadium seating capacities within 1200 of the other 3, that no school has a dramatic advantage over the other 3 in terms of facilities, as one poster seems to want to argue.

No. The discussion was about Big 12 facilities. I didn't bring up stadium size as part of that. A brand new, hi-tech 50,000 seat stadium is going to be a much better facility than an antiquated 60,000 seat stadium even with more seats. I don't think having a few hundred extra seats in a 60,000 seat venue gives an advantage. I was simply correct another poster's false statement. Leave the fake news for Sam and Fever; they have the market cornered on that in these parts.

My statement about wvu having facilities in the lower third of the conference is only partially based on their stadium. There are many other important factors. As it stands, wvu's football facilities (which encompasses far more than stadium size) are in the lower third of the Big 12.

I will wait for somebody to prove otherwise.

 

[oldeherd]

No. The discussion was about Big 12 facilities. I didn't bring up stadium size as part of that. A brand new, hi-tech 50,000 seat stadium is going to be a much better facility than an antiquated 60,000 seat stadium even with more seats. I don't think having a few hundred extra seats in a 60,000 seat venue gives an advantage. I was simply correct another poster's false statement. Leave the fake news for Sam and Fever; they have the market cornered on that in these parts.

My statement about wvu having facilities in the lower third of the conference is only partially based on their stadium. There are many other important factors. As it stands, wvu's football facilities (which encompasses far more than stadium size) are in the lower third of the Big 12.

I will wait for somebody to prove otherwise.

Well then cite objective, empirical studies supporting assertion that WVU football facilities are in lower third of the Big 12, if you can. Are there any such studies? Are you just going by what each conference school is currently spending, and/or plans to spend, on facility upgrades?

Has there been a definitive study of Big 12 football facilities comparing and contrasting each school's weight rooms, auxiliary facilities, practice fields, indoor facilities, sports medicine facilities, etc., etc? If not, then how does one objectively know, or claim, that WVU's such facilities are in the lower third of its conference?

I am sure that each school's total athletic budget is a matter of pubic record (unless a school is a private institution). Consequently, there are probably breakouts of the exact amount of $$$ each school spends on a particular sport, like football. I would imagine, don't know, that WVU's total football budget is probably about middle of the pack in the Big 12.

I do know that when WVU opened its $20 plus million and plush basketball practice facility, Huggins supposedly claimed that it was as good or better than any other such college facility in the country. At about the same time Virginia Tech opened its new basketball practice facility which also cost over $20 million. I'm sure their basketball staff said, and believed, about the same thing that Huggins did about his facility. Who really knows which is, objectively, the better facility? Easy to make claims, harder to prove.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Well then cite objective, empirical studies supporting assertion that WVU football facilities are in lower third of the Big 12, if you can. Are there any such studies? Are you just going by what each conference school is currently spending, and/or plans to spend, on facility upgrades?

Has there been a definitive study of Big 12 football facilities comparing and contrasting each school's weight rooms, auxiliary facilities, practice fields, indoor facilities, sports medicine facilities, etc., etc? If not, then how does one objectively know, or claim, that WVU's such facilities are in the lower third of its conference?

What schools plan to do in the future really has no relevance to why we were discussing this. A poster claimed that Doc and Dana were almost identical in their success based in each respective conference based on what they have to work with compared to their peers. I disagreed and stated that Marshall has one of the top two football facilities in the conference while wvu has one of the lower third. So, his comparison was off.

These are fairly subjective things. I may think that a brand new, hi-tech weight room is better than an old, small, cramped weight room with outdated equipment. Somebody else may think the old weight room is better since it will make the players mentally tougher to compete like old-school players. I may think that state-of-the-art lockers with ventilation systems built into each locker (and phone chargers, hologram of each player on the locker door, etc.) is better than small lockers on top of each other. Somebody else may think the small, cramped lockers are better because it forces kids out of the locker room to spend more time on football instead of relaxing and socializing in the locker room. So, technically, one could argue it is all subjective. But, at some point, the discussion has to be reasonable.

