Orlando Sentinel: UF AD Scott Stricklin Insists Billy Napier Is Not On Hot Seat

That is a good point, my feeling is that as long as they are competitive, they will give that coach a chance to foster a sense of stability. Their recruiting will fall off inevitably at both schools. However, if they can stay top 15-20 in recruiting and get some key players in the portal which is always the x-factor nowadays, they will be able to keep those programs in contention.

 

Randy Shannon is who he’s throwing in to screw the numbers up, not Meyer. It’s why he added in the 4 game qualifier.

 

So part of 10 , lol.

 

Zook did when he was fired.

 

Roughly, yeah

 

After 1-11, 4-8 into 5-7 is not a disaster. Lets also take a moment to appreciate your example followed Walt Harris, a coach fired after 2 seasons. You truly could not have chosen a worse case study to support your position.

 

Yeah, and he kept winning, that is the entire point. Good coaches use winning to lead to more winning. I think we can agree momentum in a program is very important.

 

It’s hard to jumpstart a train wreck.

 

And you couldn't have demonstrated a clearer cut demonstration of anemic tit for tat. Harris was problematic with the players which led to his departrure. His coaching style and some of the decisions he made were also called into question.

Were we discussing why Mullen was fired or whether Napier should be on the hot seat after two years with depleted personnel caused by Mullen's inability to recruit? You tell me! Have you even taken the time to read the name of the thread or do you just enjoy trying to sound intelligent?

If we are talking about a two-year as a basis for a hot seat designation, then what caused the previous coach to get fired is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT other than to point to reasons why the succeeding coach might be in the hot seat. So actually pointing out the predecessor in Florida's case is all the more reason why we need to give Napier time because Mullen was a self-admitted incompetent when it came to recruiting.

I brought up Harbaugh's first two years as an indication that you have to sometimes give people time. 6-7 and 5-7 are complete implosions to you, but 4-8 and 5-7 are not complete disasters. One requires instant inquiries into future coaching personnel, but the other is a blip on the radar. You sound nonsensical, and when you are ready to have a competent and coherent conversation let me know.

 

Well heck, we need to toss in Knox and Durkin in if we're doing monkey-math.

 

Agree 100%

 

If we had kept Muschamp, Mac, or Mullen we would have had a similar record. Swapping coaches didn’t exactly hurt us.

 

Harbaugh had two very good years to start at Stanford. He immediately turned it around. It was commended at the time. Stanford was clearly ascending. We are not, and arguably are descending. It’s not even remotely comparable for many reasons

 

4- 8 and 5-7 are very good years to you??????

I should end the discussion there.

How many PAC 10 teams played for the National Championships under Harbaugh's tenure at Stanford? Zero. During Napier's tenure we have had two SEC teams (different ones) make it to the playoffs with one winning it outright. The fact that you can't see that the slope to success in the SEC is much steeper taints your objectivity in analysis. We are 14 years away from being a relevant playoff or NC contender. I don't count Mullen's flirtations with SEC division championships as controlling because he could never win an outright SEC championship.

 

We lose commits, we lose credibility, we have to pay buyouts with money that could be used for other things, and we lose recruits who were willing to commit to the exiting coach but were not to the incoming coach. Your point is a non sequitur.

 

You keep wanting to look at everything in a vacuum. That's not how the world works. Every coach's success and failures are directly compared to those that come before and after. Before Jim took over, the program had 2 coaches over 5 years, all losing seasons. That is different than UF having 3 consecutive losing seasons for the first time since WW2. That is called context, it is important to understand information, hence why road signs don't say exit in 2 units. That context also directly refutes your original argument that coaching turnover will only lead to failure. If Stanford doesn't cut bait after 2 years of Walt Harris, they don't get Harbaugh to come in and turn the program around. Giving Harbaugh more time worked. Giving Harris more time means they don't get Harbaugh. If we go back 1 more coach they kept Teevens for 3 years and then got a complete failure in Harris. It's a crapshoot.

Mullen for all intent and purpose quit. I have no illusions how poorly he recruited and the state of the program BN took over. Hence why I have not once called for his termination to this point. Now, back to the actual topic. The grace period is over, this is Napier's program through and through. If Mullen recruits are still on the team at this point it is because Napier and staff have deemed them worthy to retain.

 

Exactly. Winning more than your predecessor has a tendency to buy a coach time and good will. A concept simply too much for some apparently.

 

We are clearly improving, overall. Indeed, though, the win/loss record does not reflect it. It’s just not the only indicator/metric we should be using imo.

 

While I hope that is true, that is not remotely “clear.” This season should clear things up, though.

 

Can you share the other metrics that clearly demonstrate improvement?