2019-20 Coaching Discussion/Carousel

[Deleted member 29907]

What is happening at Virginia Tech? Fuente was the hot, up and coming, can't miss coaching candidate and had a couple of good years when he first got there. Has recruiting fallen off?

From what I've seen and heard (no insiders any more) It appears Fuente has lost the team or at least some of it. From what I understand, some of the Beamer holdovers did not want to go to a bowl last year and were telling teammates to tank the final game. Watching them play this year, they do not have any real leadership on the team. The QB, Willis, is pretty much like Peters, but can run better. The team is also young - i think - without looking it up- they are pretty much like we were last year re: upper classmen. Add to that Foster leaving (and maybe has been know for longer than announced - could have hurt recruiting some). There have also been without their best receiver and running back depth has been hurting as well as OLine. All together, a bit of a mess this year.

Not sure what was on ESPN.

 

[IllinoisRebel]

Many think the Ole Miss job will be available. I really don’t think it will as the Rebels are just coming off probation, plus they have an interim AD. The Rebs better players are young and stood out yesterday versus Alabama. I believe this will give Matt Luke at least a 3rd year. Plus the experiment of Rich Rod as OC and Mike MacIntyre as DC is a great idea for developing the younger players. Much better than the “nepotism” plan!!!

 

[BZuppke]

I think it’s less about the buyout at this point and more about Whitman’s ability to admit his folly.

I don’t think this is the case with Whitman although it is typically the case with an AD. I think Josh will make the change if he feels it’s necessary.

 

[RML]

I don’t think this is the case with Whitman although it is typically the case with an AD. I think Josh will make the change if he feels it’s necessary.

I agree. And Josh doesn't have to "admit" that hiring Lovie was folly. It was a good risk that didn't work out.
Since we need a minor miracle, I might be OK with a similar risk with Lovie's replacement.

 

[pvaughn8]

I agree. And Josh doesn't have to "admit" that hiring Lovie was folly. It was a good risk that didn't work out.
Since we need a minor miracle, I might be OK with a similar risk with Lovie's replacement.

The only folly would be investing more years into a failing project.

 

[JJE]

The only folly would be investing more years into a failing project.

Agreed. Even people who were skeptical about the Lovie hire for the most part don't fault Whitman for taking a gamble and in the very least getting people talking about Illinois again. I don't have any issues with Whitman hiring Lovie, I don't have any issues with Whitman giving him the faux extension. I think he is doing everything an AD should do to make his football coach successful.
That said, if Lovie goes 3-9 or 4-8; I think JW should pull the plug. I don't think Whitman is on any kind of hot seat at all. However, you triple down on Lovie and it goes south in 2020, then I think Whitman should feel SOME pressure.
If a new coach with a half a brain came in next year with a majority of this roster and schedule he should win 6-7 games.
If I'm Whitman I make the move and hope the new coach can come in and have success right away.

 

[illiniwil]

don't kid yourself. if we make the change, (and we have to) It will be a long and painful process.
whoever comes in will bring his own staff, start recruiting his guys and there will be a significant exodus
of the younger players. you might keep the juniors and seniors who are afraid of having to sit a year,
but it will be hard to keep the grad-students too. Success right away is dreaming.

 

[illinoistradition]

don't kid yourself. if we make the change, (and we have to) It will be a long and painful process.
whoever comes in will bring his own staff, start recruiting his guys and there will be a significant exodus
of the younger players. you might keep the juniors and seniors who are afraid of having to sit a year,
but it will be hard to keep the grad-students too. Success right away is dreaming.

How many people bolted when Lovie got hired? I realize it was later in the cycle so it is somewhat apples to oranges, but most kids stuck around. It was only when the staff started pushing kids out they didn't want to keep that the number of transfers got ridiculous.

 

[pvaughn8]

don't kid yourself. if we make the change, (and we have to) It will be a long and painful process.
whoever comes in will bring his own staff, start recruiting his guys and there will be a significant exodus
of the younger players. you might keep the juniors and seniors who are afraid of having to sit a year,
but it will be hard to keep the grad-students too. Success right away is dreaming.

At this point I have more hope in a new coach year 1 than I do a magical turnaround with the current staff.

 

[ChiefGritty]

How many people bolted when Lovie got hired? I realize it was later in the cycle so it is somewhat apples to oranges, but most kids stuck around. It was only when the staff started pushing kids out they didn't want to keep that the number of transfers got ridiculous.

Yup. With both current players and incoming recruits, there's always less turnover than you'd think in a coaching change.

At this point I have more hope in a new coach year 1 than I do a magical turnaround with the current staff.

I think that's absolutely a plausible way to look at it. Talk to me in 6 weeks and that might be the only logical way to look at it by that point.

But the roster teardown Lovie initiated was counterproductive and unnecessary, and shouldn't be the plan going forward under any coach. That fear is occupying too large of a mindshare around here.

