CBB... #7 on Coaches Hot Seat

[ricepig]

Almost every defense runs multiple fronts. There's not a switch. It's packages. Are your players better than the ones they are up against? That's all that matters. I saw 3-4's and 4-3's put AA his back early and often last season.

Well, if the change in fronts, and the change in schemes allows us more freedom to blitz and run different packages, then it can't hurt.

[Al Boarland]

No. Many of us would be even MORE disappointed if the coaching staff didn't implement a scheme better suited for the personnel on hand. But keep bashing the players. It's what you do best.

Let me know when I bash a player. Pointing out recruiting rankings isn't bashing. It's an observation based on data.

[Al Boarland]

Well, if the change in fronts, and the change in schemes allows us more freedom to blitz and run different packages, then it can't hurt.

Actually, it can leave us even more exposed to explosive plays if teams scheme against our agressive packages. That's how I know the "it can't be worse" crowd can be very wrong.

[Hawgar The Horrible]

I'm glad someone deleted the last bunch of personal stuff you started.  You don't have an answer from a football or results standpoint so you try to go that route.  Knock yourself out with it this time.

I am finished responding to your nonsense. Go argue with Guv or 12345.

[Hawgar The Horrible]

Let me know when I bash a player. Pointing out recruiting rankings isn't bashing. It's an observation based on data.

When you state there is no talent on hand, you are not referring to recruits. You're talking about Razorbacks.

[ricepig]

Actually, it can leave us even more exposed to explosive plays if teams scheme against our agressive packages. That's how I know the "it can't be worse" crowd can be very wrong.

Or, it allows us to blow up the play before they get those explosive plays. That's how I know it can't be any worse, because they were already getting explosive plays against our "play it safe" scheme.

[Al Boarland]

Or, it allows us to blow up the play before they get those explosive plays. That's how I know it can't be any worse, because they were already getting explosive plays against our "play it safe" scheme.

It allows us to try to blow up a play. There are plays that neutralize agressive defenses and once the scoreboard gets lit up all the pressure is on the O.

[Al Boarland]

When you state there is no talent on hand, you are not referring to recruits. You're talking about Razorbacks.

I don't recall saying there is no talent. The data validates that we are not as talented as the teams we want to beat consistently to take a step forward. If you think stating facts is bashing I don't know what to tell you.

[ricepig]

It allows us to try to blow up a play. There are plays that neutralize agressive defenses and once the scoreboard gets lit up all the pressure is on the O.

The scoreboard was being lit up playing a safe defense, and we weren't blowing up any plays. I can play this game all night long, too. I bet we blitz more this year, than last year, and have a better defense this season.

[Al Boarland]

The scoreboard was being lit up playing a safe defense, and we weren't blowing up any plays. I can play this game all night long, too. I bet we blitz more this year, than last year, and have a better defense this season.

Sounds awesome. If only it were as easy as a silver bullet to solve all our defensive woes.

[Hawgar The Horrible]

I don't recall saying there is no talent. The data validates that we are not as talented as the teams we want to beat consistently to take a step forward. If you think stating facts is bashing I don't know what to tell you.

"At the end of the day we still lack talent"  Your words just moments ago.

[Al Boarland]

"At the end of the day we still lack talent"  Your words just moments ago.

Poor wording on my part on that particular post. I typically point out that the talent is lacking comparatively.

[Hawgar The Horrible]

Poor wording on my part on that particular post. I typically point out that the talent is lacking comparatively.

Precisely. Compared to the SEC that's a given. Compared to the remainder of the country, not too shabby. Your perspective, and what you deem successfull, is ducked up seven ways from Sunday.

[Al Boarland]

Precisely. Compared to the SEC that's a given. Compared to the remainder of the country, not too shabby. Your perspective, and what you deem successfull, is ducked up seven ways from Sunday.

I've stated my expectations as to what is successful given the challenges the program faces. They aren't as high as some demand. I have a realistic view of the program. That's more than I can say for others.

[Hawgar The Horrible]

I've stated my expectations as to what is successful given the challenges the program faces. They aren't as high as some demand. I have a realistic view of the program. That's more than I can say for others.

Then you need to explain how your "realistic" views of the program can be met while recognizing the challenges you have observed. Because, as you like to say, I don't see it.

[Al Boarland]

Then you need to explain how your "realistic" views of the program can be met while recognizing the challenges you have observed. Because, as you like to say, I don't see it.

