Roger that. And even more so in the case of a proven winning Head Coach such as Fritz.windywave wrote:Yup. Also everything is contextual. CWF had 5 years in my mind when we was hired to completely clean house and install his guys and system. Two years is not enough and three is pushing it but people who agitate for fast changes forget the tortoise and the hare. Sure you can make an error in the hire but IMO you don't truly know that until after the third season is complete and you see the state of the program. Any change before that is premature (and daresay immature to demand it).GSx wrote: The bigger problem has been the hiring:
How long to keep coaches
Re: How long to keep coaches
"You're not here on scholarship to lose. I didn't recruit you to lose. Losing is abnormal; losing is unusual; losing is unacceptable. That's not what we're here for."
Bob Knight
Bob Knight
Re: How long to keep coaches
You can clearly see where the program is headed after year 2 in most instances. Especially where recruiting is headed. A savvy AD will know exactly where things are headed taking into account where the hire started and where he is heading into his third recruiting class. And the players know almost immediately.
- Rotorooter
- President's Circle
- Posts: 4933
- Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 7:33 pm
- Location: Marietta, GA
Re: How long to keep coaches
100%. Unlike many schools, Tulane always seems to be unprepared for the next change. You should always have a list of candidates in your pocket just in case. We never seem to do that. Maybe Dannen is different and I believe he is. It didn't take him long to come to Fritz.GSx wrote:Before there was Beamer, there was Bill McCartney: 2-8-1, 4-7, 1-10. Then came 9 bowls, 6 top 20s, 3 top 10s, 1 nc over the next 10 seasons.
The Tulane problem with keeping coaches around too long is fairly recent. Scelfo should have been fired after the blowout-ridden, sorry-excuse-ridden year 3 debacle that was 2001. Toledo should have clearly been removed after any of years 2-4 and not removing him after 4, if not 3, was beyond egregious.
Before that, while the program was declining under Greg Davis, we always seemed to do enough in November on the field (particularly in year 4, in which were horrible until late October, at which point we played our best ball since Mack Brown). Teevens probably held on for 1 year too long, but recruiting was improving and 1996 was supposed to be the break-out year; it didn’t happen and Tulane moved on.
The bigger problem has been the hiring: English, Davis, Scelfo and Curtis Johnson were questionable hires on paper: 0-4
Smith, Brown, Teevens, Bowden, Toledo (given the circumstances) and Fritz looked like decent to excellent hires, and Tulane is 3-2-tbd but looking good.
Gibson is in his own category; decent credentials, but not the man who should have been hired and probably shouldn't have been fired either.
Plan your work, work your plan.
Re: How long to keep coaches
Our AD's have always had a list. They just had the wrong names on them.
We deserve so much better
Re: How long to keep coaches
More parity means turnarounds are easier, see the NFL.BACONWAVE wrote:Couldn't that also mean way more parity than ever before, thus talent spread out more evenly, which can make turnarounds harder in some cases?ml wave wrote:Lol, where's the "objective proof" that I claim to be first to market with statistical support?Baywave1 wrote:For someone who claims to be first to market with statistical support, I don't see any data points here. Without them it's just an opinion which is cool but that's all it is. I don't know the answer here. Please educate us as with objective proof to why you're right and the other folk(s) aren't.ml wave wrote:With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.
Anyway, you want data points to things which are common knowledge enough to the point that anyone even approaching a functioning understanding of sports wouldn't need data points? Whoops, guess I just answered my own question there.
NCAA FB scholarship limits:
pre-1973: unlimited
1973-77: 105
1978-91: 95
1992-present: 85
Grad transfer rule: 2011
-
- Riptide Level
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:05 am
Re: How long to keep coaches
Anyone who is complaining about Fritz already is just plain nuts. My first game I attended was in 1961, so I've seen a few good ones mixed in with a lot of bad ones. The worst was English. He was a punk and recruited players that reflected that approach. Fritz was 6 inches away from a bowl team last year. Rebuilding a football team is an art form. Fritz has proven with other teams that he has the skill. The team is improving and we will know a lot more after 3 or 4 games as to whether the team is still on an upward path.
Re: How long to keep coaches
Gotta Have a Savvy A.D. ….for openers !!
