The Rest of College Football

[hack]

Without at all weighing in on the JH/UM debate, I should certainly say that championships are hardly an indicator. Phil Jackson vs Larry Brown, or Chuck Daly. Phil's one hell of a coach and one of the all-time greats at it, but everybody knows he never did it without those stars, and his teams always went out like lambs when they went out. He had no interest in pulling a team up out of the lottery, trying the college game, taking over a mid-season wreck, etc. etc. The list of ways in which Larry Brown succeeded as a coach is so long. Phil succeeded in just one way.

[iam416]

Setting aside the massive difference b/t CFB and NBA...still, LOL!

Phil Jackson >>>>> Brown + Daly.

Super LOL at "always went out like lambs" when they went out...his teams lost 9 times in the playoffs...5 of them, I think, were in Game 7s. Going out like a lamb is what the Pistons did the year after the Bulls took them to 7....swept and acting like bitches.

But anyway, I've stumbled into a world where objective accomplishments, such as 11...ELEVEN titles, are of "really poor objective indicators." Goodness.

[iam416]

Everyone knows Wayne Fontes > Vince Lombardi. If only Fontes had the players!

[iam416]

Brady Hoke > UFM. Look at what he had to start with and where he ended up. I mean, it's clear. There's really no credible evidence to the contrary!

[hack]

His team gave up halfway through the '04 Finals. Same in the second round in '10, or '11 or whenever it was that the Mavs punked them. If you'd said ``Phil Jackson>Brown or Daly'' that's one thing. It's a great argument, because Phil certainly is a great coach. ``>>>>>>>'', if you meant it that way, implies that you are unable to recognize that there are multiple ways to measure success as a coach. Instead of responding only to a cartoonishly extreme version of the argument (Fontes/Lombardi or Hoke/Meyer), why not respond to a more realistic version of it?

[Hannibal]

There are a lot of good military analogies that apply in sports, as long as you keep them in the right perspective.

[iam416]

His team gave up halfway through the '04 Finals. Same in the second round in '10, or '11 or whenever it was that the Mavs punked them

So, now we're down to two poor series from: "his teams always went out like lambs when they went out." Two. Out of 20.

Jackson >>>> Daly or Brown. It's not close. The only way one doesn't reach that conclusion is through wildly subjective analysis. And, yes, I have a difficult time reading other people's minds so I'm not particularly able to recognize this particular brand of "analysis" (read, homerism since this has a distinctly Pistons flair to it).

But, hey, who am I to rely on a mountain of objective evidence. Objective evidence and facts have long been scorned in this forum by M fans. I guess I shouldn't be so surprised since, heh, the objective evidence to date is consistent with today's mularky.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Sure. Wins and championships MAY not tell the FULL story when judging a coach.

Well, there you have it. But it WILL not tell the full story either.

In fact, the Athlon article, when listing the coaches, LISTS THEIR RECORDS! Because, well, they're obviously relevant!

..... and in your own words, "MAY not tell the FULL story."

It ought to be glaringly obvious to all but the dimwitted that objective coaching accomplishments become more and more germane as the sample size of results increase to the point of dispositive.

Face palm ...... we have had this discussion before. You have assailed my arguments when I choose to advance one based on the mining of subjective data but then, here, you argue that at some point there is so much subjective data that it must be true or in your terms settles the argument.

LMAO.

[iam416]

Face palm ...... we have had this discussion before. You have assailed my arguments when I choose to advance one based on the mining of subjective data but then, here, you argue that at some point there is so much subjective data that it must be true or in your terms settles the argument.

I have no clue what this means but I suspect you confused objective/subjective. I'm very much asserting that coaching results over 15+ seasons WILL tell the story of you as a coach. That's objective data. Apparently you think a coach that is 17-203 MAY be a better coach than one that is 192-20. LOL.

I shredded your argument. SHREDDED IT. DESTROYED IT. Your assertion that objective evidence is a "really poor indicator" and that it's supported, lmao, by Athlon, has been nuked.

We're done here.

[iam416]

Brady Hoke MAY be a better coach than Bobby Bowden. Or Bear Bryant. There's really no way to tell, objectively.

[hack]

Good heavens. I think it's OK to exist somewhere in between comical extremes, but here today in this thread is apparently not the place for that. Sorry for interrupting your useful exchange of information, but I'm glad the forum is here for you to do that.

[iam416]

Smart move abandoning the Phil Jackson is shit approach. I mean, yeah, the 2004 finals were awful, but there's more to his career than 2004. I don't particularly hold 1991's pimp-smacking against Daly, either.

[Prime2]

JB -1
Butthead-0

[Jeff Buchanan]

...... We're done here.

Heh, shallow victory based on withdrawal.

But, yeah, I've had enough.

[WM Wolverine]

How did Phil Jackson do when he didn't have Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant? Those guys receive a ton of credit but Phil always had a terrific and underrated supporting cast that could really rebound, play great defense and had elite 3pt shooters...

It's hard to argue against his resume but Phil was always a heavy favorite to win the title every season...

-

UFM is the best coach in CFB except HARBAUGH!!!

UFM's W/L, NT's that Talent listed speak for themselves. What he's done at Ohio has put himself (nearly?) in a class by himself among CFB head coaches and is on his way to earning all-time type status.