I get that money is a factor. Ethics as well. And admissions standards.
Does Bama get more talent because they have better coaches?
Or does the talent make the coaches look better when they really are not?
If you switched only the coaching staffs with the current talent level,
Who would win more games?
I respect any answers.
Shit, with Alabama's talent because of recruiting top 1 or 2 classes almost every year, Kelly would do very fine. An off class for them is like number 6, it is no wonder they win. They also get the benefit of being the first one loss team considered because of their reputation talent wise. Sure we want Kelly to perform better but he is not that bad and again would be a winner with their talent. Alabama and Ohio State clearly have the most talent slightly better than Georgia and Clemson. After that we are among a cluster of about 10 teams trying for the ultimate upset.
Saban has a total blank check at Bama. If Meyer had been given that when he interviewed with ND he would be coaching at ND with at least one NC.
Yes, you make some good points...the immediate problem is the offense since the Miami game.... Wimbush has not improved and does not see the field....Saban was not afraid to pull QB in the National championship game.... Wimbush could not run out clock against Ball State.....
And hasn't done anything except make people wonder if he was going to shove it up his own ass.
(no message)
"no such thing as bad student, only bad teacher."
Total horse manure. There are bad teachers out there, but it's ridiculous to put all the blame on teachers alone.
(no message)
1) We aren't going to win more games with a different staff if Kelly is still the same coach.
You can't take one factor about why a kid picks one school over another because there are some many variables. That said, it is pretty obvious our limiting factor in getting coaches is the head coach himself because, unlike a large chunk of the top head coaches at other schools, Kelly's only real experience as a head coach has been at Cincinnati and ND. Hence his coaching tree, and assistant coaches tend to follow folks they worked with, is pretty limited.
2) By and large, pay is not a restricting factor in ND getting/keeping assistant coaches. Also, pay overall has little to do with quality. It has more to do with leverage than anything else.
Mike Elko, had he stayed, would have been the 5th highest paid assistant coach in the country. Alabama allegedly pursued Chip Long last year. Harry Hiestand was regarded as one of the best OL coaches in the country. Mike Sanford was well-regarded when he came here and ended up as a head coach.
As a Central Michigan grad I resent the Chippewas being omitted as "...only real experience..." I realize we are not in the top tier but it is DI experience. Check out how many Chippewas have been in the NFL, including the no. 1 overall pick a few years ago.
But my point stills stands.
In the scheme of major college football, being the head coach at CMU is small time. The MAC serves more typically as a 1st step after apprenticeships at other places under more experienced coaches. Kelly totally lacks any such learning experiences and it is one of the causes of his lackluster results he achieves at ND.
Brian Kelly's "coaching tree" is still woeful. The major weakness in Kelly's coaching background is he never coached under anyone who had success in major college football. Hence, his abysmal excuse for an offense comes from his days at Grand Valley State, honed at CMU and Cincinnati and it still isn't ready for prime time. He has zero frame of reference to how a Power 5 conference offense can work and he can't ( or is won't?) hire anyone who doesn't accept his offensive concepts. Which is why after 8 long years we have the same wack-a-do offense we did in 2010.
Note a few examples which point the the critical gap in coaching experience: Urban Meyer who also happened to coach in The Mid American Conference who before he coached a game at a Power 5 conference he had already worked for Lou Holtz and Earl Bruce: Dave Doeren, currently coach at NC St coached at Wisconsin and USC before he was a coach in the MAC and coaches now at a school that doesn't even compare in stature as ND football: PJ Fleck, who is many people's darling here, had the brains to go to a remote outpost in college football after WM to learn his craft and even he has 3 years coaching in the pros as well as a year at Ohio st. Even one of our coaching "legends" like Bob Davie coached at Pitt (Under Jackie Sherrill), Texas A&M(RC Slocum) and ND under Holtz before he graduated to head coaching.
I concur with your valid points otherwise.
not there and you cannot coach size and speed, but in the case of Bama, they have some pretty shady admissions going on there and they do treat their signees a lot more like cattle than students seeking an education; they are different than a school like ND.
That said, I'd have to go with, you need both talented athletes and talented coaches who are able to get the message across.
It's not like Bama has more inventive plays (play calling is a skill of Saban's) per game, they really do have the athletes who have been coached soundly to always been in the hunt for a National Championship each year.
Saban coached teams are disciplined while Kelly is always trying to get his players to be disciplined. I think that is a huge differentiator of the two coaches regardless of talent.
Saban is a proven winner. His track record speaks for itself. I think he gets it more than Kelly does.
The talent he gets is better. No denying that. It's a well oiled machine now and maybe it just runs itself.
Kelly has squandered too much talent at ND for me to say he is equal or even close.
It's hard to judge assistant/positional coaches because who knows who is really making what decisions. I feel like the head coach is. And the head coach should be overseeing what is taught and how it is taught. Saban coached programs have an identity. Kelly is constantly searching for an identity each year. He had to reinvent himself as a coach because what he was doing wasn't working.
(no message)
plays by a different rule set at Alabama than he did at MSU and I wouldn't regard them as a clean program either.
*********
(no message)
even list ND anymore. No drama there.....
(no message)
(no message)
Better coaching? For certain...
Nick Saban is the gold standard of collegiate football coaching. Some, such as Bob Stoops, Urban Meyer, etc., can come close, but there's no question that Nick Saban is the best out there.
Better assistants? That's up for debate.
He knows who to hire to get both quick and fast short term results, as well as the long term picture, and with a well-oiled machine already in place, these assistant coaches can certainly thrive. They don't have to try to re-invent the wheel, simply because what is already there seems to work quite well.
That being said, I think we have some pretty good assistant coaches of our own. We certainly made some upgrades last year, especially when it came to the DC, S&C and ST (somewhat).
Better talent? Arguably, yes. Not only do the best players in the land want to play for the best coach in the land, but with few restrictions in place, Nick Saban can pretty much get who he wants most of the time.
He has total control over the football program, which is something the Notre Dame Board of Trustees will NEVER ceded to any coach.
Now, that being said, given the talent level we have at Notre Dame, it should be more than good enough to produce consistently good results, using a 10 win season as a standard.
wearing a headset. But, he can get the talent into the school. After that it's an utter disaster, generally speaking.
(no message)
the best damn recruiter!
Link: https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/alabama-football/38-days-inside-story-of-how-alabama-hired-nick-saban/
Bill Snyder is probably the best coach alive, but he couldn't do what Saban has done at bama.
(no message)
I personally think Wimbush just doesn't have it. Rees hasn't had an opportunity to mentor a QB that has IT and then turn around and do it on the field.
for recruiting at the skilled positions on a routine basis. “ unless” that’s all they can get now and then....
(no message)
The issue, for me, is the inability of the staff to recognize that he isn't THE guy, after coaching him for 3+ years, and give someone else a shot.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Seems he could push a little harder on the depth issue. He settles for too many 3 stars which provide competent bodies
and not real quality depth.
Unless you are just a fan of the school itself.
I think he gets what he can get. Until ND legit completes for a championship again it will be very difficult to pull those guys.
(no message)
His talent development while in the program is bad. Much worse than recruiting I think.
The schedule is difficult most years.
The results are subpar by traditional ND standards.
(no message)
(no message)
Who determines who is the starting QB? Kelly not Rees. It's unfair to say Rees is a bad QB coach after one season of coaching a QB that many think just won't ever get it. Rees may turn out to be a bad QB coach. I don't think there is any evidence to say one way or the other at this point.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)