So if the most dominant coach in the league for any particular year was not a good coach, does that mean there are ZERO good coaches in the Sun Belt? That seems like a very balanced and reasonable stance.
So if the most dominant coach in the league for any particular year was not a good coach, does that mean there are ZERO good coaches in the Sun Belt? That seems like a very balanced and reasonable stance.
. . . so HUD would have been an outstanding head coach had he left after year 4 but he stayed and turned into a dud, which may have happened to a Napier had he stayed through the commencement of NIL and free transfer . . . maybe the difference between Stud and Dud is really only timing . . .
All I said is that I'm not yet convinced that Napier is a good coach. He certainly might be. He was extremely successful at UL, otherwise Florida wouldn't have taken a chance on him.
My point is that, as it currently stands, his only claim to fame was the ability to perform well in the Sun Belt Conference. He's had effectively no success in the more challenging SEC. So if you define "good coach" as someone who can perform well in the Sun Belt, then yea, he's a great coach. However, if you define a "good coach" as someone who can perform well on a national stage, then he hasn't proven himself. Maybe he will prove himself in the future, but he hasn't done so yet. It's really simple.
Unlike you, who refuses to admit he's a TSAB troll.
I admitted a fact: Historically, coaches didn't progress beyond this job. At the same time, coaches hired here had absolutely nothing to recruit to. Facilities, amenities, stronger conference and recent success have turned this job into a desirable G5 post.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 2 guests)