CBS Dennis Dodd "ISU can't do better than Mac's success"

BryceC · 06-20-2008, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by cy1225

achieved a national ranking in 2002 that had ISU #9 in the country. Where is the program now?

I find it hilarious that anybody would bring up 2002 as a reason to defend Mac. I loved the guy but that was hands down the most disappointing season I have ever watched as a fan. Losing 6 of 7 and finishing .500 doesn't get me jazzed. Sorry.

ISUKyro · 06-20-2008, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by BryceC

I find it hilarious that anybody would bring up 2002 as a reason to defend Mac. I loved the guy but that was hands down the most disappointing season I have ever watched as a fan. Losing 6 of 7 and finishing .500 doesn't get me jazzed. Sorry.

Exactly! If I recall we didn't stay at the rank of #9 for long - oh wait we didn't stay there at all.

cardinal&gold · 06-20-2008, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by ISUKyro

Exactly! If I recall we didn't stay at the rank of #9 for long - oh wait we didn't stay there at all.

We stayed there for a week. We beat TTU and then the next Saturday, Oklahoma put our junk in a blender.

Bobber · 06-21-2008, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

A couple of more facts for you:

56-85 0.397 overall
27-68 0.284 conference

Pretty hard to misperceive that...

If you must know, it is emerging from the sorry state that the previous coach left it in...

Gene was a big bad:

3-12 0.250 overall
2-8 .0250 conference

in 2007. Hopefully he will improve on those numbers as he's currently behind the terrible previous coach...

jbhtexas · 06-21-2008, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by Bobber

Gene was a big bad:

3-12 0.250 overall
2-8 .0250 conference

in 2007. Hopefully he will improve on those numbers as he's currently behind the terrible previous coach...

I didn't realize that ISU played 15 games last year, but in any case, Chizik has as many wins in his first year as the previous coach did in his first year.

For your reference, the records of the first five years of the previous coach are listed below...

year 1: 3-8
year 2: 2-9
year 3: 1-10
year 4: 3-8
year 5: 4-7

Bobber · 06-21-2008, 12:30 AM

My mistake.

Should have written 3-9 for the overall record. I believe .250 percentage holds.

My point is be careful throwing those stats out. Gene hasn't proven anything yet(and I'm sure he'll be the first to admit it).

Dan McCarney did a lot of good things for ISU despite what a lot of revisionists would like to do(Dart180 and I used to go round and round about that, but came to a truce on that particular topic).

I just don't understand why people want to tear the guy down....

ISUKyro · 06-21-2008, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by Bobber

I just don't understand why people want to tear the guy down....

I hope I don't mean to bring him down, although I know at times I do - I just get so sick and tired of hearing about him. We all should agree we are trying to move on to bigger and better things.

anticyclonic · 06-21-2008, 12:45 AM

year 5 (1999) was the most disappointing, should have been 6-5 the very least.

Phaedrus · 06-21-2008, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by cy1225

How would you know a real leader? What are your qualifications? Posting on a message board does not make you a leader.

26 years of selecting, developing and training leaders for the US Army does, though.

And, obtw, actually LEADING the entire time as well....

Phaedrus · 06-21-2008, 02:31 AM

Originally Posted by Bobber

I just don't understand why people want to tear the guy down....

Dan McCarney doesn't need to be torn down. Fans who bought his line o' crap need to be taken down, and not just a notch or two, though.

It doesn't help that I've met various reincarnations of Dan McCarney throughout my career. They use their energy to get temporary, mediocre gains, and then "boom goes the dynamite" when they let up a touch. It's called the "Boom....Splat!" effect. I kid you not. The success of the cheerleader is never as good as it seems, and is very, very temporary.

The best leaders apply a hard-nosed, completely rational basis to their organization, and combine it with energy and enthusiasm. While Gene Chizik still has a long way to go, before he is a proven coach, he "appears" to be doing all the right things.

CycloneErik · 06-21-2008, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Dan McCarney doesn't need to be torn down. Fans who bought his line o' crap need to be taken down, and not just a notch or two, though.

It doesn't help that I've met various reincarnations of Dan McCarney throughout my career. They use their energy to get temporary, mediocre gains, and then "boom goes the dynamite" when they let up a touch. It's called the "Boom....Splat!" effect. I kid you not. The success of the cheerleader is never as good as it seems, and is very, very temporary.

