Coach idea

[Really Clark?]

How has Napier had more success as a Dvision I level? Napier had mixed success as a OC early with Clemson before being let go. He had a good year as OC at ASU that got him the ULL job. He is going to finish up with somewhere around 18 wins in his first two years as Head Coach. That doesn't seem more successful than Hud taking over a historically bad program and winning 9 games a yea for his first four years.

I think he meant as HC, reading his check list

[Johnson85]

I think he meant as HC, reading his check list

That's what I thought at first, but that's an even less defensible position though. If you just compare DI head coaching jobs, Napier definitely hasn't had as much success as Hud. Not his fault. He's only had two years (almost) and done great in his two years, but Hud did great in his first four.

[HoopsDawg]

How has Napier had more success as a Dvision I level? Napier had mixed success as a OC early with Clemson before being let go. He had a good year as OC at ASU that got him the ULL job. He is going to finish up with somewhere around 18 wins in his first two years as Head Coach. That doesn't seem more successful than Hud taking over a historically bad program and winning 9 games a yea for his first four years.

You clearly prefer Hud over Napier so you aren't interested in being objective.

I don't have a bias. Napier's resume is objectively more impressive to me. The 4 years at Bama alone put him over Hud in my book. Recruiting coordinator at Clemson. Offensive coordinator at Power 5 schools. And this year he has ULL 9th in the country in Total Offense. I'm happy that Hud is having success at the FCS level and has been able to get his career back on track after the last 3 years at ULL.

[Johnson85]

You clearly prefer Hud over Napier so you aren't interested in being objective.

I don't have a bias. Napier's resume is objectively more impressive to me. The 4 years at Bama alone put him over Hud in my book. Recruiting coordinator at Clemson. Offensive coordinator at Power 5 schools. And this year he has ULL 9th in the country in Total Offense. I'm happy that Hud is having success at the FCS level and has been able to get his career back on track after the last 3 years at ULL.

I don't really have a preference. I think they're more or less interchangeable based on their record. I was just pointing out he hasn't had more success at Division I. I don't really think that's arguable. How you want to weigh the fact that Hud eventually faltered whereas Napier hasn't been there long enough yet to know is I think a good question. But I think in general people give way too much credit to up and coming head coaches with short records without thinking about selection bias.

[Covercorner2]

That's what I thought at first, but that's an even less defensible position though. If you just compare DI head coaching jobs, Napier definitely hasn't had as much success as Hud. Not his fault. He's only had two years (almost) and done great in his two years, but Hud did great in his first four.

Napier is 9-2 at ULL right now. Hud's best record at the same school was 9-4, and those wins are vacated. So basically Napier would have to lose out to not have more success at the same school, and there is no asterisk next to those results.

[Johnson85]

Napier is 9-2 at ULL right now. Hud's best record at the same school was 9-4, and those wins are vacated. So basically Napier would have to lose out to not have more success at the same school, and there is no asterisk next to those results.

And his first year was 7-7, which was worse than Hud's 9-4. And Napier's got two years of track record, not 4, and didn't have to raise the program from the dead to begin with. Again, I have no problem if people that know more about the coaches than their records and stats think Napier is the better coach or better fit for MSU. But Napier hasn't had more success than Hud yet. His track record is very appealing right now, it's just not much of one.

[Covercorner2]

And his first year was 7-7, which was worse than Hud's 9-4. And Napier's got two years of track record, not 4, and didn't have to raise the program from the dead to begin with. Again, I have no problem if people that know more about the coaches than their records and stats think Napier is the better coach or better fit for MSU. But Napier hasn't had more success than Hud yet. His track record is very appealing right now, it's just not much of one.

Fact is, barring a loss to ULM, Napier will have had a more successful season at the same program than Hud....

[Coach34]

Fact is, barring a loss to ULM, Napier will have had a more successful season at the same program than Hud....

but they didn’t start at the same beginning point

[sandjunky]

Exactly, context matters

[HoopsDawg]

but they didn’t start at the same beginning point

Good point, Napier had to take over a 5-7 program that was on probation.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

I asked this in another thread but I will again here because it's relevent:

Hud went 9-4 his first 4 seasons, then things fell apart.

1) Why did he not get better with time? One would think with his recruits that know his system and have been developed by his coached, they'd show improvement. Why doesn't this stagnation bother anyone?

2) Hudd was still the coach when things fell apart. That's a knock on him for not navigating that. Was he not responsible for having his players well coached and ready to go? Yet they weren't. For 3 straight seasons too, it's not like he had 1 tough year and was let go. 3 years and he couldn't right the ship that he himself led into the storm... and all of those 3 years he had his own recruits, so we cna't blame bad apples or poor scheme fit either.

Why don't I see anyone discussing these glaring resume issues?

[Jack Lambert]

Hold on to whatever hope you have I guess.

I don't care. I was just saying why he might want to come back.

[Johnson85]

Good point, Napier had to take over a 5-7 program that was on probation.

It's hilarious to see you talk about other people being objective. Napier took over a better situation than Hud did. Hud had shown they could win and 5-7, while still down from where Hud was the first four years, was still a better position than ULL historically was in.

Napier looks like a good prospective coach and I wouldn't have a problem with him at all over Hud. He doesn't have the track record that Hud does, for good and bad. Either Hud or Napier could potentially be the next Saban or the next Willie Taggert. Willie Taggert is much more likely just b/c there are a lot of Willie Taggerts and not many Sabans. Hud has more of a track record, which makes it less likely he is going to fall on either extreme. But even Hud's longer track record doesn't mean he won't be the next WIllie Taggert b/c it's just never a sure thing moving from a G5 to P5, or even within P5, so I don't have a problem with how anybody weighs those risks, as long as the person making the utlimate decision has some knowledge/insight beyond records and stats.

[Johnson85]

I asked this in another thread but I will again here because it's relevent:

Hud went 9-4 his first 4 seasons, then things fell apart.

1) Why did he not get better with time? One would think with his recruits that know his system and have been developed by his coached, they'd show improvement. Why doesn't this stagnation bother anyone?

Seriously? Why didn't he get ULL past 9-4? Mullen went 5-7 (which was a great 5-7), 9-4, 7-6, 8-5,7-6 in his first five years. Why didn't Mullen's team show improvement from that 9-4 in his second season? Would you really be upset if Hud came in here and got us to 9-4 for the next four years? I mean, I don't think Hud is some slam dunk hire. I'd be happy with him as well as a few other possibilities that have been mentioned. But seeing some people come up with the reasons to argue against him makes me feel like we're in lala land.

2) Hudd was still the coach when things fell apart. That's a knock on him for not navigating that. Was he not responsible for having his players well coached and ready to go? Yet they weren't. For 3 straight seasons too, it's not like he had 1 tough year and was let go. 3 years and he couldn't right the ship that he himself led into the storm... and all of those 3 years he had his own recruits, so we cna't blame bad apples or poor scheme fit either.

Why don't I see anyone discussing these glaring resume issues?

He had three years where while on probation, he fell to the dead middle of the conference. That's not good, but that's not exactly unforgivable.

And why don't you point out the G5 Head Coach with a good track record that doesn't have a blemish on it. I'm not sure we have that option right now because of how quickly g5 coaches get hired up now. We had that option I think and missed last time with Satterfield. And also supposedly with what's his name from Utah. If we have an option like that this time, we shouldn't pass it up again. But all the name getting thrown out there to my knowledge are guys either with blemishes or that haven't been a head coach long enough to get a blemish.