I think we accumulate enough 
talent to hover around the middle of the SECw. When the stars align and impact players in Arkansas stay in state we have an opportunity to surpass that. Due to recruiting factors consistently contending for the SEC is not realistic. So, my expectations are to win the games we should and strive to snag a few we shouldn't. That's pretty much been the trend since joining the SEC.

[Hawgar The Horrible]

I think we accumulate enough 
talent to hover around the middle of the SECw. When the stars align and impact players in Arkansas stay in state we have an opportunity to surpass that. Due to recruiting factors consistently contending for the SEC is not realistic. So, my expectations are to win the games we should and strive to snag a few we shouldn't. That's pretty much been the trend since joining the SEC.

I agree with everything you just stated. I also believe CBB will provide as much in the long run. Imitating Frank Beamer's success @ VA Tech would be ideal. A consistent threat to upper echelon SEC teams year after year while picking off a few.

[Hawgar The Horrible]

Here's another point to ponder. CBB is a relatively young P5 head coach still undergoing OJT.

I would get physically ill if he parted ways with Arkansas and found greater success elsewhere after honing his craft on our dime.

Arkansas State would have company as a local stepping stone.

[Gonzo]

We have established CBB will be provided with 2 more years to prove his mettle in this thread. That is scaring the hell out of a few that would forfeit any program success for his demise. And that is the damn truth.

"We" haven't established diddly squat in this thread. We are just fleas on the elephant's rump when it comes to UA athletics. This place is nothing more than pure entertainment.


Go Hogs!

[Gonzo]

BTW, where the heck did the ignore feature go? Just like I'm sure some would be with me, there are plenty here I could do without and enjoy HV much more.


Go Hogs!

[LZH]

Yep.  Support the guy they hire until or unless there is a legitimate reason to not.  I supported Nutt until he showed his character issues, even though I thought he left a lot to be desired as a HC.  I supported Bobby until he revealed his character even though his recruiting was there for all to see.  I'll support Coach B until he shows a lack of character OR he has adequate time to build things his way and STILL fails.

He hasn't yet.  So I'll stick with him for the next two years.

This is bs. His "recruiting"? We had just finished 5th in the country when he was fired....best season in 25 years. No one, no one thought to say a word about his recruiting until it took BB nearly two full seasons to win an SEC game.

Here's another point to ponder. CBB is a relatively young P5 head coach still undergoing OJT.

I would get physically ill if he parted ways with Arkansas and found greater success elsewhere after honing his craft on our dime.

Arkansas State would have company as a local stepping stone.

Holy cow. The man is 47 years old and has been a head coach for 12 freekin years. He's coached 140+ football games.

Unbelievable....never seen anything like this. At least Nutt's disciples could argue that he had a decent record here.

[Gonzo]

This is bs. His "recruiting"? We had just finished 5th in the country when he was fired....best season in 25 years. No one, no one thought to say a word about his recruiting until it took BB nearly two full seasons to win an SEC game.

Holy cow. The man is 47 years old and has been a head coach for 12 freekin years. He's coached 140+ football games.

Unbelievable....never seen anything like this. At least Nutt's disciples could argue that he had a decent record here.

+1         right there with you buddy


Go Hogs!

[LZH]

+1         right there with you buddy


Go Hogs!

It's the damndest thing....these constant diversions and excuses. It's like a bunch of beauty pageant mothers coming up with reasons why their kid didn't even make the first cut when the obvious fact is their girls just aren't pretty.

[hogcard1964]

It's the damndest thing....these constant diversions and excuses. It's like a bunch of beauty pageant mothers coming up with reasons why their kid didn't even make the first cut when the obvious fact is their girls just aren't pretty.

it was Petrino...
it was John L. Smith...
it was a "dumpster fire"...
it's recruiting...
it's because we're little ole Arkansas...
it was Robb Smith...
it's because the SEC is better now than it was 5 years ago...
it's Bielema's contract-he doesn't have pressure on him to perform...

[RagingHawgOn]

I think many here are going to be disappointed when the 3-4 doesn't produce they way they envision it. Maybe it is a better fit for our personel, but there will be a transition period with a steep learning curve. You can save all the talk about it being easier. At the end of the day we still lack talent and quality depth.

What sucks is just as many here will be disappointed when the 3-4 does produce. 

[Al Boarland]

What sucks is just as many here will be disappointed when the 3-4 does produce.

