As a coach, who was better: Broyles or Holtz?

[Ben]

Thinking about their overall coaching resume, who would you say was the better coach?

[nchogg]

If Holtz had the opportunity to Coach the hogs longer. We will never know.

[GuvHog]

Broyles was the better coach and it isn't close. Holtz was a great game day and field coach but he was a poor recruiter.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

I'm betting Broyles was at least smarter.

Holtz was a great game day and field coach but he was a poor recruiter.

I often wonder that this is the reason Broyles jumped ship when he did.  Just about the time CFB was becoming fully integrated.  When recruiting got much, much more difficult for Fayetteville, AR.

[Inhogswetrust]

I'm betting Broyles was at least smarter.

I often wonder that this is the reason Broyles jumped ship when he did.  Just about the time CFB was becoming fully integrated.  When recruiting got much, much more difficult for Fayetteville, AR.

Stupid....if it had gotten harder for Fayetteville it would have gotten just as hard for a lot of college towns.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Stupid....if it had gotten harder for Fayetteville it would have gotten just as hard for a lot of college towns.

Sure, it got harder for many, but I think there's a correlation with our program's success, like other's, and full integration. 

[Inhogswetrust]

Sure, it got harder for many, but I think there's a correlation with our program's success, like other's, and full integration. 

Integration didn't hurt any other schools in a town with a small percentage of blacks living there.

[Bacons Rebellion]

I arrived in Fayetteville for the same football season as Holtz. He stayed one year longer than me and I was a huge Holtz fan.

That said, Holtz never built our program or any program at any of his stops (NCState, NY, Arkansas, Minnesota, Notre Dame). His best performance was at NC State where he turned 3-8 around to 8-3-1 his first season, but he beat only one ranked team, West Virginia in the Peach Bowl (before that was a big bowl). At Arkansas he inherited a 5-5-1 team from Broyles' exit year, but the 1976 cannot be rivalled in Hog history for injuries (we started 5-1 and didn't win again). By the end of the year we were down to quarterback #4 and other positions were almost as bad.

Broyles took our program from a lower level (three straight 6-4 seasons prior) and quickly put it to a higher level. Holtz never won an SWC championship and never went to the Cotton Bowl. The program slid steadily from his first year.

Broyles won a national championship at Arkansas and threatened several other times. Holtz won a national championship at Notre Dame. Compare that for a moment.

I still might take Holtz on game day, but I'll go with Broyles as a better head coach.

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Integration didn't hurt any other schools in a town with a small percentage of blacks living there.

It didn't hurt anyone, but it helped some more than others.  It's not hard to see that we don't have access to the number of top SEC caliber players that much of our competition does.  Average coaching aside, talent has been the primary road block for us over the last few decades.  Broyles was a fantastic coach and smart dude.  I've just assumed he saw what was coming, and maybe, just maybe he got out while the get'n was good.     

[Bubba's Bruisers]

Integration didn't hurt any other schools in a town with a small percentage of blacks living there.

And I'm not referring to Fayetteville having a small % of African Americans.  I'm referring to Fayetteville's location relative to where high concentrations of African Americans reside.  It's pretty far away.  And I don't think it's a stretch to point to that as being the primary reason for UA's largely mediocre results since the 70's...or at least during our SEC tenure.

Integration was a necessary and fantastic achievement for mankind, but it benefited some programs much more that others.

[Inhogswetrust]

And I'm not referring to Fayetteville having a small % of African Americans.  I'm referring to Fayetteville's location relative to where high concentrations of African Americans reside.  It's pretty far away.  And I don't think it's a stretch to point to that as being the primary reason for UA's largely mediocre results since the 70's...or at least during our SEC tenure.

Integration was a necessary and fantastic achievement for mankind, but it benefited some programs much more that others.

Quite a few places are far away from high concentrations of Blacks living there. Yet teams in those areas have a lot of Black football players. The scholarship limits and ease of travel helps counteract that demographic of not being close to where a lot of Blacks live in high numbers.

[Grizzlyfan]

When I hear talk of who was the greatest anything in college football I have a very clear defining point.  And that point is the time that black men started to fully participate on the varsity teams.  I realize that the color barrier was broken at Arkansas in 1965 when Darrel Brown walked on, but it wasn't until 1970 that Jon Richardson actually played with the varsity.  And another few years until you could consider the team fully integrated. And that's about the same timeframe for most teams across the south.   Broyles retired from coaching in 1974.

So anybody that did the majority of their playing or coaching before the game became fully integrated gets an asterisk in my book.

[1highhog]

The one thing about Broyles was that he knew talent, as in coaches, assistant coaches.  Broyles had IMHO the best assistant coaches year in and out, when he lost one to become a head coach elsewhere, he just plugged in another.  His best assistant IMO, Wilson Matthews, is the one seen standing by Frank Broyles side on the Broyles Award.  Broyles was able to hold onto Matthews all the way though to 1969.  What he done as a High School Coach makes Malazahn look pale.