Within the last two months, I have gone through the facilities at Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Texas (multiple times), and Baylor. I don't think even the most ardent wvu supporter will argue that their overall football facilities can compete with those schools. A couple of months before that, I went through TCU's facilities. It's significantly better than wvu's. Last year, I saw what Texas Tech had to offer. They were pretty close. But Tech's $48 million indoor/hall-of-fame/etc. facility opens in a few months, and that will put them way ahead of wvu. I played at Kansas State five years ago when they had major improvements taking place. Two years ago, they finished their newest work:



Compare KSU's stadium, weight room, locker room, individual meeting rooms, etc. to wvu's in the below video. Kansas State blows them away:



In fairness, that wvu video was before the renovations they made last summer (there is another video of that), but it still falls well short of what Kansas State has to offer.

As I mentioned, Kansas is about to start a $300 million football-only investment. That will surpass what wvu has unless they keep investing into better facilities.

 

[i am herdman]

Let's also talk about the intangible item called tradition. Marshall is at the top or near the top of the pile of CUSA in tradition. Who else compares? Southern Miss? WKU's is more recent. Some of these schools were not even playing football 10 or 20 years ago and many of the newcomers were not even great FCS or IAA schools.

One title ever? That is not taking advantage of this league.

 

[Jeepers Creepers]

YAG, well, WVU is certainly not standing "pat". In last year or so, and continuing, complete upgrades on all sides, end zones, concourses, etc., of Mountaineer Field at a total cost of $40 to 50 million or so, I believe.

WVU is finishing up their $60 million Mountaineer Field upgrades this summer: $56 million to widen the concourses, replace all restroom and concession facilities, install heaters and TVs in box seats, add new fan entrances at all four corners, landscaping, and exterior cosmetics. They are also erecting a new $4 million 37' x 97' HD video board in the north end zone (which is bigger than the 24' x 85' video board currently in the south end zone). These projects are to be finished in about six weeks.

 

[The Real SamC]

"Facilities" and "stadium capacity" are just a form of d*** measuring. At the P5 level, with a very few exceptions, everybody has everything they need. You are telling me that if the comptroller at Alabama walked into Saban's office and said "coach, I made a mistake, actually we have another $10M to spend on football stuff next year", Saban is going to say "heck, yes, NOW we can finally buy that _______ we really need. Now LSU is in real trouble." Nah. Almost every P5 team has every facility it needs and all the (or more than) seats (luxury boxes, club levels, whatever) it can sell.

At our level, no so. Part of the skill at the G5 level is doing what you can with what you have. In facilities, we are right there. Pretty solid. Certainly IF (unlikely) MU athletics grows the fundraising pie more, the next $$ will go to basketball and baseball before anything new is added to football. And, what exactly, does anybody think we actually need. What does (insert any other G5 team here) have that we do not? We have an IPF, a modern strength program that dwarfs most MACers and is ahead of most of CUSA and so on. We have more seats than we can sell. Luxury boxes people actually pay for. What?

As to how this relates to Doc, we will know a lot more about Doc after this year. We have discussed that. Was 16 an aberation, or the preview of things to come. Doc certainly is a great recruiter. Remember, other than a few random WVians, neither MU nor WVU is anybody's first or for that matter 20th choice. The only time Doc has ever had that advantage was three years at Florida. As for on-field coaching, Doc is too loyal to his assistants.

 

[herdit44]

WVU is finishing up their $60 million Mountaineer Field upgrades this summer: $56 million to widen the concourses, replace all restroom and concession facilities, install heaters and TVs in box seats, add new fan entrances at all four corners, landscaping, and exterior cosmetics. They are also erecting a new $4 million 37' x 97' HD video board in the north end zone (which is bigger than the 24' x 85' video board currently in the south end zone). These projects are to be finished in about six weeks.

which is great, but

• baylor just opened a new $266m stadium
• kansas just announced a $300m renovation to memorial stadium
• kansas state in the last few years have spent over $200m renovating their stadium
• oklahoma just spent $160m renovating gaylord memorial stadium with more to come
• in the last decade okie state did a $300m+ renovation to boone pickens stadium
• tcu recently did a $164m renovation to amon carter stadium
• texas has spent over $100m in recent years renovating their stadium with much more to come (they've got to keep up with aTm renovating kyle field for about a half billion dollars)
• texas tech just spend $185m renovating att stadium

sure, $60m into mountaineer field sounds awesome and is, but it's peanuts compared to what wvu's peers are doing.