No one will be disappointed if CBB manages to win 9 games.  Will there still be concerns?  Sure.  Will some still question if he can consistently contend in the SEC?  Probably.  However, those voices won't be as loud.

[jkstock04]

No one will be disappointed if CBB manages to win 9 games.  Will there still be concerns?  Sure.  Will some still question if he can consistently contend in the SEC?  Probably.  However, those voices won't be as loud.

If we win 8 games it will be considered a major success. Since I'm gonna be in the 6-8 win range I probably will as well considering all.

What's weird here though is that supposedly this is the deepest and most well recruited team we have had since being in the SEC. Petrino didn't care about recruiting, but Bielema does. The people who follow recruiting would have you believe things have been awesome during the Bielema era and are only getting better.

If this is true why are expectations so freaking low? Legitimately if we are this deep as a team shouldn't we have a legit shot at a 10 win year and have a chance to win every game?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

If we win 8 games it will be considered a major success. Since I'm gonna be in the 6-8 win range I probably will as well considering all.

What's weird here though is that supposedly this is the deepest and most well recruited team we have had since being in the SEC. Petrino didn't care about recruiting, but Bielema does. The people who follow recruiting would have you believe things have been awesome during the Bielema era and are only getting better.

If this is true why are expectations so freaking low? Legitimately if we are this deep as a team shouldn't we have a legit shot at a 10 win year and have a chance to win every game?

You did watch last seasons games, right?

[jkstock04]

You did watch last seasons games, right?

Yes. You did read my post right?

[hogcard1964]

If we win 8 games it will be considered a major success. Since I'm gonna be in the 6-8 win range I probably will as well considering all.

What's weird here though is that supposedly this is the deepest and most well recruited team we have had since being in the SEC. Petrino didn't care about recruiting, but Bielema does. The people who follow recruiting would have you believe things have been awesome during the Bielema era and are only getting better.

If this is true why are expectations so freaking low? Legitimately if we are this deep as a team shouldn't we have a legit shot at a 10 win year and have a chance to win every game?

+1000

There's no doubt we should have been back into the double digit win area by now.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Yes. You did read my post right?

Yes, which was the reason for my question to you. After watching what happened last season, I wouldn't expect anyone to project us to win 10 this year. Not sure where you would even get that notion after all that has been discussed on this subject, recruiting aside.

[HiggiePiggy]

What will upset people the most is if we lose a game where we are owning the opponent like we have done every year CBB has been here.  I expect 7 wins. Means I lose my bet with my brother because I said 8 regular season wins before we lost RW3. But what will piss me off is losing a game that we are favored and watching us not show up in the second half to lose that game or losing to Texas A&M in the same way we have the last 3 years.

[Deep Shoat]

If we win 8 games it will be considered a major success. Since I'm gonna be in the 6-8 win range I probably will as well considering all.

What's weird here though is that supposedly this is the deepest and most well recruited team we have had since being in the SEC. Petrino didn't care about recruiting, but Bielema does. The people who follow recruiting would have you believe things have been awesome during the Bielema era and are only getting better.

If this is true why are expectations so freaking low? Legitimately if we are this deep as a team shouldn't we have a legit shot at a 10 win year and have a chance to win every game?

I know you have a problem with anything but strictly linear thinking, but I'll try to help.

1. This is the deepest talent pool we've had, at least since Danny Ford.  Probably ever.  What we seem to lack, at the moment, is the one or two sublime talents to put us over the top.  No Matt Jones or DMac, so far.

2. Even though we have a solid depth of talent, there isn't a lot of experience.  Couple that with a shift in D scheme, and people don't know what to expect.  Therefore, most prognosticators are being very careful, based on last season.

3. We play in the SEC West.  We could improve 50-fold and still end up 3rd or 4th in the division.  You do realize the other teams don't stay static, right?

4. Historically, since integration, we are a 7 win football team.  We've outperformed that for a year or two here and there, but we tend to return to the norm pretty quickly.  Same for underperforming.  Reporters don't stick their necks out on these things, and sports books use historical models as one of their primary means of projecting a season.