Lovie put terrible teams on the field initially on purpose and for no good reason. Beckman put terrible teams on the field initially because he was a bad coach and had no idea what he was doing with his initial staff. Zook put terrible teams on the field initially because he was a bad coach and his own excellent recruiting was the only factor that was ever going to give him a chance. Turner put terrible teams on the field initially because he had almost nothing to work with.

Our 2020 coach, whoever that is, is going to have plenty to work with. And they should.

 

[ILFaninFL]

I think that's absolutely a plausible way to look at it. Talk to me in 6 weeks and that might be the only logical way to look at it by that point.

But the roster teardown Lovie initiated was counterproductive and unnecessary, and shouldn't be the plan going forward under any coach. That fear is occupying too large of a mindshare around here.

Lovie put terrible teams on the field initially on purpose and for no good reason. Beckman put terrible teams on the field initially because he was a bad coach and had no idea what he was doing with his initial staff. Zook put terrible teams on the field initially because he was a bad coach and his own excellent recruiting was the only factor that was ever going to give him a chance. Turner put terrible teams on the field initially because he had almost nothing to work with.

Our 2020 coach, whoever that is, is going to have plenty to work with. And they should.

My head understands the need for patients. Lovie has had an extra week to prepare the troops for Minnesota. My gut tells me that if they give up as many yards as the did in the last two games (which I think they should have won) then I will be jumping off this sinking ship. At this point, Minnesota is a must win in my opinion.

 

[Calvin]

Lovie's stands at $4 million.

...
If Whitman wants to move on, Lovie's gone, the buyout won't stand in his way.

Didn't know this, and thought it was worse. Props to Whitman. I personally can't imagine people will want to keep him given how little excitement there is around the program after the amount of time he's had to show progress. Good guy to have as coach in a lot of ways, but at some point you have to generate excitement and put butts in the seats. Whether that's a few star players, or a decent team, we haven't really accomplished that in Lovie's time here.

 

[Ander1345]

My head understands the need for patients. Lovie has had an extra week to prepare the troops for Minnesota. My gut tells me that if they give up as many yards as the did in the last two games (which I think they should have won) then I will be jumping off this sinking ship. At this point, Minnesota is a must win in my opinion.

Yes, they should have won the Nebraska game. Any team spotted 4 extra possessions should have won that game.

That's precisely the problem. This game wasn't close even though we lost by four. They cleaned up the penalties but gave up a ton of yards and couldn't get off the field on third down. They found other ways to lose the game after shoring up other areas. A reasonably competitive team wins that game handily. We are barely a complete team.

 

[Hoppy2105]

I would like to point out this anecdote that makes me think Lovie isn’t safe even with 5 wins.

In John Groce’s last season, it looked like he was doomed for an inevitable firing. But he caught lightning in a bottle and went on a run to close out the season. All the way to the point of getting us back into the Tourney bubble conversation. (We were 14-12 and then wins at Iowa/Nebby and home wins vs NW and MSU made us 18-12)

Then a 3 point loss to Rutgers ruined it all. (Followed by a 20 point thrashing by Michigan in the BTT)

People thought Groce might be retained because he put on a good performance to close out the season and ALMOST got us to where we wanted to go and he had a good recruiting class coming in. Plus, he and JW were BUDS, from what we could tell with the hugs and celebrations they shared.

But, in the end he was fired. Not just because of Rutgers (Whitman said it wasn’t just that game that made his decision for him) but because of how the entire program looked. We were getting handed double digit losses consistently and not making the tourney. We were a laughing stock.

All this to say, Whitman may be more robotic with these decisions then what we think. If we get absolutely rolled by UM, Iowa, Wisky, and give up 500+ yards to everyone from here on out, I don’t think it will matter if we luck our way to 5-7.

Whitman knows when something doesn’t look right.

 

[Ander1345]

Agreed.

Bears fired Lovie when he finished 10-6.

Tampa Bay fired Lovie in the middle of what looked like an upswing.

We won't make a move in the middle of a flat line?

 

[Subortus]

I'm among the group of people who were thrilled by the hiring of Lovie Smith but eventually concluded that it was a "failed experiment". Who would have anticipated that Lovie Smith would season-after-season be unable to coach a successful defense? Who would have anticipated that he would be unable or unwilling to assemble a top-tier staff of assistants?
No more excuses. It's time to pull the plug. By the way, the chatter on these sites will focus on names of potential head coaches, but none of those people should be hired unless they can make a convincing case that they will be able to land top assistants who are experienced/successful recruiters and who know how to effectively coach college-aged athletes.

 

[Hoppy2105]

You know who has a high probability of bringing his assistants with him because there aren’t as many places for said assistants to utilize the type of ball they’ve been teaching?

A triple option coach. eace:

#StirThatPot

 

[Illwinsagain]

You know who has a high probability of bringing his assistants with him because there aren’t as many places for said assistants to utilize the type of ball they’ve been teaching?

