my thoughts have changed.
- Thread starter stretchclone
- Start date
Here's my opinion. I really think that this team has plenty of talent and the right coaching to be really good. The problem with them right now is they don't know how to win yet. The last two years destroyed them in that aspect. I think they still have a ways to go to get where we need after the Kansas game, but I think that the Kansas game went a long way to helping them. The thing to look for the rest of the season is can they get over the hump and win some close games. I don't know that they will, but the pitchfork crowd are really showing how stupid they are. We are a good team, and to say that we should compare records equally or when people say we would do better in the B10 that those people don't want our team to improve is stupid.
For those complaining that the ceiling for Paul Rhoads is 7 wins -- ISU hasn't had a season in the last 35 years that would have resulted in more than 7 wins in the 9-game round-robin Big 12 era. Thus, either we have had 35 years of bad coaches, or winning that number of games at ISU is a very difficult task that even good coaches cannot consistently do.
This means that pinning blame on coaches for having too many losses is probably not the right place for it -- while coaches can contribute to the problem, there must be other factors. Facilities have improved, fan support has improved (certainly since the 80s and 90s), we are at least competitive with our conference rivals in those areas (and need to continue to be to have any chance). Access to local talent will always be a struggle (that is, there isn't very much local talent). Program perception (not a traditional winner) is also a hurdle. Realistically, those factors more than any others will make it difficult for any coach to get large numbers of top HS players to commit to ISU, and it's hard to realistically think that a team made up of medium to low-ranked HS recruits will win 8-9 games a season, regardless of who is coaching them.
So what's the solution? It needs to be a gradual building up of the ISU brand to change the program perception, IMO...that's the way to improve the likelihood of getting higher-ranked non-local recruits interested in attending ISU. Paul Rhoads was looking like the perfect person to do that a few years ago, with splash upset wins and passionate locker room videos, etc. I will agree that the last few years have jettisoned that momentum, and now we need to re-look at whether Rhoads can be the one to get it back on the upswing (maybe he can't). But, to think that "we're bad now because Paul Rhoads can't coach" and "we'd be so much better with someone else" seems a little simplistic and unrealistic in view of the nature of the task at hand.
This means that pinning blame on coaches for having too many losses is probably not the right place for it -- while coaches can contribute to the problem, there must be other factors. Facilities have improved, fan support has improved (certainly since the 80s and 90s), we are at least competitive with our conference rivals in those areas (and need to continue to be to have any chance). Access to local talent will always be a struggle (that is, there isn't very much local talent). Program perception (not a traditional winner) is also a hurdle. Realistically, those factors more than any others will make it difficult for any coach to get large numbers of top HS players to commit to ISU, and it's hard to realistically think that a team made up of medium to low-ranked HS recruits will win 8-9 games a season, regardless of who is coaching them.
So what's the solution? It needs to be a gradual building up of the ISU brand to change the program perception, IMO...that's the way to improve the likelihood of getting higher-ranked non-local recruits interested in attending ISU. Paul Rhoads was looking like the perfect person to do that a few years ago, with splash upset wins and passionate locker room videos, etc. I will agree that the last few years have jettisoned that momentum, and now we need to re-look at whether Rhoads can be the one to get it back on the upswing (maybe he can't). But, to think that "we're bad now because Paul Rhoads can't coach" and "we'd be so much better with someone else" seems a little simplistic and unrealistic in view of the nature of the task at hand.
Last edited:
How can it be said this current team is young? I didn't run through the entire roster, but we have a senior QB, experienced OL, experienced receivers, red shirts galore, including all the junior college kids on defense who come in as upper classmen, and many of whom are also red shirts. Young?
This is a very good post. I really don't care one way or another on whether we fire CPR or not at the end of the year, but i'd lean toward keeping him at this point in time. Why?
I'm old enough to recognize that many of the people clamoring to fire him will (in 15 years or so) see it the same way I do now. It really doesn't matter. We can cycle through coaches every four years hoping to catch lightning in a bottle... but our chances of already having that now are better than the alternative.
CPR has done things at ISU that NO OTHER COACH at ISU has done. He's proven he can win here in the past. I'd agree we might as well go a different direction if it looked like our talent level was spiraling downward, but i believe just the opposite at the moment. Most would agree that the team has more overall talent than it did 2 years ago for sure.
Dan Mac went 3-8, 2-9, 1-10, 3-8, 4-7 his first five years, but I could SEE the improvement in the talent level during that stretch. I believe the same thing is happening now. We are getting better...
Ok ... I love the concept of a moral bowl game. This is something we should all get behind.
Exactly my point. Mac had to go because of what you say, and I agree.
That same stuff isn't happening now.
My thoughts have changed too. At the beginning of the year I "hoped" Mike Warren would be the read deal. I think we can say that he is.