We are recruiting better.  But not so much better that a major jump can be predicted.  It will happen, probably soon.  But no one with actual skin in the game is going to bet on it.  And when it does, we'll be primed to take the next step.  It works like this, for schools like Arkansas:

1. Learn to win consistently and get in the game against the big boys.
2. Recruiting uptick.
3. Breakout Year in or around years 5-8.
4. Recruiting Uptick.
5. Consistency in the top 10.
6. Recruiting uptick.
7. Hit the big time (playoffs, BCS, Conference championships, etc)
8. Ride the wave until major change happens (Coach leaves, is fired, etc.)

I'd say we are currently somewhere in step 3.  I believe we will see a breakout year in the next two, based on looking at the success trajectory of other, similar programs (Michigan State, Stanford).

I know I'm going to get roasted by the impatient children, Bielema and Long haters, and the football ignorant on the board.  But i's not hard to research this and see it work in other places.  Sadly, most don't have the patience for this type of build, and it will likely fail due to the pressure from people who think winning is just a plug and play thing.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

What will upset people the most is if we lose a game where we are owning the opponent like we have done every year CBB has been here.  I expect 7 wins. Means I lose my bet with my brother because I said 8 regular season wins before we lost RW3. But what will piss me off is losing a game that we are favored and watching us not show up in the second half to lose that game or losing to Texas A&M in the same way we have the last 3 years.

I'm pretty sure that upsets everyone except for those who want to see Bielema gone right now.

[BigE_23]

Here's another point to ponder. CBB is a relatively young P5 head coach still undergoing OJT.

I would get physically ill if he parted ways with Arkansas and found greater success elsewhere after honing his craft on our dime.

Arkansas State would have company as a local stepping stone.

Just when I think you can't get any more idiotic with the crap you post...you go and prove me wrong. The guy is 47 years old and going into his 13th season as Power 5 coach, but he still needs on the job training?? Do you really believe the junk you come up with, or are you just that much of a troll?

However ignorant you may be, you might have accidentally been right about one thing - Bielema will probably find greater success somewhere else because his next stop will likely be the broadcast booth if things don't end well here.

[jkstock04]

I know you have a problem with anything but strictly linear thinking, but I'll try to help.

1. This is the deepest talent pool we've had, at least since Danny Ford.  Probably ever.  What we seem to lack, at the moment, is the one or two sublime talents to put us over the top.  No Matt Jones or DMac, so far.

2. Even though we have a solid depth of talent, there isn't a lot of experience.  Couple that with a shift in D scheme, and people don't know what to expect.  Therefore, most prognosticators are being very careful, based on last season.

3. We play in the SEC West.  We could improve 50-fold and still end up 3rd or 4th in the division.  You do realize the other teams don't stay static, right?

4. Historically, since integration, we are a 7 win football team.  We've outperformed that for a year or two here and there, but we tend to return to the norm pretty quickly.  Same for underperforming.  Reporters don't stick their necks out on these things, and sports books use historical models as one of their primary means of projecting a season.

We are recruiting better.  But not so much better that a major jump can be predicted.  It will happen, probably soon.  But no one with actual skin in the game is going to bet on it.  And when it does, we'll be primed to take the next step.  It works like this, for schools like Arkansas:

1. Learn to win consistently and get in the game against the big boys.
2. Recruiting uptick.
3. Breakout Year in or around years 5-8.
4. Recruiting Uptick.
5. Consistency in the top 10.
6. Recruiting uptick.
7. Hit the big time (playoffs, BCS, Conference championships, etc)
8. Ride the wave until major change happens (Coach leaves, is fired, etc.)

I'd say we are currently somewhere in step 3.  I believe we will see a breakout year in the next two, based on looking at the success trajectory of other, similar programs (Michigan State, Stanford).

I know I'm going to get roasted by the impatient children, Bielema and Long haters, and the football ignorant on the board.  But i's not hard to research this and see it work in other places.  Sadly, most don't have the patience for this type of build, and it will likely fail due to the pressure from people who think winning is just a plug and play thing.

lol I actually like to think I'm a linear thinking person but that's off topic.

Thanks for answering the question direct and not dodging. In a nuttshell you say we still need more time despite being the deepest we have ever been. In past years with Nutt and Bielema when we have had the sporadic good seasons do you credit that to simple luck or having a DMac/Mallett? Or both?

Decent thought out post...but I'm just not convinced it should take 5-8 years to build a football team, even at Arkansas. Guess the good news is by your take we are now in the 5-8 year range thus being "there." If your 1-8 step of linear thinking memo points work out in that manner I'm all in.

