Best coaches in UL history.

[CajunRebel]

PB - Stokley was, as a head coach, way better than Hud, now Hud is a much better salesman of the program, but I hate to inform you guys that the talent we have now is just now getting close to the talent Stokley brought here. And when the fossil allowed Stokley to bring in and pay quality assistants, we had guys like Eumont, Doherty, Wilson, Cook, Roll, and the others - we are playing a much weaker schedule than we played under Stokley too!

I like Hud a lot, he has and continues to do great things, but given Hud's resources, he should be improving exponentially, or at least equal to his pay increases! The last 2 games last year, LaTech and Appy St. are games we should never lose - OM and BS were bad displays of football, but we weren't expecting wins, just hoping for them.

I think it's very wrong to assume Hud has more to work with than Stokley. When Stokley was coaching the gap between the haves and the have nots was way smaller than it is today. Back hen there really wasn't much of a difference between the facilities at a school like Alabama and USL. Today, most big conference schools have literally built modern palaces for their student-athletes to live and work in. We can't compete with lavish gifts like that. That ridiculousness didn't exist 20 years ago.

Also, when Stokley was recruiting good athletes we were in a much better conference with way fewer Division 1-A teams competing with us for atheletes.

It was much easier back then.

[CajunNation]

It was much easier back then.

You couldn't be more wrong.

[CajunRage]

I think it's very wrong to assume Hud has more to work with than Stokley. When Stokley was coaching the gap between the haves and the have nots was way smaller than it is today. Back hen there really wasn't much of a difference between the facilities at a school like Alabama and USL. Today, most big conference schools have literally built modern palaces for their student-athletes to live and work in. We can't compete with lavish gifts like that. That ridiculousness didn't exist 20 years ago.

Also, when Stokley was recruiting good athletes we were in a much better conference with way fewer Division 1-A teams competing with us for atheletes.

It was much easier back then.

Excellent points. You have to look relative to the rest of the landscape. You can't look at athletic budget from the 80s and now. You have to look at how they compared versus the rest of the country in each period.

[CrazyCajun]

Does it not dawn on anyone that the reason HUD has more to work with, is because of HUD himself. How can you fault the man for that. The reason all our coaches are getting more is because of HUD either directly or indirectly.

[CajunJack55]

HUD may have more to work with than Stokley did but so does every other coach in America. in my opinion that is a moot point to use that as a reason.

[Turbine]

Ok I change my mind.

Ashby Woodson for starting the football program in 1901 and for winning 60% of his games.

He did lose to LSU though, so there's that.

[KajunKrazy]

I think it's very wrong to assume Hud has more to work with than Stokley. When Stokley was coaching the gap between the haves and the have nots was way smaller than it is today. Back hen there really wasn't much of a difference between the facilities at a school like Alabama and USL. Today, most big conference schools have literally built modern palaces for their student-athletes to live and work in. We can't compete with lavish gifts like that. That ridiculousness didn't exist 20 years ago.

Also, when Stokley was recruiting good athletes we were in a much better conference with way fewer Division 1-A teams competing with us for atheletes.

It was much easier back then.

When stokley was recruiting we were in a much better conference?

You obviously didn't follow to closely back then. With exception of a few years in the now defunct big west stokley was an independent his whole career. Which was much harder to recruit to than a conference was. He also had no bowl tie ins to sell. When I think of today's DBs and LBs compared to stokleys it's not even close talent wise. Just looking at LB I'd take willie Simms, Clifford champ, Dwayne fontenette, Patrice Alexander, and Charles Poole over any lb HUD has put on the field and that includes bustle recruit justin Anderson. In stokleys 12 years of coaching he had 8 teams that if he played the schedule the Cajuns played this year he would have had 10 wins.

[Turbine]

I have often contended, UL should go Indi to stand out and succeed.

[KajunKrazy]

I have often contended, UL should go Indi to stand out and succeed.

Turb no way they could survive as Indi. They would have no bowl game to go to because they all have conference affiliation tie ins. Players would get no individual accolades like all conference & player of the week... Scheduling would be impossible. You would be forced to play much more P5 teams. It would be much harder to recruit to UL as an independent.

[CrappDaddy]

When stokley was recruiting we were in a much better conference?

You obviously didn't follow to closely back then. With exception of a few years in the now defunct big west stokley was an independent his whole career. Which was much harder to recruit to than a conference was. He also had no bowl tie ins to sell. When I think of today's DBs and LBs compared to stokleys it's not even close talent wise. Just looking at LB I'd take willie Simms, Clifford champ, Dwayne fontenette, Patrice Alexander, and Charles Poole over any lb HUD has put on the field and that includes bustle recruit justin Anderson. In stokleys 12 years of coaching he had 8 teams that if he played the schedule the Cajuns played this year he would have had 10 wins.

Your perception of what talent level Stokley had has probably lost a little clarity over the years. Hard to compare players you saw over 15 years ago to ones today and say they were better. They also didn't have to cover spread offenses and probably wouldn't have been able to. Don't be foolish, the team we have his year would likely go toe to toe with any Stokley team. The game has changed.

[Turbine]

Turb no way they could survive as Indi. They would have no bowl game to go to because they all have conference affiliation tie ins. Players would get no individual accolades like all conference & player of the week... Scheduling would be impossible. You would be forced to play much more P5 teams. It would be much harder to recruit to UL as an independent.

I can refute every comment but I'm lazy today so your point is well taken.

It would be work for sure and no one likes . . . the SBC.

Some ask why? juSt BeCause

ps sorry for the tangent. . . . how did we get here? The SBC I mean.

[CajunNation]

Turb no way they could survive as Indi. They would have no bowl game to go to because they all have conference affiliation tie ins. Players would get no individual accolades like all conference & player of the week... Scheduling would be impossible. You would be forced to play much more P5 teams. It would be much harder to recruit to UL as an independent.

Bowls can affiliate with a conference or an individual school.