 

[Jeepers Creepers]

which is great, but

• baylor just opened a new $266m stadium
• kansas just announced a $300m renovation to memorial stadium
• kansas state in the last few years have spent over $200m renovating their stadium
• oklahoma just spent $160m renovating gaylord memorial stadium with more to come
• in the last decade okie state did a $300m+ renovation to boone pickens stadium
• tcu recently did a $164m renovation to amon carter stadium
• texas has spent over $100m in recent years renovating their stadium with much more to come (they've got to keep up with aTm renovating kyle field for about a half billion dollars)
• texas tech just spend $185m renovating att stadium

sure, $60m into mountaineer field sounds awesome and is, but it's peanuts compared to what wvu's peers are doing.

WVU certainly has some catching up to do compared to most the other Big 12 schools, but WVU is not shy about spending its increased revenues. Now that WVU has fully repaid the loan for the Big East exit fees and is now receiving a full Big 12 share, facility improvements should continue at a rapid pace. However, most the other schools have had a significant head start.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

which is great, but

• baylor just opened a new $266m stadium
• kansas just announced a $300m renovation to memorial stadium
• kansas state in the last few years have spent over $200m renovating their stadium
• oklahoma just spent $160m renovating gaylord memorial stadium with more to come
• in the last decade okie state did a $300m+ renovation to boone pickens stadium
• tcu recently did a $164m renovation to amon carter stadium
• texas has spent over $100m in recent years renovating their stadium with much more to come (they've got to keep up with aTm renovating kyle field for about a half billion dollars)
• texas tech just spend $185m renovating att stadium

sure, $60m into mountaineer field sounds awesome and is, but it's peanuts compared to what wvu's peers are doing.

Exactly. And as I have argued, wvu has the third worst facilities in the Big 12. That isn't as much of a knock on them as it is praise for Dana. The Big 12, as a conference, has the second best facilities in the country. Some of those schools have made some really nice things. He has had them fairly competitive and not always hugging the bottom with Kansas and Iowa State.

"Facilities" and "stadium capacity" are just a form of d*** measuring. At the P5 level, with a very few exceptions, everybody has everything they need. You are telling me that if the comptroller at Alabama walked into Saban's office and said "coach, I made a mistake, actually we have another $10M to spend on football stuff next year", Saban is going to say "heck, yes, NOW we can finally buy that _______ we really need. Now LSU is in real trouble." Nah. Almost every P5 team has every facility it needs and all the (or more than) seats (luxury boxes, club levels, whatever) it can sell.
.

That's not reality. Sure, everyone gives their players their own lockers. But what places have each locker fitted with a ventilation system? Instead of players having to put on sweaty, moist equipment (helmets, shoes, pads), going the extra mile is a huge advantage. How many lockers have electronics hookups for each player so that their cell phones/laptops are fully charged for them after practice? How many have big enough storage that they can keep (and lock) some of their personal belongings in them and keep them there in order to not have to lug them around campus back-and-forth each day?

Sure, many houses in your neighborhood may have a pool. But how many are in-ground? How many have a diving board and the rock waterfall that looks like a resort? How many have a heater? How many have an automatic vacuum that cleans the bottom on its own?

All of these extras aren't just to waste money and for a dick-measuring contest. They serve a purpose that brings results.

Do yourself a favor: if you don't think facilities equate to wins, rank the facilities of the Big 12. Start with the best (Oklahoma, Oklahoma State) and go down to the worse (Texas Tech, wvu, Iowa State, Kansas). I have already done six of the ten for you.

Then, after doing that, go find the average finish of each Big 12 team since wvu started playing in the conference. Rank each team based on that average finish.

Know what the results show? They show an almost direct correlation between the ranking of football facilities and the ranking of where they have finished in records in the Big 12.

Now, perhaps you can say that winning allows teams to spend more, thus have better facilities. There is truth in that. But it doesn't change the fact that better facilities leads to more winning.

 

[old buzzard]

.............. But it doesn't change the fact that better facilities leads to more winning.

Wow.........we've been wasting all this time and money actually trying to put a winning team on the field when we should have been just constantly upgrading facilities. According to your logic there is no need to actually ever play a game on the field, just rank whoever has the best facilities and award them with the National Championship. That's how stupid you sound in this thread.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Wow.........we've been wasting all this time and money actually trying to put a winning team on the field when we should have been just constantly upgrading facilities. According to your logic there is no need to actually ever play a game on the field, just rank whoever has the best facilities and award them with the National Championship. That's how stupid you sound in this thread.