Re: How long to keep coaches
So every year in the NFL there are several new teams in the playoffs? Don't think so.ml wave wrote:More parity means turnarounds are easier, see the NFL.BACONWAVE wrote:Couldn't that also mean way more parity than ever before, thus talent spread out more evenly, which can make turnarounds harder in some cases?ml wave wrote:Lol, where's the "objective proof" that I claim to be first to market with statistical support?Baywave1 wrote:For someone who claims to be first to market with statistical support, I don't see any data points here. Without them it's just an opinion which is cool but that's all it is. I don't know the answer here. Please educate us as with objective proof to why you're right and the other folk(s) aren't.ml wave wrote:With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.
Anyway, you want data points to things which are common knowledge enough to the point that anyone even approaching a functioning understanding of sports wouldn't need data points? Whoops, guess I just answered my own question there.
NCAA FB scholarship limits:
pre-1973: unlimited
1973-77: 105
1978-91: 95
1992-present: 85
Grad transfer rule: 2011
If kids can go play at Nicholls State & get same exposure as at Tulane.....you don't think they will take the easier route via school work? Or say as a walk-on... what tuition do you think they will choose?
You're killin' me Smalls!!!
-
- President's Circle
- Posts: 4382
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:26 pm
Re: How long to keep coaches
Every year since the NFL went to a 12 team playoff there have been at least 4 teams in the playoffs that missed the playoffs in the previous seasonBACONWAVE wrote:So every year in the NFL there are several new teams in the playoffs? Don't think so.ml wave wrote:More parity means turnarounds are easier, see the NFL.BACONWAVE wrote:Couldn't that also mean way more parity than ever before, thus talent spread out more evenly, which can make turnarounds harder in some cases?ml wave wrote:Lol, where's the "objective proof" that I claim to be first to market with statistical support?Baywave1 wrote:For someone who claims to be first to market with statistical support, I don't see any data points here. Without them it's just an opinion which is cool but that's all it is. I don't know the answer here. Please educate us as with objective proof to why you're right and the other folk(s) aren't.ml wave wrote:With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.
Anyway, you want data points to things which are common knowledge enough to the point that anyone even approaching a functioning understanding of sports wouldn't need data points? Whoops, guess I just answered my own question there.
NCAA FB scholarship limits:
pre-1973: unlimited
1973-77: 105
1978-91: 95
1992-present: 85
Grad transfer rule: 2011
If kids can go play at Nicholls State & get same exposure as at Tulane.....you don't think they will take the easier route via school work? Or say as a walk-on... what tuition do you think they will choose?
- Roller
- Cornerstone
- Posts: 36994
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:30 pm
- Location: 9½° due east of The Tulane University of Louisiana
Re: How long to keep coaches
And that 6 inches was between the ears of an official who made an erroneous call for which there was insufficient video refutation.chitown4tu wrote:... Fritz was 6 inches away from a bowl team last year. ...
- TUPF
- Emerald Circle
- Posts: 21455
- Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:36 am
- Location: Maryland Eastern Shore & sometimes Philly
Re: How long to keep coaches
It still bothers me. Even as a HS official we have been taught to cheat up closer to the goal line when it is apparent that a game-deciding play is coming up. Goal line calls are strictly done by the head linesman and the line judge and they have to crash in on a close call. It takes confidence to make a close call and from what I remember there was a lot of equivocating.Roller wrote:And that 6 inches was between the ears of an official who made an erroneous call for which there was insufficient video refutation.chitown4tu wrote:... Fritz was 6 inches away from a bowl team last year. ...
Fan since 1974 living in Phelps seeing the upper bowl of Tulane Stadium
- gerryb323
- Regent's Circle
- Posts: 9660
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:18 am
- Location: There's no place like home
Re: How long to keep coaches
Yeah, you're just wrong there, baconvisualmagic wrote:Every year since the NFL went to a 12 team playoff there have been at least 4 teams in the playoffs that missed the playoffs in the previous seasonBACONWAVE wrote:So every year in the NFL there are several new teams in the playoffs? Don't think so.ml wave wrote:More parity means turnarounds are easier, see the NFL.BACONWAVE wrote:Couldn't that also mean way more parity than ever before, thus talent spread out more evenly, which can make turnarounds harder in some cases?ml wave wrote:Lol, where's the "objective proof" that I claim to be first to market with statistical support?Baywave1 wrote:For someone who claims to be first to market with statistical support, I don't see any data points here. Without them it's just an opinion which is cool but that's all it is. I don't know the answer here. Please educate us as with objective proof to why you're right and the other folk(s) aren't.ml wave wrote:With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.
