Houston hires OL coach Eman Naghavi

[long green]

Question: If Tulane spends in the top 2 or 3 of the American...wouldn't the school be in the top 3, 4 or 5 spends of the G5 overall?

Probably. Liberty spends a ton but that's it in cusa. Nobody in mac would be higher. Maybe sdsu and Boise in mwc are close. Possibly a belt team or two though not likely at this point.

No one in the MAC would be higher? I’d be shocked if anyone there was near us.

[tulaneoutlaw]

Question: If Tulane spends in the top 2 or 3 of the American...wouldn't the school be in the top 3, 4 or 5 spends of the G5 overall?

Probably. Liberty spends a ton but that's it in cusa. Nobody in mac would be higher. Maybe sdsu and Boise in mwc are close. Possibly a belt team or two though not likely at this point.

No one in the MAC would be higher? I’d be shocked if anyone there was near us.

That's fair and I agree. I was just going down the list of possibilities to answer the question

[Poseidon]

I lot of people are treating this like something bad happened that is a sign of some disfunction or inherent program money problem. Perhaps he would just rather be at Houston for his own personal reasons. There is a bit of narrcisim around on here.

Secondly when you weigh that against the fact that we stole Marshall's DC straight up we are still far ahead in the books this off-season.

[PeteRasche]

Poseidon, I think it's just disappointment that every cog from this past season that leaves Tulane makes it less likely we have repeated success, simply because it throws out the "smooth continuity" factor.

[Wandering Quaker]

That's it, Pete. We know how important a good record is next year and remember (1) our troubles getting good OL into the program and (2) the difficulty in getting the OL together during most years. I don't think anyone thinks Fritz is screwing this up. We're still Tulane fans: we're not used to sustained success and won't believe it until we see it. :)

[WaveProf]

People seem obsessed with calling Houston a “fake” P5. As of next year they are less fake than a lot of teams like Wake or Vandy

[PeteRasche]

People seem obsessed with calling Houston a “fake” P5. As of next year they are less fake than a lot of teams like Wake or Vandy

If they get to the XII and dominate and suddenly Holgerson appears to be a coaching genius then I'll take it back... and call the entire conference a fake P5.

[Marathon Wave]

Poseidon, I think it's just disappointment that every cog from this past season that leaves Tulane makes it less likely we have repeated success, simply because it throws out the "smooth continuity" factor.

That's a bit true, Pete. But we had pretty good success this year - even with some brand-new coaches. So, why can't another "brand-new coach" help continuity? I'm thinking positively.

[PeteRasche]

Poseidon, I think it's just disappointment that every cog from this past season that leaves Tulane makes it less likely we have repeated success, simply because it throws out the "smooth continuity" factor.

That's a bit true, Pete. But we had pretty good success this year - even with some brand-new coaches. So, why can't another "brand-new coach" help continuity? I'm thinking positively.

Oh, we absolutely could and that's absolutely true. I'm just saying it increases risk. If we had all the same staff we'd know what we were getting and nothing would change. Now there's the risk that whatever the new coach brings doesn't work, the risk that the players don't get along with the coach or don't buy in, or even the risk that so much time is spent by the coach getting accustomed to how Fritz does things, that time is lost coaching.

Again, it's all just risks, none of these could happen and all could be fine. But they are all unknowns compared to if all the same staff stayed. Watching coaches churn and happily saying "no problem, all is well" is unrealistically ignoring the risks. Case in point, lots of people took that stance pre-2021.

[GreenWave80]

Poseidon, I think it's just disappointment that every cog from this past season that leaves Tulane makes it less likely we have repeated success, simply because it throws out the "smooth continuity" factor.

That's a bit true, Pete. But we had pretty good success this year - even with some brand-new coaches. So, why can't another "brand-new coach" help continuity? I'm thinking positively.

Oh, we absolutely could and that's absolutely true. I'm just saying it increases risk. If we had all the same staff we'd know what we were getting and nothing would change. Now there's the risk that whatever the new coach brings doesn't work, the risk that the players don't get along with the coach or don't buy in, or even the risk that so much time is spent by the coach getting accustomed to how Fritz does things, that time is lost coaching.

Again, it's all just risks, none of these could happen and all could be fine. But they are all unknowns compared to if all the same staff stayed. Watching coaches churn and happily saying "no problem, all is well" is unrealistically ignoring the risks. Case in point, lots of people took that stance pre-2021.

Doesn't seem to affect teams like Alabama, Ohio State and LSU very much.

[Baywave1]

As concerns coaches, especially assistants, we need to aspire to reloading them not rebuilding staffs. That’s all up to Willie

[PeteRasche]

Poseidon, I think it's just disappointment that every cog from this past season that leaves Tulane makes it less likely we have repeated success, simply because it throws out the "smooth continuity" factor.

That's a bit true, Pete. But we had pretty good success this year - even with some brand-new coaches. So, why can't another "brand-new coach" help continuity? I'm thinking positively.