[Hogs33]

Holtz was a good Coach. He was just a poor recruiter. Though he did have people like Monte Kiffin and Pete Carroll under him in 77.

[RedSkiesAtNightHog]

When I hear talk of who was the greatest anything in college football I have a very clear defining point.  And that point is the time that black men started to fully participate on the varsity teams.  I realize that the color barrier was broken at Arkansas in 1965 when Darrel Brown walked on, but it wasn't until 1970 that Jon Richardson actually played with the varsity.  And another few years until you could consider the team fully integrated. And that's about the same timeframe for most teams across the south.   Broyles retired from coaching in 1974.

So anybody that did the majority of their playing or coaching before the game became fully integrated gets an asterisk in my book.

Coach Broyles retired in 1976, not 1974.  Think about some of the excellent black athletes that Frank Broyles recruited and Lou Holtz inherited on the 1977 Orange Bowl Championship team:  Jimmy Walker, Ben Cowins, Bobby Duckworth, Roland Sales, Vaughan Lusby, Michael Forrest, Barnabas White, Donny Bobo, Gary Stiggers, Charles Clay, Leotis Harris, Reggie Freeman.  That team was loaded with talent all recruited by Frank Broyles and his staff.  As you can see, many of the key contributors were black athletes recruited in the 1973 - 1976 time period. 

I always wondered if Coach Broyles regretted that he retired to early.  The 1978 team was loaded as well and even was preseason #1 according to Sports Illustrated.  There is no doubt in my mind Broyles would have a great records in 1977 and 1978. 

[Grizzlyfan]

Coach Broyles retired in 1976, not 1974.  Think about some of the excellent black athletes that Frank Broyles recruited and Lou Holtz inherited on the 1977 Orange Bowl Championship team:  Jimmy Walker, Ben Cowins, Bobby Duckworth, Roland Sales, Vaughan Lusby, Michael Forrest, Barnabas White, Donny Bobo, Gary Stiggers, Charles Clay, Leotis Harris, Reggie Freeman.  That team was loaded with talent all recruited by Frank Broyles and his staff.  As you can see, many of the key contributors were black athletes recruited in the 1973 - 1976 time period. 

I always wondered if Coach Broyles regretted that he retired to early.  The 1978 team was loaded as well and even was preseason #1 according to Sports Illustrated.  There is no doubt in my mind Broyles would have a great records in 1977 and 1978.

I'm not insinuating that Broyles would have had any problem (hesitation) in recruiting black athletes.  I just put an asterisk beside any "greatest" designation in college football if most or all of the performance happened before the game became integrated.

[Pudgepork]

Coach Broyles could out recruit Coach Holtz anytime anywhere.  Coach Broyles loves and lives for Arkansas.  Arkansas was a stepping stone and a punchline for Holtz.

In the list of talented Broyles recruits, add Jerry Eckwood.  Seems he was a tad sought after.

[Bacons Rebellion]

When I hear talk of who was the greatest anything in college football I have a very clear defining point.  And that point is the time that black men started to fully participate on the varsity teams.  I realize that the color barrier was broken at Arkansas in 1965 when Darrel Brown walked on, but it wasn't until 1970 that Jon Richardson actually played with the varsity.  And another few years until you could consider the team fully integrated. And that's about the same timeframe for most teams across the south.   Broyles retired from coaching in 1974.

So anybody that did the majority of their playing or coaching before the game became fully integrated gets an asterisk in my book.

Posters who think Broyles retired from coaching in 1974 get an asterisk in my book.

[DeltaBoy]

Looking back Frank should have stayed till at least 1980.

[lakecityhog]

FRANK IS MUCH SMARTER THAN MOST PEOPLE KNOW.
I have always thought the he KNEW what was coming and wanted to get Holtz off on the right foot. Stepping in for a legend with a banner 1st season was crucial for Holtz. He gave Lou the tools to possibly win it all.

[HognitiveDissonance]

Thinking about their overall coaching resume, who would you say was the better coach?

You probably meant their entire career which includes Holtz's stint at Notre Dame, but it doesn't say that explicitly.
So I'm only concerned with their careers at Arkansas.
In that light, Broyles has to be ranked higher.
He is the coach that 'created' modern day Arkansas football as we know it.
He also had the third winning-est program of the 60s behind only Texas and Alabama.
He also led the school to its highest moment in 1964.