Anyway, you want data points to things which are common knowledge enough to the point that anyone even approaching a functioning understanding of sports wouldn't need data points? Whoops, guess I just answered my own question there.
NCAA FB scholarship limits:
pre-1973: unlimited
1973-77: 105
1978-91: 95
1992-present: 85
Grad transfer rule: 2011
If kids can go play at Nicholls State & get same exposure as at Tulane.....you don't think they will take the easier route via school work? Or say as a walk-on... what tuition do you think they will choose?
Wandering around somewhere in a matchup zone
- Roller
- Cornerstone
- Posts: 36994
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:30 pm
- Location: 9½° due east of The Tulane University of Louisiana
Re: How long to keep coaches
I would think that if it's close enough that you'll need a review, you'd err on the side of the team that was trying to score, since the defensive team had allowed things to get to that point. That way, an inconclusive review would favor the team that made a drive, instead of the team that failed to prevent the drive. If the review proved conclusively that the ball didn't cross the goal, then macht nichts, you reverse the call and turn the ball over to the other team. Especially if time was expiring.TUPF wrote:It still bothers me. Even as a HS official we have been taught to cheat up closer to the goal line when it is apparent that a game-deciding play is coming up. Goal line calls are strictly done by the head linesman and the line judge and they have to crash in on a close call. It takes confidence to make a close call and from what I remember there was a lot of equivocating.Roller wrote:And that 6 inches was between the ears of an official who made an erroneous call for which there was insufficient video refutation.chitown4tu wrote:... Fritz was 6 inches away from a bowl team last year. ...
If I were a referee, that would definitely be a personal bias of mine, and I would be consciously aware of it on every very-short-yardage play.
Re: How long to keep coaches
So you hate goal line stands?Roller wrote:I would think that if it's close enough that you'll need a review, you'd err on the side of the team that was trying to score, since the defensive team had allowed things to get to that point. That way, an inconclusive review would favor the team that made a drive, instead of the team that failed to prevent the drive. If the review proved conclusively that the ball didn't cross the goal, then macht nichts, you reverse the call and turn the ball over to the other team. Especially if time was expiring.TUPF wrote:It still bothers me. Even as a HS official we have been taught to cheat up closer to the goal line when it is apparent that a game-deciding play is coming up. Goal line calls are strictly done by the head linesman and the line judge and they have to crash in on a close call. It takes confidence to make a close call and from what I remember there was a lot of equivocating.Roller wrote:And that 6 inches was between the ears of an official who made an erroneous call for which there was insufficient video refutation.chitown4tu wrote:... Fritz was 6 inches away from a bowl team last year. ...
If I were a referee, that would definitely be a personal bias of mine, and I would be consciously aware of it on every very-short-yardage play.
Using big words is not a personal attack
#cousins don't count
#cousins don't count
- Roller
- Cornerstone
- Posts: 36994
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:30 pm
- Location: 9½° due east of The Tulane University of Louisiana
Re: How long to keep coaches
Not in the least. But if it's a toss-up, I think the offense should get the benefit of the doubt. Unless, of course, they only got there by virtue of recovering a fumble on the 6-inch line, or something like that.windywave wrote:So you hate goal line stands?Roller wrote:I would think that if it's close enough that you'll need a review, you'd err on the side of the team that was trying to score, since the defensive team had allowed things to get to that point. That way, an inconclusive review would favor the team that made a drive, instead of the team that failed to prevent the drive. If the review proved conclusively that the ball didn't cross the goal, then macht nichts, you reverse the call and turn the ball over to the other team. Especially if time was expiring.TUPF wrote:It still bothers me. Even as a HS official we have been taught to cheat up closer to the goal line when it is apparent that a game-deciding play is coming up. Goal line calls are strictly done by the head linesman and the line judge and they have to crash in on a close call. It takes confidence to make a close call and from what I remember there was a lot of equivocating.Roller wrote:And that 6 inches was between the ears of an official who made an erroneous call for which there was insufficient video refutation.chitown4tu wrote:... Fritz was 6 inches away from a bowl team last year. ...
If I were a referee, that would definitely be a personal bias of mine, and I would be consciously aware of it on every very-short-yardage play.