Oh, we absolutely could and that's absolutely true. I'm just saying it increases risk. If we had all the same staff we'd know what we were getting and nothing would change. Now there's the risk that whatever the new coach brings doesn't work, the risk that the players don't get along with the coach or don't buy in, or even the risk that so much time is spent by the coach getting accustomed to how Fritz does things, that time is lost coaching.

Again, it's all just risks, none of these could happen and all could be fine. But they are all unknowns compared to if all the same staff stayed. Watching coaches churn and happily saying "no problem, all is well" is unrealistically ignoring the risks. Case in point, lots of people took that stance pre-2021.

Doesn't seem to affect teams like Alabama, Ohio State and LSU very much.

Um ... well ... those were bad examples... literally all three of them have had problems in the past few years where the blame was directly pointed at new assistants who "were not working out as hoped". Yeah, it's relative (a 2-loss year and missing the CFP is not acceptable at Alabama, losing to Michigan alone is not acceptable at Ohio State, etc.), but Alabama fans wanted to run their OC out of town halfway through this past year, and Ohio State's DC was on a hotseat the way Michigan blew them out (after last year, they ran the previous one out). LSU... look no further than how LSU did after losing assistants post-2019 championship.

Again though, I am not saying we should all be freaked out, nor that we should be expecting 100% staff retention after the season we had. It was just explaining why it's reasonable thinking to be at least a little worried. It's just "one more little thing" that *could* go wrong next year.

[exprof]

Am I the only one who sees the irony here? We have talked and talked about how bad our OL has been for many years, yet we keep losing OL coaches!
We lost one to FSU, who people are talking about as a future Head coach. we have lost others along the way. Yet we keep saying how bad our OL is.
If they are so bad how is it that teams keep hiring them away. I can't seem to figure this out. Maybe someone here has a thought.

[CT Wave]

Am I the only one who sees the irony here? We have talked and talked about how bad our OL has been for many years, yet we keep losing OL coaches!
We lost one to FSU, who people are talking about as a future Head coach. we have lost others along the way. Yet we keep saying how bad our OL is.
If they are so bad how is it that teams keep hiring them away. I can't seem to figure this out. Maybe someone here has a thought.

Well, exprof, an OL and an OL Coach are two different things. I could elaborate, but I think the interested student can figure this out.

[wavedom]

I know we had one for sure that was here very briefly in the spring and then got a P5 job and I think we had one other one do the same. When Long was here that happened and he had brought Watt in as a grad asst. And then he got the OL job when that OL coach left in the spring. The line play was bad and Watt wasn't retained. So they weren't all hired away after doing a good job here.

[GretnaGrn]

Assistants move regardless of salary pool. While I would rather have kept him, as others have mentioned he has family in the Houston area and it appears he's getting a least a bit of a promotion to co-OC.

Fritz hired him, Fritz can replace him. Again, I would rather he stayed and his work with the OL this year was remarkable but let's hold the wailing and gnashing of teeth until we see the replacement; Fritz certainly did well with replacing Hampton, after all.

[Marathon Wave]

Poseidon, I think it's just disappointment that every cog from this past season that leaves Tulane makes it less likely we have repeated success, simply because it throws out the "smooth continuity" factor.

That's a bit true, Pete. But we had pretty good success this year - even with some brand-new coaches. So, why can't another "brand-new coach" help continuity? I'm thinking positively.

Oh, we absolutely could and that's absolutely true. I'm just saying it increases risk. If we had all the same staff we'd know what we were getting and nothing would change. Now there's the risk that whatever the new coach brings doesn't work, the risk that the players don't get along with the coach or don't buy in, or even the risk that so much time is spent by the coach getting accustomed to how Fritz does things, that time is lost coaching.

Again, it's all just risks, none of these could happen and all could be fine. But they are all unknowns compared to if all the same staff stayed. Watching coaches churn and happily saying "no problem, all is well" is unrealistically ignoring the risks. Case in point, lots of people took that stance pre-2021.

Doesn't seem to affect teams like Alabama, Ohio State and LSU very much.

Um ... well ... those were bad examples... literally all three of them have had problems in the past few years where the blame was directly pointed at new assistants who "were not working out as hoped". Yeah, it's relative (a 2-loss year and missing the CFP is not acceptable at Alabama, losing to Michigan alone is not acceptable at Ohio State, etc.), but Alabama fans wanted to run their OC out of town halfway through this past year, and Ohio State's DC was on a hotseat the way Michigan blew them out (after last year, they ran the previous one out). LSU... look no further than how LSU did after losing assistants post-2019 championship.

Again though, I am not saying we should all be freaked out, nor that we should be expecting 100% staff retention after the season we had. It was just explaining why it's reasonable thinking to be at least a little worried. It's just "one more little thing" that *could* go wrong next year.

Or not.