[Sweet Feet]

Broyles: 149-62-6 (70%), 4-6 Bowl Record, 3-5 in Major Bowls,
AFCA Coach of the Year (1964)
Sporting News College Football COY (1964)
SWC Coach of the Year (1964)

Holtz: 249-132-7 378 (67%), 12-8-1 Bowl Record, 6-4 in Major Bowls,
2x Paul "Bear" Bryant Award (1977, 1988)
2x Eddie Robinson Coach of the Year (1977, 1988)
2x Sporting News College Football COY (1977, 1988)
Walter Camp Coach of the Year Award (1977)
ACC Coach of the Year (1972)
SEC Coach of the Year (2000)

Contrary to the popular answer, Holtz was the better coach

[3kgthog]

Could Broyles have done what Lou did at South Carolina? Doubtful.

It's Lou by a mile.

[Inhogswetrust]

Broyles: 149-62-6 (70%), 4-6 Bowl Record, 3-5 in Major Bowls,
AFCA Coach of the Year (1964)
Sporting News College Football COY (1964)
SWC Coach of the Year (1964)

Holtz: 249-132-7 378 (67%), 12-8-1 Bowl Record, 6-4 in Major Bowls,
2x Paul "Bear" Bryant Award (1977, 1988)
2x Eddie Robinson Coach of the Year (1977, 1988)
2x Sporting News College Football COY (1977, 1988)
Walter Camp Coach of the Year Award (1977)
ACC Coach of the Year (1972)
SEC Coach of the Year (2000)

Contrary to the popular answer, Holtz was the better coach

That winning percentage says otherwise......................

[Sweet Feet]

That winning percentage says otherwise......................

Not the bowl record and awards....

[wildhogman]

Do we dare count coaching trees in here?  Because spotting talent is the mark of a great coach. Be it the next hiesman winner, or the next assistant to rise up to head coach and win trophies and rings.  Pretty sure Broyles has this. Don't know about sweet Lou.  But he doesn't have an award named after him that goes to best assistant coach of the year.
How many great ones owe their start in coaching to Broyles.

[HiggiePiggy]

That winning percentage says otherwise......................

Almost 150 more games.  Has 100 more wins and only 3% less with a far better bowl record.  Yeah Holtz had a better coaching career. 

[HiggiePiggy]

Do we dare count coaching trees in here?  Because spotting talent is the mark of a great coach. Be it the next hiesman winner, or the next assistant to rise up to head coach and win trophies and rings.  Pretty sure Broyles has this. Don't know about sweet Lou.  But he doesn't have an award named after him that goes to best assistant coach of the year.
How many great ones owe their start in coaching to Broyles.

Only time you bring up a tree is because he really wasn't a better coach.  No one cares about his assistance and what they did. It's about what they did as a head coach. And looking at the resume of both Holtz was better.   

[Bacons Rebellion]

Could Broyles have done what Lou did at South Carolina? Doubtful.

It's Lou by a mile.

Holtz coached South Carolina to a 0-11 season his first year. I think Broyles could have at least matched that.

Let's see, Holtz took a program that was 61-65 over the decade or so previous, and was coming off a 1-10 season. After that first winless season Holtz went 8-4, 9-3,  5-7, 5-7. 6-5. Two bowls in six years. Yawn.

Broyles took over a program that was 47-53 over the previous decade and went:
4-6 (better than going winless),
9-2 and a Gator Bowl appearance (Gator Bowl in 1960 is comparable to the Outback bowl 40 years later),
8-3 conference champ and a Cotton Bowl appearance (Cotton Bowl > Outback bowl)
9-2 and a Sugar Bowl loss to national champion Alabama (better than Holtz's year, 5-7)
8-3 and a Sugar Bowl loss to Ole Miss (better than Holtz's fifth year, another 5-7)
5-5, roughly equal to Holtz's last year of 6-5,

The next year, Spurrier took over and took Holtz's players to 7-5.
Broyles, in his seventh year, went, oh yeah, 11-0.

Looking at the records and program status when each arrived, there's really no reason to think Broyles would have done worse than Holtz at South Carolina.

[Inhogswetrust]

Almost 150 more games.  Has 100 more wins and only 3% less with a far better bowl record.  Yeah Holtz had a better coaching career. 

You have NO way of knowing how Holtz might have done if he had coached as many games as Frank. Ask yourself why he left so many programs in such a short time......................

[Inhogswetrust]

Not the bowl record and awards....

Except the winning percentage includes ALL games. Awards are nothing more than a beauty contest. Besides as football grew so did the stupid awards. The only award that counts is the Winning percentage.

[majestic]

You have NO way of knowing how Holtz might have done if he had coached as many games as Frank. Ask yourself why he left so many programs in such a short time......................

I think you have your phrasing backwards, but Holtz was 137-75-5 through 217 games, which is 63%. So, an even lower winning percentage for the same number of games.

[Sweet Feet]

Except the winning percentage includes ALL games. Awards are nothing more than a beauty contest. Besides as football grew so did the stupid awards. The only award that counts is the Winning percentage.

