(06-17-2020 07:25 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I like Creighton. Not just anybody could have come in and made them competitive (and not just for one year). They used to be an easy out.

Doing that in what is almost the shadow of The Big House is part of what makes it notable ... while I am saying with Lewis, "if he keeps it up", relative to the headwinds that an EMU head coach faces, Chris Creighton does have the runs on the board to be placed in the top third.

(06-16-2020 10:16 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  Scot Loeffler is doing a great job in Bowling Green. I get why people aren't ranking him more highly -- he only has one season under his belt -- but he's doing a great job recruiting and he beat Toledo last year with talent that would struggle to win in FCS. I see a very high ceiling with this guy.

You can only rank people based off of results to date. Unfortunately for Loeffler his sample size is small. I'm not sure if there was a thread for this after Leipold's 2nd season at Buffalo, but I'd imagine he was near or at the bottom of these rankings then as he was a combined 4-12 in the MAC at that point. Three years later and now he's near or at the top of peoples list. It takes 4-5 years to get a fair judgement of how a coach will be in most cases.

(06-22-2020 10:20 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(06-16-2020 10:16 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  Scot Loeffler is doing a great job in Bowling Green. I get why people aren't ranking him more highly -- he only has one season under his belt -- but he's doing a great job recruiting and he beat Toledo last year with talent that would struggle to win in FCS. I see a very high ceiling with this guy.

You can only rank people based off of results to date. Unfortunately for Loeffler his sample size is small. I'm not sure if there was a thread for this after Leipold's 2nd season at Buffalo, but I'd imagine he was near or at the bottom of these rankings then as he was a combined 4-12 in the MAC at that point. Three years later and now he's near or at the top of peoples list. It takes 4-5 years to get a fair judgement of how a coach will be in most cases.

I agree in general and your last sentence is usually correct when a coach has to rebuild, but when they take over a respectable program and tank immediately (like Jinks at BG or Treadwell at Miami) it's a different story. Jury is still out on the likes of Arth and Hammock since they could've had legit reasons for a decline in their first seasons (lost seniors, transfers, scheme changes, etc), but it's a much different situation from the likes of Martin or Creighton who had to spend their first two seasons cleaning up the mess they inherited.

(06-18-2020 04:28 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-17-2020 07:25 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I like Creighton. Not just anybody could have come in and made them competitive (and not just for one year). They used to be an easy out.

Doing that in what is almost the shadow of The Big House is part of what makes it notable ... while I am saying with Lewis, "if he keeps it up", relative to the headwinds that an EMU head coach faces, Chris Creighton does have the runs on the board to be placed in the top third.

Chris Creighton is definitely top third in my eyes. He's worked wonders at Eastern Michigan. Very few coaches could have done what he's been doing there.

(06-22-2020 05:54 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(06-18-2020 04:28 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-17-2020 07:25 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I like Creighton. Not just anybody could have come in and made them competitive (and not just for one year). They used to be an easy out.

Doing that in what is almost the shadow of The Big House is part of what makes it notable ... while I am saying with Lewis, "if he keeps it up", relative to the headwinds that an EMU head coach faces, Chris Creighton does have the runs on the board to be placed in the top third.

Chris Creighton is definitely top third in my eyes. He's worked wonders at Eastern Michigan. Very few coaches could have done what he's been doing there.

Yep, Creighton is one of the best in the MAC... Would swap him for Candle in a heartbeat ...
Also, Scott Loeffler will eventually do very well down at BG....

(06-14-2020 10:14 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I would put Crieghton at number one. Very, very few coaches could win at EMU and he's done it in the MAC and non-conference play.

Martin is such a mixed bag. The guy hasn't won a single FBS non-conference game in six years, can be a numbskull when it comes to game management beyond anything I've ever seen, and up until last year we also felt underachieving. Yet he's taken us from futility to respectability to a championship, and that speaks for itself.

I'm seeing a lot of love for Creighton, but not Chuck Martin, which makes no sense to me. They both have been at their schools for 6 years. Miami was 8-28 in the 3 years before Martin got there. EMU was 10-26 in the 3 years before Creighton got there.

Chuck Martin
30-45 (26-22 MAC)
0-2 in bowls
1 Division title
1 Conference title

Chris Creighton
28-47 (16-32 MAC)
0-3 in bowls
0 Division titles
0 Conference titles

McElwain or Solich should be #1.

McElwain has was COY in 3 different conferences. Took a 1-11 CMU team to an 8-6 team with a division titles and MACCG appearance. Solich has kept Ohio an 8 win team forever.

(06-25-2020 02:46 PM)george14 Wrote:  

(06-14-2020 10:14 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I would put Crieghton at number one. Very, very few coaches could win at EMU and he's done it in the MAC and non-conference play.

Martin is such a mixed bag. The guy hasn't won a single FBS non-conference game in six years, can be a numbskull when it comes to game management beyond anything I've ever seen, and up until last year we also felt underachieving. Yet he's taken us from futility to respectability to a championship, and that speaks for itself.

I'm seeing a lot of love for Creighton, but not Chuck Martin, which makes no sense to me. They both have been at their schools for 6 years. Miami was 8-28 in the 3 years before Martin got there. EMU was 10-26 in the 3 years before Creighton got there.

