Create his own culture? Maggard said he was hired to continue the culture. Give him 3 to 4 years? He was already set up to succeed. Can he keep the talent at UL and coach them up is the million dollar question. So would you agree after 4 years if the team is still doing what it is doing after his first 2 years then a change will be needed?
LaTech and Tulane need to be on a rotating two year Home/Home schedule. Basically every year either Tulane or LaTech is on the schedule.
For example:
‘24 Tulane
‘25 @ Latech
‘26 @ Tulane
‘27 LaTech
‘28 Tulane
Hell, I’d be ok playing both every year and rotating the home/away to where we host one of them every year…easier said than done.
Look at Texas, they have more money than God and they can't buy success.- Cajun fun
Good point, so what are they trying to gain by moving to s-e-c?
For ADs across the country, 'culture' means a culture of winning without major scandals.
Here, culture means what Robe instilled in his players: winning is the by-product of doing it right. But you do it right first: discipline, mental toughness, classes and grades, and preparation for life. And leadership: team leadership, but first, personal leadership. That's why Robe didn't win as much as coaches who only practice 'sports school culture,' i.e. "win at all costs."
And that's why Robe didn't have great teams every year: in a way, every year was starting over. The players all got the basics of the game from t-ball to high school.
But for many of them, the personal development, learning to discipline and motivate themselves, rather than looking for a coach to do it, didn't start until they got to UL.
Why do say that he was 'set up' to succeed? He lost major, major talent; in a conference that had only just become competitive; at a program that had only just started winning consistently; and which hadn't yet built up a large attendance base, nor big-time donors.
Please explain your thinking.
I suppose the answer is the same as Bob Dole give when they asked him if he wore boxers or briefs.
"Depends."
If the 'Belt is winning half or more of their P5 games, and UL is one of the teams participating in that, and we are 6-6, I would regard that as real progress. Our record hasn't improved, but the team has, dramatically.
I question the wisdom of just looking at the W-L record, and saying that is what a program— or a coach— is worth. The P5 are talking about leaving the NCAA, and I hope they do... because once again, it will blow up in their faces. I considered writing a post on that, but it would take me a couple of hours. I will simply say that subconsciously, what they are looking for is a conference where everyone has a winning record.
And when you put their goals into words, you can see that it's impossible.
UL does not exist to support a football team; it's vice versa. But too many schools, and fans, pursue the Lombardi maxim, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." That's fine for professional sports.
It should be an embarrassment for a university.
We need to rethink who we are, and what we are doing. We don't want our slogan to be, "We hate LSU, and we want to be just like them."
I’d like to point out something that may be a moot point. The conference expanded between Napier’s last year and Diez’s first year. From 10 to 14. Does that not represent a bigger challenge and the obvious reason for different results?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)