- tulaneoutlaw
- Regent's Circle
- Posts: 8867
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:49 pm
- Location: Greeneville, TN
Re: How long to keep coaches
In the NFL at least they are supposed to signal a touchdown if it's close because that turns it into an automatic scoring review. At least that's what I heard several times last season. NCAA may be different, but regardless that guy cost us a bowl.
Re: How long to keep coaches
visualmagic wrote:Every year since the NFL went to a 12 team playoff there have been at least 4 teams in the playoffs that missed the playoffs in the previous seasonBACONWAVE wrote:So every year in the NFL there are several new teams in the playoffs? Don't think so.ml wave wrote:More parity means turnarounds are easier, see the NFL.BACONWAVE wrote:Couldn't that also mean way more parity than ever before, thus talent spread out more evenly, which can make turnarounds harder in some cases?ml wave wrote:Lol, where's the "objective proof" that I claim to be first to market with statistical support?Baywave1 wrote:For someone who claims to be first to market with statistical support, I don't see any data points here. Without them it's just an opinion which is cool but that's all it is. I don't know the answer here. Please educate us as with objective proof to why you're right and the other folk(s) aren't.ml wave wrote:With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.
Anyway, you want data points to things which are common knowledge enough to the point that anyone even approaching a functioning understanding of sports wouldn't need data points? Whoops, guess I just answered my own question there.
NCAA FB scholarship limits:
pre-1973: unlimited
1973-77: 105
1978-91: 95
1992-present: 85
Grad transfer rule: 2011
If kids can go play at Nicholls State & get same exposure as at Tulane.....you don't think they will take the easier route via school work? Or say as a walk-on... what tuition do you think they will choose?
I am not talking about the one year wonders. Why are there basically always the same teams getting to conference championships & Super Bowls? Shouldn't all that parity in the NFL allow teams like the Browns & Bengals get to a Super Bowl? Plus that playoff sample size is basically half the league & not NCAA where parity can hurt teams. Also what about my second part of statement? I am just pointing out the PARITY does not mean easier turnarounds. It can often make it harder since a lot of teams will just be mediocre.
You're killin' me Smalls!!!
-
- President's Circle
- Posts: 4382
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:26 pm
Re: How long to keep coaches
3 of the 4 teams in the conference championship games last year were not in the playoffs the year before. Eagles, Vikings and Jaguars.BACONWAVE wrote:visualmagic wrote:Every year since the NFL went to a 12 team playoff there have been at least 4 teams in the playoffs that missed the playoffs in the previous seasonBACONWAVE wrote:So every year in the NFL there are several new teams in the playoffs? Don't think so.ml wave wrote:More parity means turnarounds are easier, see the NFL.BACONWAVE wrote:Couldn't that also mean way more parity than ever before, thus talent spread out more evenly, which can make turnarounds harder in some cases?ml wave wrote:Lol, where's the "objective proof" that I claim to be first to market with statistical support?Baywave1 wrote:For someone who claims to be first to market with statistical support, I don't see any data points here. Without them it's just an opinion which is cool but that's all it is. I don't know the answer here. Please educate us as with objective proof to why you're right and the other folk(s) aren't.ml wave wrote:With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.
Anyway, you want data points to things which are common knowledge enough to the point that anyone even approaching a functioning understanding of sports wouldn't need data points? Whoops, guess I just answered my own question there.
NCAA FB scholarship limits:
pre-1973: unlimited
1973-77: 105
1978-91: 95
1992-present: 85
Grad transfer rule: 2011
If kids can go play at Nicholls State & get same exposure as at Tulane.....you don't think they will take the easier route via school work? Or say as a walk-on... what tuition do you think they will choose?
I am not talking about the one year wonders. Why are there basically always the same teams getting to conference championships & Super Bowls? Shouldn't all that parity in the NFL allow teams like the Browns & Bengals get to a Super Bowl? Plus that playoff sample size is basically half the league & not NCAA where parity can hurt teams. Also what about my second part of statement? I am just pointing out the PARITY does not mean easier turnarounds. It can often make it harder since a lot of teams will just be mediocre.
Parity isn't going to matter much for you if you're a terribly run organization like the Browns.
Teams like the Steelers and Patriots are always in the playoffs because they are well run organizations with great Quarterbacks.
As for the Nicholls state part of your statement, if Tulane cant out recruit a kid against Nicholls, then we should just drop the program. If we're relying on walk-ons to turn the program around, we're screwed anyway.