Well you can take that 3% winning percentage. Most people are taking the coach with a better bowl record and more Top 5 AP finishes. If winning percentage only mattered, then Chris Peterson would be considered better than Nick Saban and Urban Meyer. Lou has more major bowl wins, a better bowl record, and more Top 5 finishes than Broyles. Lou also has finished #1 in the polls and has an outright national title. Holtz also played stiffer competition in his stint with ND, while Broyles only had to worry about Texas. Broyles is 19-39 (38%) vs Ranked teams, while Holtz is 47-56 (45%) vs Ranked teams. What's more so interesting is that Holtz in 7 Seasons had beaten the same amount of Top 2 teams as Broyles did in 19 years. Holtz was 3-3-1 vs Top 5 teams at Arkansas. Broyles was 5-10. People in Arkansas naturally will pick Broyles, but nationally, everyone else will say Holtz. H

[Sweet Feet]

Holtz coached South Carolina to a 0-11 season his first year. I think Broyles could have at least matched that.

Let's see, Holtz took a program that was 61-65 over the decade or so previous, and was coming off a 1-10 season. After that first winless season Holtz went 8-4, 9-3,  5-7, 5-7. 6-5. Two bowls in six years. Yawn.

Broyles took over a program that was 47-53 over the previous decade and went:
4-6 (better than going winless),
9-2 and a Gator Bowl appearance (Gator Bowl in 1960 is comparable to the Outback bowl 40 years later),
8-3 conference champ and a Cotton Bowl appearance (Cotton Bowl > Outback bowl)
9-2 and a Sugar Bowl loss to national champion Alabama (better than Holtz's year, 5-7)
8-3 and a Sugar Bowl loss to Ole Miss (better than Holtz's fifth year, another 5-7)
5-5, roughly equal to Holtz's last year of 6-5,

The next year, Spurrier took over and took Holtz's players to 7-5.
Broyles, in his seventh year, went, oh yeah, 11-0.

Looking at the records and program status when each arrived, there's really no reason to think Broyles would have done worse than Holtz at South Carolina.

Holtz took over a program that had only one bowl win in their whole 100+ year history. Arkansas was not that kind of program when Broyles took over. They had a few conference titles and was ranked as high as #10 just the year before Broyles took over. In 10 years before Broyles got there, Arkansas was ranked 5 out of 10 years for a total of 16 weeks in the polls, reaching as high as #4. South Carolina was only ranked 3 seasons for a total of 5 weeks, reaching as high as 19 in the 10 seasons before Holtz. SC hadn't been ranked for 6 years, consecutively for 10 years, and in the top 10 in 11 years when Holtz got there. While I do think broyles wouldn't have gone 0-11, to imply that South Carolina before Holtz was the same program as Arkansas before Broyles got there is completely untrue.

[HogBreath]

Broyles: 149-62-6 (70%), 4-6 Bowl Record, 3-5 in Major Bowls,
AFCA Coach of the Year (1964)
Sporting News College Football COY (1964)
SWC Coach of the Year (1964)

Holtz: 249-132-7 378 (67%), 12-8-1 Bowl Record, 6-4 in Major Bowls,
2x Paul "Bear" Bryant Award (1977, 1988)
2x Eddie Robinson Coach of the Year (1977, 1988)
2x Sporting News College Football COY (1977, 1988)
Walter Camp Coach of the Year Award (1977)
ACC Coach of the Year (1972)
SEC Coach of the Year (2000)

Contrary to the popular answer, Holtz was the better coach

I agree, I went with Lou also, but it's really a toss up.  Make no mistake, both guys were outstanding coaches.  A play here or there, and both would have been much more highly acclaimed.

[Slater]

Broyles hated Nolan, Holtz is friends with Jesse Helms, pretty much a toss up here

[PonderinHog]

Both were pretty good coaches.  Holtz might have a slight edge on game day.

Frank Broyles was a program builder and his coaching tree is ,dare I say, second to none.  He put Arkansas on the map. 

Holtz, on the other hand, thought he could see the end of the world from there.  Who knows, maybe that was a subtle swipe at Oklahoma.

[HognitiveDissonance]

Broyles hated Nolan, Holtz is friends with Jesse Helms, pretty much a toss up here

Yea, he hated him so much he hired him when no one else had a black basketball coach, and later gave him a huge annuity. Made Nolan a wealthy man.

If he hated Nolan, he also hated Ken Hatfield, Jack Crowe, Lou Holtz, Eddie Sutton. All who had run-ins with him. He seemed difficult to work for, but I doubt he 'hated' any of those guys. Paranoia.

[Grizzlyfan]

Posters who think Broyles retired from coaching in 1974 get an asterisk in my book.

Typo.  but thanks for the insightful response.