You should work on your reading.

Having better facilities leads to more winning. Is that the only ingredient? Not even close. But it is a huge part of the recipe.

Better facilities leads to better recruits. Better recruits leads to more winning. It really isn't tough to understand. If that were not the case, colleges wouldn't spend billions of dollars, cumulatively, to improve their football facilities.

And if you doubt that better facilities isn't a big part of winning, take my challenge. Rank the best Big 12 facilities.Then, rank the Big 12 teams based on how they have finished in the conference over the last five seasons. It's very easy to do. I can even help you, since you don't seem very bright.

 

[old buzzard]

You should work on your reading.

Having better facilities leads to more winning. Is that the only ingredient? Not even close. But it is a huge part of the recipe.

Better facilities leads to better recruits. Better recruits leads to more winning. It really isn't tough to understand. If that were not the case, colleges wouldn't spend billions of dollars, cumulatively, to improve their football facilities.

And if you doubt that better facilities isn't a big part of winning, take my challenge. Rank the best Big 12 facilities.Then, rank the Big 12 teams based on how they have finished in the conference over the last five seasons. It's very easy to do. I can even help you, since you don't seem very bright.

If facilities were all that mattered then WVU wouldn't have had the chance to play for the National Championship in '88 and an outside shot at it in '93. Tons of teams had better facilities than WVU's back then. If facilities were all that mattered Marshall would never had that win over Purdue or the one over a very good Kansas State team a few years back...... .
Now I expect your normal 10 paragraph diatribe to support all the stupid things you post.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

If facilities were all that mattered then WVU wouldn't have had the chance to play for the National Championship in '88 and an outside shot at it in '93. Tons of teams had better facilities than WVU's back then. If facilities were all that mattered Marshall would never had that win over Purdue or the one over a very good Kansas State team a few years back...... .
Now I expect your normal 10 paragraph diatribe to support all the stupid things you post.

Why do you continue to fail at reading? Pretend this isn't your life and be successful.

I continue to stress that facilities are NOT all that matters. As I have said, there are other major factors that go into winning. But facilities are a big one.

Facilities = recruits = winning

It isn't a tough recipe to understand. You aren't going to win big with bad facilities. You aren't going to win big with bad coaching. You aren't going to win big with bad recruits. Those things go hand-in-hand.

For the tenth time, facilities isn't all that matters in winning. They are a major part of it though.

 

[oldeherd]

According to some of the twisted "logic", whomever spends the most on facilities should find the greatest success on the field. Imagine than in the last 10 years UT has probably spent as much on football facilities as anyone in their league. Don't believe that has translated into the greatest on the field success for the Longhorns in their league during that period, however. And anyone believing that Kansas Jayhawks spending $300 million on football facilities in next few years will transform that program into a football "power" and perennial big time program is delusional.

In that same vein, with MU's expenditures on upgrading the Joan in recent years and the auxiliary facilities shouldn't we be ruling CUSA football? Hasn't materialized, unfortunately. But then again WKU did spend a boatload of $$$$ for a G5 program in upgrading and expanding their Houchens Stadium and, well, their recent success in football is there to see.

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

According to some of the twisted "logic", whomever spends the most on facilities should find the greatest success on the field.

Nobody has claimed that. You truly struggle reading.

 

[oldeherd]

Nobody has claimed that. You truly struggle reading.

Really C.O.K-Evad? You and your alter ego poster apparently have real trouble with simple logic and reading comprehension. Not to mention some grammar issues.

"Better facilities leads to better recruits. Better recruits leads to more winning."
" . . . facilities isn't all that matters in winning."

First, facilities and recruits "LEAD", they don't "LEADS"! And facilities "AREN'T" all that matter.

Now, argument presented that better facilities lead to better recruits which results in "winning", unless, possibly, bad coaching gums up the works. Hopefully, you can grasp that, Evad!!

Another post on this thread indicated that at least eight (8) Big 12 Schools, 4 in Texas, 2 in OK and 2 in Kansas have spent or will spend 2 or 3 times, or more, on their respective football facilities than WVU is currently spending on its facility. That despite the fact that WVU is spending $60 million or so on its stadium.