Re: How long to keep coaches
VM is correct, while the patriots do win the AFC East every year, parity is the rule in the other divisions.visualmagic wrote:3 of the 4 teams in the conference championship games last year were not in the playoffs the year before. Eagles, Vikings and Jaguars.BACONWAVE wrote:visualmagic wrote:Every year since the NFL went to a 12 team playoff there have been at least 4 teams in the playoffs that missed the playoffs in the previous seasonBACONWAVE wrote:So every year in the NFL there are several new teams in the playoffs? Don't think so.ml wave wrote:More parity means turnarounds are easier, see the NFL.BACONWAVE wrote:Couldn't that also mean way more parity than ever before, thus talent spread out more evenly, which can make turnarounds harder in some cases?ml wave wrote:Lol, where's the "objective proof" that I claim to be first to market with statistical support?Baywave1 wrote:For someone who claims to be first to market with statistical support, I don't see any data points here. Without them it's just an opinion which is cool but that's all it is. I don't know the answer here. Please educate us as with objective proof to why you're right and the other folk(s) aren't.ml wave wrote:With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.
Anyway, you want data points to things which are common knowledge enough to the point that anyone even approaching a functioning understanding of sports wouldn't need data points? Whoops, guess I just answered my own question there.
NCAA FB scholarship limits:
pre-1973: unlimited
1973-77: 105
1978-91: 95
1992-present: 85
Grad transfer rule: 2011
If kids can go play at Nicholls State & get same exposure as at Tulane.....you don't think they will take the easier route via school work? Or say as a walk-on... what tuition do you think they will choose?
I am not talking about the one year wonders. Why are there basically always the same teams getting to conference championships & Super Bowls? Shouldn't all that parity in the NFL allow teams like the Browns & Bengals get to a Super Bowl? Plus that playoff sample size is basically half the league & not NCAA where parity can hurt teams. Also what about my second part of statement? I am just pointing out the PARITY does not mean easier turnarounds. It can often make it harder since a lot of teams will just be mediocre.
Parity isn't going to matter much for you if you're a terribly run organization like the Browns.
Teams like the Steelers and Patriots are always in the playoffs because they are well run organizations with great Quarterbacks.
As for the Nicholls state part of your statement, if Tulane cant out recruit a kid against Nicholls, then we should just drop the program. If we're relying on walk-ons to turn the program around, we're screwed anyway.
Lets look at it..
NFC west: 4 different winners in 6 years.
NFC South: 3 different winners in 3 years.
NFC North: 2 different winners in 2 years.
NFC East: 3 different winners in 3 years.
AFC East: Pats have won 9 straight.
AFC North: 2 different winners in 3 years.
AFC South: 3 different winners in 4 years.
AFC West: 2 different winners in 3 years.
Parity is clearly the rule. The Pats are the clear exception. If you want to go further back your welcome. http://packers.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_N ... on_winners
Quote:The Good - TULANE
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM
Honorable mention - Navy
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM
Honorable mention - Navy
- gerryb323
- Regent's Circle
- Posts: 9660
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:18 am
- Location: There's no place like home
Re: How long to keep coaches
Of course, the NFL wants this and incourages it through its scheduling practices. The last place team in a division gets to play the last place team from the other 2 divisions, etc. I'm not sure that we can have the NCAA as a perfect parity system (in fact, we can't) but would we want it that way anyway? Isn't half the fun the underdog story? It's not that every team needs a chance for a championship. But the NFL cycles through 4 or 5 or 6 new playoff teams per year, which is good for keeping fans involved under the "wait til next year" principle.
Wandering around somewhere in a matchup zone
Re: How long to keep coaches
When Sheldon Hackney left Tulane for the University of Pennsylvania, Penn Football hadn't won an Ivy League title in decades. Within two years of President Hackney's arrival on Walnut St., Penn Football dominated the Ivy League for the remainder of his tenure and beyond.
The endowment for the University of Pennsylvania upon Hackney's arrival was $160 million.
The endowment at his exit (1981 - 1993), was over a billion dollars.
Am I saying that Penn Football was the cause of the boon in the endowment, no, but it was a cause.
When Hackney arrived in New Orleans, he (and new AD Hindman Wall), hired Larry Smith. Larry Smith fundamentally transformed the football program as no coach had in decades, and arguably ever since. Coach Smith left Tulane for the University of Arizona in May of 1980 just as Hackney left. Coincidence, no doubt.
