Sports Illustrated, in the 80's called K State the worst program of alltime. I know 12, I know, Dan did more that Bill Snyder did.
Where did anyone take us (football)?
- Thread starter kberyldial
- Start date
Sports Illustrated, in the 80's called K State the worst program of alltime. I know 12, I know, Dan did more that Bill Snyder did.
Obviously I can't sit here and say he didn't lose to bad teams too, 2-10 and 4-8 speaks for itself...but despite interest declining in the program lately (2-10 and 4-8 will do that) the reason it was increasing enough to get the new facilities was because people could see the talent level improving and were taking an interest in the program...as for the whole "expecting to win" thing...I completely agree, I do think for the fanbase as a whole, a lot of people are expecting to win now that didn't ten years ago because of some of the success Dan had...but I have always expected to win too, (I can remember convincing myself Walden's last year before the season started that we were going to go 8-3...I didn't tell anyone about that prediction thankfully) and I think you have to have that mentality in order to do so...just out of curiousity though, how would you answer the question you asked about if it was a different coach here the last twelve years? I won't say we couldn't have done better than we did during the McCarney era, but it is tough to just assume we'd have won more than 5 out of 12 years given the program's past.
...Sports Illustrated, in the 80's called K State the worst program of alltime. I know 12, I know, Dan did more that Bill Snyder did.
Please show me where I said that???...
To answer your question.....Assuming all factors are the same, McCarney is fired after his third year (6-27), with upgrades going in place, allows me to believe that the quality of recruiting would be fairly similar (obviously different kids).
An attention to detail coach, who had a feel for the game, and stressed fundementals would have gone to a bowl in 99 (3-0 start, 7 game losing streak with some close losses). We beat KState, Colorado, and OU, maybe even UT that year, and people are excited. An excited fanbase is a donating fanbase, so you up the timeline on the indoor practive facilty a year with that. In addition, you get in more houses with a bowlgame on your resume, so your recruiting can improve. Then follow that with probably 9 instead of 8 wins in 00 (A & M), you go to one of the Sans (Antonio, or Diego), more momentum, more money. You beat A & M the next year, like they should have, 8 wins, and end up in Phoenix at worst, and suddenly you three bowls in a row, three good bowls, desirable bowls. People are fired up, and since your recruiting got better, Seneca isn't a one man team, and the collapse of 02-03 never happens.
Then you take into consideration how bad the North became, you have at least THREE division championships by now.
This thread annoys me to no end, yet I read it daily. :frown3qg:
Before Mac arrived we were either 11th or 12th in the Big 12, now we are 9th or 10th. Yippie, skippy. I can't wait until the season starts and we can finally focus everything on Chizik and Co. This whole debate is interesting, despite the repetition of it but it's an endless argument.
Before Mac arrived we were either 11th or 12th in the Big 12, now we are 9th or 10th. Yippie, skippy. I can't wait until the season starts and we can finally focus everything on Chizik and Co. This whole debate is interesting, despite the repetition of it but it's an endless argument.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion...but your just assuming we'd have three straight north division titles and three straight bowl games (insight.com) at worst...I sure would be happy if that would've happened, but it's kinda tough to just sit here and assume that would've happened given...we'll say the last 100 years here...that's a good question alaska, I'll say above average hire, but not great...using the ability of hindsight, I'd have canned him before his final 4-8 season...I too sat in the stands depressed as hell watching us blow the Missouri game for the north title and numerous other close games that we played "not to lose"...but in the last 20 years, I can name only Greg Schiano at Rutgers, Gary Barnett at Northwestern, and Bill Snyder at K-State who's program's have started as low as us, and done more than us.
lol...what??? I hope your not referring to me as making up things about you on here and posting them as though they are facts...if you are, please show me one instance...just one.
:yes: That's really funny I was thinking the exact same thing. I was actually shocked when I opened up the CF main page and saw that this thread was still alive! I figured it would have died 3-4 pages ago. I, thankfully however, have managed to not read all of it because of said annoyance.