[ricepig]

If we win 8 games it will be considered a major success. Since I'm gonna be in the 6-8 win range I probably will as well considering all.

What's weird here though is that supposedly this is the deepest and most well recruited team we have had since being in the SEC. Petrino didn't care about recruiting, but Bielema does. The people who follow recruiting would have you believe things have been awesome during the Bielema era and are only getting better.

If this is true why are expectations so freaking low? Legitimately if we are this deep as a team shouldn't we have a legit shot at a 10 win year and have a chance to win every game?

It may be our deepest, but it still has glaring holes compared several of our west brethren. So, while better, it's still behind several others. We aren't going to be a top 15 ranked recruiting school, just aren't, but should always be top 25.   

[EastexHawg]

So now it takes 5-8 years for a coach to start winning.  Because...because I said so.  And because the first four are already gone.

Frank Beamer is the guy whose chute didn't open but landed in a wet cornfield and survived the fall.  He's the outlier.  But because he took a while to start winning, and because he's pretty much the only example anyone can find, that's the way any program, including Arkansas, is supposed to do it. 

We have never had a successful coach who didn't start winning big by his third year.  Great coaches win, and they start winning right away.  For every Frank Beamer who didn't go 9-3 until year seven there are dozens of outstanding coaches who hit the ground running and won big within a couple of years.  Making up bedtime stories about how it is done "the right way" instead of "plug and play" is entertaining to say the least...and a bunch of hooey to say the most.

[jswineberiaskirk]

lol I actually like to think I'm a linear thinking person but that's off topic.

Thanks for answering the question direct and not dodging. In a nuttshell you say we still need more time despite being the deepest we have ever been. In past years with Nutt and Bielema when we have had the sporadic good seasons do you credit that to simple luck or having a DMac/Mallett? Or both?

Decent thought out post...but I'm just not convinced it should take 5-8 years to build a football team, even at Arkansas. Guess the good news is by your take we are now in the 5-8 year range thus being "there." If your 1-8 step of linear thinking memo points work out in that manner I'm all in.

Took Bobby three years to get to double digit wins. Eight in his second if memory serves. Even Sunshine Rick said he never believed we'd get to 10 wins in three years.

[Hogs-n-Roses]

I actually have some big hopes for this new 3-4 defense and with a vastly improved defense,the sky is the limit for any team. Defense is why Bama is Bama.LSU is consistently a power and it s the same for all national powers. I do not wish for our team to fail so I can be right. I don't make such predictions anyway. I also hope that this topic of coaches hot seat is totally irrelevant after this year. I promise to be the first to come on here and go "WOW" look at us and how we've gotten better n I was so wrong. I also apologise to anyone I offended yesterday with my shortness and rants. :razorback:

[hogcard1964]

What will upset people the most is if we lose a game where we are owning the opponent like we have done every year CBB has been here.  I expect 7 wins. Means I lose my bet with my brother because I said 8 regular season wins before we lost RW3. But what will piss me off is losing a game that we are favored and watching us not show up in the second half to lose that game or losing to Texas A&M in the same way we have the last 3 years.

You have to remember, that's pretty much who he is.  He did this when he was at Wisconsin as well, but it wasn't as glaring.  While he's been here it seems to be every few games.

http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-football/2011/10/25/bret-bielema-is-a-choke-artist/

[Hawgar The Horrible]

Just when I think you can't get any more idiotic with the crap you post...you go and prove me wrong. The guy is 47 years old and going into his 13th season as Power 5 coach, but he still needs on the job training?? Do you really believe the junk you come up with, or are you just that much of a troll?

However ignorant you may be, you might have accidentally been right about one thing - Bielema will probably find greater success somewhere else because his next stop will likely be the broadcast booth if things don't end well here.

LMAO! Hooked a lunker.

Relax, girlfriend. It'll be okay.

[jkstock04]

So now it takes 5-8 years for a coach to start winning.  Because...because I said so.  And because the first four are already gone.

Frank Beamer is the guy whose chute didn't open but landed in a wet cornfield and survived the fall.  He's the outlier.  But because he took a while to start winning, and because he's pretty much the only example anyone can find, that's the way any program, including Arkansas, is supposed to do it. 

We have never had a successful coach who didn't start winning big by his third year.  Great coaches win, and they start winning right away.  For every Frank Beamer who didn't go 9-3 until year seven there are dozens of outstanding coaches who hit the ground running and won big within a couple of years.  Making up bedtime stories about how it is done "the right way" instead of "plug and play" is entertaining to say the least...and a bunch of hooey to say the most.