The University of Pennsylvania & Tulane are similar in many ways and Sheldon Hackney understood this. He proved to be a remarkable fundraiser in energizing a distributed alumni base throughout the country & the world.
This is a great time for Tulane University & Tulane Athletics as Fitts, Dannen & Fritz are proving their competence from day-to-day. From what University did President Fitts come from.....?
If/when Coach Fritz decides to stay, or not, I have confidence in the decisions of our current administration regarding our Athletic Department. They get it.
The endowment for the University of Pennsylvania upon Hackney's arrival was $160 million.
The endowment at his exit (1981 - 1993), was over a billion dollars.
Am I saying that Penn Football was the cause of the boon in the endowment, no, but it was a cause.
When Hackney arrived in New Orleans, he (and new AD Hindman Wall), hired Larry Smith. Larry Smith fundamentally transformed the football program as no coach had in decades, and arguably ever since. Coach Smith left Tulane for the University of Arizona in May of 1980 just as Hackney left. Coincidence, no doubt.
The University of Pennsylvania & Tulane are similar in many ways and Sheldon Hackney understood this. He proved to be a remarkable fundraiser in energizing a distributed alumni base throughout the country & the world.
This is a great time for Tulane University & Tulane Athletics as Fitts, Dannen & Fritz are proving their competence from day-to-day. From what University did President Fitts come from.....?
If/when Coach Fritz decides to stay, or not, I have confidence in the decisions of our current administration regarding our Athletic Department. They get it.
Re: How long to keep coaches
Interesting analysis.wave97 wrote:When Sheldon Hackney left Tulane for the University of Pennsylvania, Penn Football hadn't won an Ivy League title in decades. Within two years of President Hackney's arrival on Walnut St., Penn Football dominated the Ivy League for the remainder of his tenure and beyond.
The endowment for the University of Pennsylvania upon Hackney's arrival was $160 million.
The endowment at his exit (1981 - 1993), was over a billion dollars.
Am I saying that Penn Football was the cause of the boon in the endowment, no, but it was a cause.
When Hackney arrived in New Orleans, he (and new AD Hindman Wall), hired Larry Smith. Larry Smith fundamentally transformed the football program as no coach had in decades, and arguably ever since. Coach Smith left Tulane for the University of Arizona in May of 1980 just as Hackney left. Coincidence, no doubt.
The University of Pennsylvania & Tulane are similar in many ways and Sheldon Hackney understood this. He proved to be a remarkable fundraiser in energizing a distributed alumni base throughout the country & the world.
This is a great time for Tulane University & Tulane Athletics as Fitts, Dannen & Fritz are proving their competence from day-to-day. From what University did President Fitts come from.....?
If/when Coach Fritz decides to stay, or not, I have confidence in the decisions of our current administration regarding our Athletic Department. They get it.
Using big words is not a personal attack
#cousins don't count
#cousins don't count
Re: How long to keep coaches
Consider two different coins. Coin 1 is evenly balanced and there is a 50/50 chance of landing on either heads or tails (parity/NFL). Coin 2 is uneven and chances of heads are, say, 65% (NCAA). If you flip each coin 10 consecutive times, it will be much easier for tails to prevail a majority of times with Coin 1.BACONWAVE wrote:visualmagic wrote:Every year since the NFL went to a 12 team playoff there have been at least 4 teams in the playoffs that missed the playoffs in the previous seasonBACONWAVE wrote:So every year in the NFL there are several new teams in the playoffs? Don't think so.ml wave wrote:More parity means turnarounds are easier, see the NFL.BACONWAVE wrote:Couldn't that also mean way more parity than ever before, thus talent spread out more evenly, which can make turnarounds harder in some cases?ml wave wrote:Lol, where's the "objective proof" that I claim to be first to market with statistical support?Baywave1 wrote:For someone who claims to be first to market with statistical support, I don't see any data points here. Without them it's just an opinion which is cool but that's all it is. I don't know the answer here. Please educate us as with objective proof to why you're right and the other folk(s) aren't.ml wave wrote:With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.
Anyway, you want data points to things which are common knowledge enough to the point that anyone even approaching a functioning understanding of sports wouldn't need data points? Whoops, guess I just answered my own question there.