Realizing that this is a Cyclone board and not a Husker board, the Huskers go through the same endless argument but in reverse; was Solich a good hire and should he have been canned? One similarity is that the perception was that Solich was a terrible game day coach and was overly conservative while at the helm for Nebraska.
Instead of inheriting a team that started at the depths Solich began with a team that had tons of success and couldn't match what his predecessor did or the fan's expectations. The update on Solich is that he has a .705 winning percentage, which puts him in the upper echelon of winning percentages among active coaches.
Instead of inheriting a team that started at the depths Solich began with a team that had tons of success and couldn't match what his predecessor did or the fan's expectations. The update on Solich is that he has a .705 winning percentage, which puts him in the upper echelon of winning percentages among active coaches.
Louisville wasn't much of a football school before John L. Smith got there in the mid-90's. They moved from a mid-major conference into a BCS conference and built the program to the point where they got a new stadium and are BCS bowl contenders on a year-in and year-out basis. Is that a valid comparison?
But, but, he inherited a program with an empty cupboard! They had to learn a whole new system!
Rest assured, Chizik won't be afforded the same considerations if his teams struggle for the first few years, although I don't think Chizik and Company could possibly do as bad as Ferentz in his first year with the 1 win. But I could be wrong.
It wasn't that far out of the realm for McCarney, so definitely possible for a good coach. A handful of plays, and 99 turns into a 7 win season. If the coaches don't curl up into the fetal position against K State, and get to 4-0, that team would have would have been bowling. Any confidence (and playcalling) allows for wins over CU, at KU, and possibly UT. It was a prime example of a coach losing games on the sidelines that his players won on the field.
Then, assuming again, a good coach would have had his team ready to play against A & M in 2000. And they weren't great that year, 7-5. Then you get a bigger bowl, more money, recruits, etc.
Then we beat A & M in 01 (thanks Dan, way to keep trying field goals as we missed 4 that day), 8-3 = Insight at worst.
It's not a stretch to think that if we were playing good football we could have won the North 2-3 times over the past 5 years. It was soooo bad, that we almost won it twice with Dan the mediocre coaching us. A well coached, well disciplined team would have won those two, possibly 06 as well.
In terms of the quality of hire. Gene Smith spent more time trying to hire Tim Floyd than he ever did on this one. I knew we were in trouble when the only thing that he could say was how he had been a part of two turnarounds, so he knew what it took. But then he couldn't give any vision for what he planned to do.
And, don't kid yourself 12, Gene Smith kept him around after 98 because he beat Iowa. Gene wanted the hell out of Ames, and he needed a bowl game. Firing this mediocre coach, would have set that timetable back 2-3 more years. He saw that there were more and more bowls, so at some point he had to make one.
I would be appalled if people didn't give Gene Chizik time to be successful. My God, people gave the man who did less with more than any other coach in school history more chances to fail than he certainly deserved.
That being said, I am sure that there will be some Mac people on here in the Fall trying to disect everything that Gene does in an attempt to make Dan look better.:no:
I said in another thread or maybe somewhere earlier in this thread that the '98 Iowa game saved McCarney's job...you do realize though that in all of these games you are naming off that we should have won...McCarney recruited the guys that did it, and the importance of recruiting is MONUMENTAL in order for a turnaround to take place...if we would've had a different coach with the player's Dan brought in...I'll agree with you that we would've done bigger and better things...but the problem is, that coach would've had to start from where Dan started with Walden's players (meaning no Seneca, no Sage)...that is why I disagree with you...you are going against the past 100 years of history and just assuming the other coach would have brought in top talent despite have crappy facilities to start with and no school tradition, and took us to three consecutive north titles, and three straight bowl games (insight.com at worst)...I would have loved it if that would've happened, but the last 100 years suggest that those are some VERY lofty expectations.
Chizik will be given time, and he deserves it...I doubt too many people will try to dissect everything Gene does to make Dan look better though...even the people that appreciate Dan are happy Chizik is here. If people are upset that Chizik is the coach, I'm sure not seeing it anywhere on this message board.
Last edited:
I have no arguement with the comments here. There is no doubt that Dan McCarney WAS the best coach ISU has had in more than a decade.