Historically speaking the chances of us having a "break out" season sometime once in 8 years has gotta be pretty high regardless who the coach is.

[hogcard1964]

Historically speaking the chances of us having a "break out" season sometime once in 8 years has gotta be pretty high regardless who the coach is.

This is an 8 year rebuild now? 

[jkstock04]

Took Bobby three years to get to double digit wins. Eight in his second if memory serves. Even Sunshine Rick said he never believed we'd get to 10 wins in three years.

The excuse there is that the SEC was weak and we were just lucky to land a bunch of blue chip in state recruits.

One thing that is a definite correlation I won't really argue with...our best teams usually coincide with good in state recruiting. Another reason why it hurts so much when we do lose in state kids to other schools.

[Gonzo]

I also apologise to anyone I offended yesterday with my shortness and rants. :razorback:

I find this very offensive



Go Hogs!

[hawgon]

Historically speaking the chances of us having a "break out" season sometime once in 8 years has gotta be pretty high regardless who the coach is.

We already would have had two or three of them under Bielema if we could just win games that we lead in the 4th quarter.

[LZH]

This is an 8 year rebuild now? 

I thought it was 10.

[Al Boarland]

If we win 8 games it will be considered a major success. Since I'm gonna be in the 6-8 win range I probably will as well considering all.

What's weird here though is that supposedly this is the deepest and most well recruited team we have had since being in the SEC. Petrino didn't care about recruiting, but Bielema does. The people who follow recruiting would have you believe things have been awesome during the Bielema era and are only getting better.

If this is true why are expectations so freaking low? Legitimately if we are this deep as a team shouldn't we have a legit shot at a 10 win year and have a chance to win every game?

I can only speak for myself.  The recruiting isn't that much better.  I've seen the posts saying that if we don't see it we aren't looking, but when you compare what we have to the teams we play we are so far away it's not really worth mentioning the incremental improvement. We still don't have elite LB's.  We don't have 8 DL we can rotate with no drop off.  We have maybe one DB that would start on another team.  It's just not there.  Not from an impact player perspective and not from a quality depth perspective.  So, 6-8 wins is about right if you look at what we have compared to our schedule and base your W/L's on talent. 

[Deep Shoat]

So now it takes 5-8 years for a coach to start winning.  Because...because I said so.  And because the first four are already gone.

Frank Beamer is the guy whose chute didn't open but landed in a wet cornfield and survived the fall.  He's the outlier.  But because he took a while to start winning, and because he's pretty much the only example anyone can find, that's the way any program, including Arkansas, is supposed to do it. 

We have never had a successful coach who didn't start winning big by his third year.  Great coaches win, and they start winning right away.  For every Frank Beamer who didn't go 9-3 until year seven there are dozens of outstanding coaches who hit the ground running and won big within a couple of years.  Making up bedtime stories about how it is done "the right way" instead of "plug and play" is entertaining to say the least...and a bunch of hooey to say the most.

Good grief.  You are either the dumbest poster on the board or the biggest asshat.  I'm not sure which.

Show me the plug and play success stories anywhere besides the blue blood schools.  I'll wait.

Places like USC and Bama can fire coaches every 3-5 years and eventually hit the jackpot because they have a ridiculous amount of talent, both on campus and in their backyard, even when they suck.  So just keep rotating coaches until you strike paydirt.  That kind of crap obviously doesn't work anywhere else.  You want to know how I know?  Because everywhere else tries to be USC/Bama/Texas.  They keep firing coaches and hiring coaches and firing coaches and hiring coaches.  And they keep not being blue bloods.  The ones who succeed beyond historical norms?  They bring in a guy and give him time to build.  They let him build even when things don't look great.  Does it work everywhere, everytime?  Nope.  That's not how life works.  But what damn sure doesn't work, anywhere besides 8-10 universities nationwide (Alabama, USC, Texas, Miami, tOSU, Michigan, Florida State... 8-10 may be too many), is hiring and firing and hoping to hit the right guy.

I know, you are going to refute my argument with Bobby Petrino, or someone just as asinine.  But he didn't actually DO anything here.  Sure, winning 21 games in 2 years was awesome.  But we have no idea whether that was sustainable.  It's not like he has actually done anything anywhere else that matters.