A triple option coach. eace:

#StirThatPot

Of course, then the current school has more incentive to offer the OC the head job, so as to not transition out of the triple option....just sayin".

 

[ChiefGritty]

Of course, then the current school has more incentive to offer the OC the head job, so as to not transition out of the triple option....just sayin".

Brent Davis, current OC would definitely be an obvious candidate to replace Monken as Army head coach. So would Ivin Jasper, who was Paul Johnson's QB coach at Navy and has been OC there since Johnson left. Paul Johnson himself might have interest in the job. And then there's Jay Bateman, who was outstanding as Monken's DC there (he was a Broyles Award finalist), until he left for North Carolina this offseason, where he's again doing a terrific job.

There's also Mike Sewak who replaced Johnson as HC at Georgia Southern and then was his OL coach at Georgia Tech and is currently jobless. And also Brian Bohannon who was Johnson's assistant at Navy and GT now crushing it in FCS with Kennesaw State.

There's your candidate list for Army, plus any of those guys would be prime candidates for Monken's hypothetical coordinators at Illinois. Bateman would be a grand slam DC, but UNC wouldn't let him go without a fight.

 

[BZuppke]

I’ve always said the best hire is a guy who has been a head coach at the P5 college level and been successful. Mike White and Mackovic fit that bill and no hire since has. Beckman proved he didn’t belong on this stage and Zook was phenomenally unsuccessful at Florida (based on their talent). Look at Lou Holtz at Minnesota, Hayden Fry at Iowa and others. This is why a Les Miles type is a good hire although it may be too big a climb at Kansas for him.

 

[ChiefGritty]

I’ve always said the best hire is a guy who has been a head coach at the P5 college level and been successful. Mike White and Mackovic fit that bill and no hire since has....Zook was phenomenally unsuccessful at Florida (based on their talent).

Ehhhh, I mean, I get where you're trying to go with this, but ultimately you're really kind of splitting hairs between Mike White at Cal, John Mackovic at Wake Forest, and Ron Zook at Florida.

In none of the three cases did Illinois attract a sitting coach at another major conference school who wanted to keep them. And you zoom out beyond Illinois, and the record of hires like that, retreads essentially, is not all that good.

(Hmm, the raw percentages of which kinds of new hires succeed? That could be a fun hour's project. Stay tuned.)

 

[DaChief4ever]

don't kid yourself. if we make the change, (and we have to) It will be a long and painful process.
whoever comes in will bring his own staff, start recruiting his guys and there will be a significant exodus
of the younger players. you might keep the juniors and seniors who are afraid of having to sit a year,
but it will be hard to keep the grad-students too. Success right away is dreaming.

Same argument we hear all the time.....as if the team we have now is somehow upper Big Ten level. WE lose absolutely nothing...we have nothing, so all the talk of years to rebuild have no value....we've had this tired argument for way too long. If we win 4 games this year and change coaches......I'll be we would be a 4 game winner next year regardless of who comes in.

 

[Twangers]

Yup. With both current players and incoming recruits, there's always less turnover than you'd think in a coaching change.



I think that's absolutely a plausible way to look at it. Talk to me in 6 weeks and that might be the only logical way to look at it by that point.

But the roster teardown Lovie initiated was counterproductive and unnecessary, and shouldn't be the plan going forward under any coach. That fear is occupying too large of a mindshare around here.

Lovie put terrible teams on the field initially on purpose and for no good reason. Beckman put terrible teams on the field initially because he was a bad coach and had no idea what he was doing with his initial staff. Zook put terrible teams on the field initially because he was a bad coach and his own excellent recruiting was the only factor that was ever going to give him a chance. Turner put terrible teams on the field initially because he had almost nothing to work with.

Our 2020 coach, whoever that is, is going to have plenty to work with. And they should.

This has been true in the past but going forward, I don't know that we can view it like this. Multiple kids used "my coach isn't here anymore" as their primary basis for a hardship waiver and had them granted. In prior years you were kinda stuck. Now, with the NCAA seemingly incapable or regulating the market or simply asleep at the wheel, all bets are kinda off as to how kids view coaching changes.

Frankly, all bets are off even if Lovie stays.

 

[ChiefGritty]

Frankly, all bets are off even if Lovie stays.

Well that kinda makes the point, right?

The base rate of transfer activity is higher in college football than it used to be. But I think coaching changes remain overrated in their anticipated effect on the rate of transfers.

 

[Twangers]

Well that kinda makes the point, right?

The base rate of transfer activity is higher in college football than it used to be. But I think coaching changes remain overrated in their anticipated effect on the rate of transfers.

Fair to an extent. My concern is that kids will and their parents will start tracking which waiver claim arguments work and which don't. The "my coach isn't here anymore" line worked. It could have an impact.

The NCAA needs to figure out what they're doing here. The transfer market is a colossal nightmare.