Still with me, Evad? Try to keep up. I know its a struggle with your obvious mental limitations!

Logic would tell you that those 8 other Big 12 schools should get more "bang" in terms of better facilities for their $150 million, $200 million, $300 million, etc., than WVU should get for its "paltry" $60 million. Right, Evad?

Thus, following the argument, those better facilities should result in "better recruits" for those other 8 Big 12 schools than those recruits WVU manages to secure. Recruits being another major ingredient in winning. Still with me?

Now that should stand unless the one other key factor comes into play. "Bad coaching". Unless WVU can manage somehow to come up with another $100 to $200 million for football facilities; or unless the other 8 or so Big 12 schools cancel or fail to follow through with the planned football facilities upgrades, what recourse does WVU have in football for the foreseeable future?

Surely, Evad, you know the answer. The Mountaineers will have to hope that these 8 other Big 12 schools are ALL Stricken with "bad coaching" simultaneously over the next 5 years or more, for the EERS to have a prayer of being a "winning" football program in the Big 12, and thus overcoming their deficiencies in both "facilities" and "recruits".

Got it, Evad? Good! If not, then re-read 10 or 12 times, maybe after a good night's sleep!!

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Really C.O.K-Evad? You and your alter ego poster apparently have real trouble with simple logic and reading comprehension. Not to mention some grammar issues.
!

. . . says the guy who thinks that last phrase is a sentence.

"Better facilities leads to better recruits. Better recruits leads to more winning."
" . . . facilities isn't all that matters in winning."

First, facilities and recruits "LEAD", they don't "LEADS"! And facilities "AREN'T" all that matter.

I thought you would be able to understand that we were talking about the singular topic of "facilities," hence why I was using it as singular. I will try to dumb it down in further discussions with you.

Now, argument presented that better facilities lead to better recruits which results in "winning", unless, possibly, bad coaching gums up the works. Hopefully, you can grasp that, Evad!!

Yes, assuming the other major factors I have listed (coaching, recruiting) are somewhat equal, than having much better facilities will result in more success.

That has been my consistent argument the entire time.

Logic would tell you that those 8 other Big 12 schools should get more "bang" in terms of better facilities for their $150 million, $200 million, $300 million, etc., than WVU should get for its "paltry" $60 million. Right, Evad?

Thus, following the argument, those better facilities should result in "better recruits" for those other 8 Big 12 schools than those recruits WVU manages to secure. Recruits being another major ingredient in winning. Still with me?

No. You clearly don't understand the definition of "logic." You can't pick-and-choose which parts of an argument you want to contest while ignoring the rest of that same argument which ties into it.

You claim (or incorrectly attribute the claim to me) that having better facilities than a peer institution will automatically result in better recruits. That's not what I claimed, have explained otherwise, yet you continue to falsely attribute that to me. Assuming the other major factors (coaching, recruiting) are the same, then you can attribute that to me. But better facilities on their own cannot necessarily secure better recruits . . . the other major ingredients are also major factors.

Why are you struggling so much understanding that point? I have articulated that well enough that the average moron can understand it, yet you continue to try and make a point where one doesn't exist.

Now that should stand unless the one other key factor comes into play. "Bad coaching". Unless WVU can manage somehow to come up with another $100 to $200 million for football facilities; or unless the other 8 or so Big 12 schools cancel or fail to follow through with the planned football facilities upgrades, what recourse does WVU have in football for the foreseeable future?

Surely, Evad, you know the answer. The Mountaineers will have to hope that these 8 other Big 12 schools are ALL Stricken with "bad coaching" simultaneously over the next 5 years or more, for the EERS to have a prayer of being a "winning" football program in the Big 12, and thus overcoming their deficiencies in both "facilities" and "recruits".

Wrong, again. Not only are you falsely attributing to me an argument I never made, but your attempt at logic in forming that argument is failing. All of the other Big 12 schools wouldn't need "bad coaching." Dana could simply do a better job than all of them in recruiting and coaching, thus resulting in more success than even their superior facilities could provide.