The best leaders apply a hard-nosed, completely rational basis to their organization, and combine it with energy and enthusiasm. While Gene Chizik still has a long way to go, before he is a proven coach, he "appears" to be doing all the right things.

I have followed a lot of the cheerleader types you're talking about. Not only is the 'success' temporary and mediocre at best, when the leader leaves, and people see that this 'success' is a mirage, bitterness follows pretty fast for those people, and things can get explosive if not handled well. (I've been there to handle well, and not handle well. I have a preference

).

Unless you have a thick skin, don't follow the cheerleader. I think Chizik has a thick skin and good approach to this thing. Therefore, I think he'll make things work in a sustainable way. Then we'll build him a statue.

CyBobby · 06-21-2008, 09:15 AM

If Dan McCarney was so bad then the AD that hired him should have been fired or if he moved on to asu...said AD should have been sued for bad performance and made to return the money he got from Ia State.

We will see if Gene Chizik can beat Iowa 5 years in a row or go to 5 bowls in 6 years!!

Clock is running boys and we will see how good Gene really is!!!!

isuno1fan · 06-21-2008, 10:00 AM

Mac did an avg. job overall. There were highlights and lowlights. Unfortunately, I think the lowlights/disappointments happened too often towards the end.

Good man...avg. head coach.

Hoping Gene can take it beyond what Mac could.

superfan · 06-21-2008, 11:00 AM

OK, first thing I have to do is call BS on the "three years" rule. A coach needs at least FOUR years to be evaluated (by that time his first recruiting class are seniors.)

By the "three years logic", this coach should have been fired:

Year 1: 1-10 (0-8)
Year 2: 5-6 (2-6)
Year 3: 5-6 (3-5)

Too bad you fired him...you missed out on:

Year 4: 10-1-1 (6-1-1), Conference Champions, Rose Bowl Champions #5 (AP) and #6 (Coaches)

(Barry Alvarez, Wisconsin)

Another example:

Year 1: 1-10 (1-6)
Year 2: 1-10 (0-7)
Year 3: 6-4-1 (3-3-1)

Fire him? He's certainly showing improvement...

Year 4: 7-4 (3-4)

Let's give him another year...

Year 5: 9-3 (5-3), Peach Bowl Champions, #18 (AP), #19 (Coaches)

(Mack Brown, North Carolina)

Touching on Danny Mac...I've always thought he was a good coach...as a position coach or coordinator (interestingly, that's where he is now), but not so much as a head coach. I went to all but two of the games in 2006 (Colorado - wedding, and Iowa - just because I refuse to see a game in Kinnick) and every game last year, and there was a big difference. In 2006, it was like watching the same game over and over again on TV, with someone playing with the tint so that the jerseys change. Last year, I (and everyone else) saw marked improvement as the season went along.

Bottom line, I'm willing to cut Gene five years. Year 4 is going to be very, very tough (@Iowa, @Texas, @Oklahoma, Texas Tech at home). If we can win two of those road games, we've got a winner.

Tornado man · 06-21-2008, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

The last few years??? My opinion is that Mac was never really that good. He never developed the skill to consistently surround himself with good lieutenants. The little success we did have was nearly accidental.

He sucked at hiring people who could develop an O-line. He failed miserably, as a leader, when he made himself "special teams coach" in perpetuity, instead of doing his FREAKING JOB and hiring a good assistant who could do the same.

Too many folks who call themselves ISU fans and have never run a business or organization give Danny Mac a pass. If Danny Mac worked for me, I would've fired him the first couple years.

I never saw him doing good leadership. EVER. We lucked out a couple times, and got a good combo of player and coach talent, but they did so DESPITE of the bumbling fool Danny Mac was.

I don't care how hard an incompetent fool works, they are still an imcompentent fool; and I've worked with or for more people like Danny Mac than I care for. BTW, I've very seldom had someone like Danny Mac work FOR me for very long. I usually fire their worthless, cheerleading, non-leading butt pretty quick.

BTW - there's a difference between a cheerleader, a hard-working idiot, and a "real" leader.

Gene Chizik may wind up having more success than Dan McCarney, or he may have less. I will be in the stands cheering the Cyclones, no matter what.
He will not outwork Mac, though, has no more knowledge of the game than Mac does, and will not be any more of a leader than Mac was. Chizik, though, took over a program much healthier than the disaster Walden left McCarney.
People who criticize him have no idea what it takes at ISU, and have no idea of what Mac did on a daily basis, no matter how loud they scream.