I "hoped" the online would be able to open the running lanes. Games 1 and two terrible. Games 3 and 4 much better. I think Toledos runs D is solid. Kansas not so much. Still "hope" in the up coming games we can continue to open holes for Warren. I didn't think we would do that at all this year. Our offense requires a solid run game to function. It's a must for the rest of the year. 8 games left and Warren needs about 650 yards to top 1000 for the year. If we can get him to 1000 i think we can win 2 maybe three more games.
Teams I think we should be able to run on from here out. TTU, Texas, TCU, OSU, KSU.
I don't think we can run on WVU, OU, or BU.
I "hoped" the online would be able to open the running lanes. Games 1 and two terrible. Games 3 and 4 much better. I think Toledos runs D is solid. Kansas not so much. Still "hope" in the up coming games we can continue to open holes for Warren. I didn't think we would do that at all this year. Our offense requires a solid run game to function. It's a must for the rest of the year. 8 games left and Warren needs about 650 yards to top 1000 for the year. If we can get him to 1000 i think we can win 2 maybe three more games.
Teams I think we should be able to run on from here out. TTU, Texas, TCU, OSU, KSU.
I don't think we can run on WVU, OU, or BU.
Maybe continually losing games that we are one or two plays away from winning is a sign there is a problem.
If...and that's a big if...we score 40 or more points against two of the next three opponents then I might jump on that wagon with you. The problem is, can we keep them from scoring 70?
It's a terrible point.
First of all, it's a strawman-- who in the hell cares about strength of schedule when discussing Rhoads' record? Did CPR think we were going to play in the MAC when we hired him? Why does strength of schedule matter in the slightest? When you are hired as the head football coach at a Big 12 institution, you will be judged on your record against the rest of the Big 12.
Second, we've stunk even against the bad teams. The godawful ones. Or have you forgotten about last year's shellacking at the hands of Kansas? Or UNI the year before? (Or the fact that we had to pull a lucky horseshoe out of our ***** even to win against UNI the time before THAT?!)
Finally, you act like other people are trying to have it both ways, when you're the one who is actually the hypocrite. You want us to sympathize with poor Paul because he has to play all these big bad teams, but then you want us to jump for joy while conveniently ignoring that we just beat a Kansas team that would struggle for wins in Division III.
Owned.
Sadly, this is all absolutely true. The goal is to be a good team, which means beating some good teams, instead we go keystone cops against FCS and MAC schools. The result is 5-19 and years of consistent inept play. That said, it is not even the record as much as the poor play and his poor high level decision making.
Really both sides want it both ways. Yeah Kansas is awful and we can only take so much from that game. That doesn't mean we have to ignore the SOS argument. First your point of what he thought when we hired him is bad because when we hired him we played in a different conference. The Big 12 still had Colorado and Nebraska. Also no one says he doesn't have to win just that his record should be evaluated while accounting for who we play.
Second the last two years have been bad. That doesn't mean we aren't recovering from them. I don't think we are there yet and may not get far enough this year so he will be let go but we are definitely better than the last two years.
I agree. On one side you have people pointing out that our record is a direct reflection of the schedule, and the other side saying that if we were better at football our schedule wouldn't be as tough. Both sides are right.
I guess my point is this. That has been the case for ISU football its entire history. We've gone through coaches, we've tried different offenses, defenses, etc. but nothing really changes.
Like I said... keeping CPR or not isn't my worry, nor do I really care vehemently about it. It is what it is. I'd prefer we keep him, but if not, oh well. Same old song and dance we get to repeat again. Then in five years we are having this same exact conversation about the next coach (whoever that is).
I'm of the mindset that we should probably only look at switching coaches if the team isn't improving and recruiting has totally stagnated. Like Macs last year - that was a classic example. Every single coach in ISU history has had at least a couple of bad seasons in a row. Every single one. It appears to me that CPR has the talent level on the team back on the upswing so I'd prefer to stick it out with him.
JMO.
I think that's fair. We've tried the hot up-and-coming assistant (didn't work), we've tried the local homegrown guy (not really working) and if we make a coaching change, I hope we hire someone VERY outside the box. We need someone with a unique system or process that will change things up.
Like what Briles did for Baylor with his high octane offense. Or Paul Johnson at GT with the triple option. If we've learned anything here its that the same old status quo isn't going to work.
You don't get credit for improving if you're the one that digs the hole.
If we won 4 games last year, we wouldn't be saying we are improving this year. So we're saying no coaching change is needed because we won 2 rather than 4 games last year.
We need a young offensive guru who can put up points with a high risk D coordinator who emphasizes a turnover driven defense. No more deep corners. Blitz like crazy. Yeah we'll get burned, but that's life in the Big 12 now. Winning the turnover battle is more important than keeping the score low.
Exciting football. Play at night whenever possible. Multiple uniform looks. Encourage the tailgating atmosphere. The antithesis of Kirk's old man ball.