NCAA FB scholarship limits:
pre-1973: unlimited
1973-77: 105
1978-91: 95
1992-present: 85
Grad transfer rule: 2011
If kids can go play at Nicholls State & get same exposure as at Tulane.....you don't think they will take the easier route via school work? Or say as a walk-on... what tuition do you think they will choose?
I am not talking about the one year wonders. Why are there basically always the same teams getting to conference championships & Super Bowls? Shouldn't all that parity in the NFL allow teams like the Browns & Bengals get to a Super Bowl? Plus that playoff sample size is basically half the league & not NCAA where parity can hurt teams. Also what about my second part of statement? I am just pointing out the PARITY does not mean easier turnarounds. It can often make it harder since a lot of teams will just be mediocre.
As for the second part of your statement, that kids will want to go to Nicholls over Tulane bc the school work is easier? Uhh, ok. That sounds like a kid that wouldn't stay eligible very long at Tulane anyway and good luck to them.
- Wandering Quaker
- President's Circle
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:02 pm
- Location: Fullerton, CA
Re: How long to keep coaches
Well, yes and no. I liked Uncle Sheldon--even though the experience might not have been mutual after a certain unfortunate incident in 1991 when a bunch of us seniors carried him around on our shoulders and then, er, accidentally dropped him. He liked athletics and thought they made part of a well-rounded university. And they did give alums something else to think about and thus another reason to contribute. I have trouble imagining that success on the football field really made much impact in contributions, though. Remember that Penn football since the dreaded Ivy League agreement could not (and still cannot) compete in post-season games. No bowls (until the I-AA/I-A split in 1979(?)) and no I-AA playoffs. When Sheldon came aboard, the schedule had already been scrubbed of the last vestiges of old scheduling habits. Navy had just dropped off, and it was clear that the team's only measure of success would be winning the League. That wasn't a lot to get fired up about. The program did improve, mostly by hiring much better coaches. But the real show in the athletic department was the basketball program, which had a Final Four appearance in 1979 and could still play in the Big Dance. They also were still playing the local Big Five teams, which offered real competition against programs with some national reputation (Villanova, Temple). I think the football success was less the result of special focus than the general philosophy of Solomon (channeling Clarence Day): "whatever they hand findest to do, Solomon said, do thy doggonedest."wave97 wrote:When Sheldon Hackney left Tulane for the University of Pennsylvania, Penn Football hadn't won an Ivy League title in decades. Within two years of President Hackney's arrival on Walnut St., Penn Football dominated the Ivy League for the remainder of his tenure and beyond.
The endowment for the University of Pennsylvania upon Hackney's arrival was $160 million.
The endowment at his exit (1981 - 1993), was over a billion dollars.
Am I saying that Penn Football was the cause of the boon in the endowment, no, but it was a cause.
When Hackney arrived in New Orleans, he (and new AD Hindman Wall), hired Larry Smith. Larry Smith fundamentally transformed the football program as no coach had in decades, and arguably ever since. Coach Smith left Tulane for the University of Arizona in May of 1980 just as Hackney left. Coincidence, no doubt.
The University of Pennsylvania & Tulane are similar in many ways and Sheldon Hackney understood this. He proved to be a remarkable fundraiser in energizing a distributed alumni base throughout the country & the world.
This is a great time for Tulane University & Tulane Athletics as Fitts, Dannen & Fritz are proving their competence from day-to-day. From what University did President Fitts come from.....?
If/when Coach Fritz decides to stay, or not, I have confidence in the decisions of our current administration regarding our Athletic Department. They get it.
None of this means, though, that for Tulane the impact can't be large. The opportunities for program success are much larger, and the fan base, like all Southern school fan bases, has a lot more grounding in the cult of the gridiron than Penn's has. And the locals in New Orleans and South Louisiana might pay more attention and support a program. See the turnstile numbers for the 1998 games, for example. The people attending those games weren't all TU grads. Penn lost its Philly fan base after the Second World War. They won't draw more than 2000-3000 people again ever for any game. I did UTV color broadcasting for the 1989 Thanksgiving game against Cornell that ESPN also broadcast to celebrate the ancient history of those programs playing before sellout crowds in the 1930's. The freezing weather didn't help, but it just wasn't an event for anyone. Dismal. That's what Uncle Sheldon inherited, and I can't image he ever thought it would generate a serious cash flow.