That's the entire point of the initial comment in this discussion. Dana has inferior facilities compared to the majority of his peers in the Big 12. His Big 12 record has matched the ranking of his facilities within the conference. On the other hand, Doc has one of the top two facilities among his peers. Yet, his C-USA record is far lower than the ranking of his facilities within the conference. Thus, Dana has done a better job of coaching and/or recruiting compared to what each coach has to work within in their respective conferences.

If what you claimed I was arguing were true, it wouldn't have made sense for me to make the original argument that I just revisited for you.

I don't know how to dumb this down anymore for you. We were comparing Dana with Doc. In judging how each has done as coaches, I argued that Dana has done better based on the facilities/conference record relationship. Dana has performed on the field equal to what his facilities are ranked in his conference. Doc has performed far lower on the field compared with what his facilities are ranked in the conference.

In judging the two, you have to start with the assumption that their coaching/recruiting has been equal. From there, you look at what each has to work with compared to their peers, how each has performed on the field relating to those facilities, and make the conclusion.

 

[Herd Fever]

which is great, but

• baylor just opened a new $266m stadium
• kansas just announced a $300m renovation to memorial stadium
• kansas state in the last few years have spent over $200m renovating their stadium
• oklahoma just spent $160m renovating gaylord memorial stadium with more to come
• in the last decade okie state did a $300m+ renovation to boone pickens stadium
• tcu recently did a $164m renovation to amon carter stadium
• texas has spent over $100m in recent years renovating their stadium with much more to come (they've got to keep up with aTm renovating kyle field for about a half billion dollars)
• texas tech just spend $185m renovating att stadium

sure, $60m into mountaineer field sounds awesome and is, but it's peanuts compared to what wvu's peers are doing.

Exactly

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Exactly

And Herdit44's post backs up my stance even more.

wvu's ranking of football facilities in the Big 12 is no better than 7th. They are better than Kansas' (for the time being) and Iowa State's. One could argue that they are better than Texas Tech's (I don't think so but can acknowledge an argument for it), but that won't be the case when Texas Tech's $48 million indoor opens in a few months.

So, wvu's football facilities are either 7th or 8th in the Big 12. Now, look at where wvu is ranked in terms of conference finish since they joined the Big 12: they are 7th or 8th (depending on if you go through the tie-breakers in record and rank accordingly each year). I have done the legwork on this . . . since joining the Big 12, the average conference ranking is:


Oklahoma: 1.8
Oklahoma State: 3.2
Baylor: 3.4
TCU: 3.6
Kansas State: 4.2
Texas: 4.2
wvu: 4.6
Texas Tech: 5.0
Iowa State: 8.8
Kansas: 9.8

Not coincidentally, that is almost exactly how I would rank each of their football facilities.

Now, look at the football facilities Marshall has to offer compared with their C-USA peers. They are one of the top two. Yet, look at how Marshall has fared in terms of ranking the average conference finish in C-USA. While Dana has his team performing on par with where his facilities rank in his conference, Marshall is performing far lower than where their facilities are ranked in C-USA.

You can argue that Marshall had a bigger hill to climb when Doc took over the program compared to when Dana took over wvu (though I will refute that for the most part). You could potentially argue that wvu may (we don't know) spend far more than their peers on recruiting budget than Marshall does compared to their peers (again, we don't know). But it doesn't change the fact that, at least with facilities, Dana is doing a lot more compared to his peers than Doc is doing compared to his peers.

 

[JudgeDD]

Interesting discussion, when it doesn't devolve into personal bs.

Marshall's IPF has only been around for a couple years. The locker room was considered so bad when my son was being recruited that it was not a part of the facilities tour the coaching staff gave the recruits. Those are two pretty big selling points that are fairly new for Marshall.

So, a few questions:

1. Before the improvements mentioned above, where did Marshall stand in the rankings of facilities?

2. When should Doc expect to see an upswing of recruits from the upgrades, and when should those recruits be expected to make a difference in wins?

3. By what metrics is Doc's lack of success being judged? Based on conference records alone, I see this:

2010 - 6T
2011 - 4T
2012 - 5T
2013 - 2
2014 - 1
2015 - 3T
2016 - 10T

Eliminating the first couple seasons to give a coach a chance for his recruits to make a difference on the field, and the aberration that was last season (no real excuse or explanation for that), it seems that he has done fairly well in Conference USA.