Chuck Martin
30-45 (26-22 MAC)
0-2 in bowls
1 Division title
1 Conference title

Chris Creighton
28-47 (16-32 MAC)
0-3 in bowls
0 Division titles
0 Conference titles

McElwain or Solich should be #1.

McElwain has was COY in 3 different conferences. Took a 1-11 CMU team to an 8-6 team with a division titles and MACCG appearance. Solich has kept Ohio an 8 win team forever.

Two main reasons:

1. Historical ineptitude from EMU and success from Miami. The standard at Eastern before Creighton was futility in the shadow of Ann Arbor with limited fan support at a commuter school; Miami has a strong winning tradition in a gorgeous college town. Creighton had to do something that hasn't really been done before, Martin had to restore a proud tradition that fell apart for a decade.
2. Martin's issues. He's been undoubtedly a net positive on the program, but you can't call him a rousing success when we're entering year seven with zero FBS non-conference wins; it's not just that we've lost too, it's that we completely blew games like Mississippi State, UC, and others stemming from game management while EMU has taken down Big Ten opponents. Though two big complaints (inability to beat OU and the absence of a winning season) have been addressed in recent years.

Martin's reputation depends on this year. We just won the MAC with an inexperienced team despite a schedule with Iowa and OSU; now we return 17 of 22 starters and instead have games like UC at home and Pitt. Martin needs to prove Miami is back as a winner, we haven't had back-to-back winning seasons since 2004-05 after all. Let's say we beat UC, either Pitt or Army, and win something like eight or nine games this season; the general opinion of him in Oxford and the college football world will improve immeasurably and he might be looking at a P5 job.

(06-25-2020 04:35 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 02:46 PM)george14 Wrote:  

(06-14-2020 10:14 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I would put Crieghton at number one. Very, very few coaches could win at EMU and he's done it in the MAC and non-conference play.

Martin is such a mixed bag. The guy hasn't won a single FBS non-conference game in six years, can be a numbskull when it comes to game management beyond anything I've ever seen, and up until last year we also felt underachieving. Yet he's taken us from futility to respectability to a championship, and that speaks for itself.

I'm seeing a lot of love for Creighton, but not Chuck Martin, which makes no sense to me. They both have been at their schools for 6 years. Miami was 8-28 in the 3 years before Martin got there. EMU was 10-26 in the 3 years before Creighton got there.

Chuck Martin
30-45 (26-22 MAC)
0-2 in bowls
1 Division title
1 Conference title

Chris Creighton
28-47 (16-32 MAC)
0-3 in bowls
0 Division titles
0 Conference titles

McElwain or Solich should be #1.

McElwain has was COY in 3 different conferences. Took a 1-11 CMU team to an 8-6 team with a division titles and MACCG appearance. Solich has kept Ohio an 8 win team forever.

Two main reasons:

1. Historical ineptitude from EMU and success from Miami. The standard at Eastern before Creighton was futility in the shadow of Ann Arbor with limited fan support at a commuter school; Miami has a strong winning tradition in a gorgeous college town. Creighton had to do something that hasn't really been done before, Martin had to restore a proud tradition that fell apart for a decade.
2. Martin's issues. He's been undoubtedly a net positive on the program, but you can't call him a rousing success when we're entering year seven with zero FBS non-conference wins; it's not just that we've lost too, it's that we completely blew games like Mississippi State, UC, and others stemming from game management while EMU has taken down Big Ten opponents. Though two big complaints (inability to beat OU and the absence of a winning season) have been addressed in recent years.

Martin's reputation depends on this year. We just won the MAC with an inexperienced team despite a schedule with Iowa and OSU; now we return 17 of 22 starters and instead have games like UC at home and Pitt. Martin needs to prove Miami is back as a winner, we haven't had back-to-back winning seasons since 2004-05 after all. Let's say we beat UC, either Pitt or Army, and win something like eight or nine games this season; the general opinion of him in Oxford and the college football world will improve immeasurably and he might be looking at a P5 job.

Right on - plus Miami has had ugly FCS losses at home under Martin.

(06-25-2020 04:35 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Two main reasons:

1. Historical ineptitude from EMU and success from Miami. The standard at Eastern before Creighton was futility in the shadow of Ann Arbor with limited fan support at a commuter school; Miami has a strong winning tradition in a gorgeous college town. Creighton had to do something that hasn't really been done before, Martin had to restore a proud tradition that fell apart for a decade.
2. Martin's issues. He's been undoubtedly a net positive on the program, but you can't call him a rousing success when we're entering year seven with zero FBS non-conference wins; it's not just that we've lost too, it's that we completely blew games like Mississippi State, UC, and others stemming from game management while EMU has taken down Big Ten opponents. Though two big complaints (inability to beat OU and the absence of a winning season) have been addressed in recent years.

Martin's reputation depends on this year. We just won the MAC with an inexperienced team despite a schedule with Iowa and OSU; now we return 17 of 22 starters and instead have games like UC at home and Pitt. Martin needs to prove Miami is back as a winner, we haven't had back-to-back winning seasons since 2004-05 after all. Let's say we beat UC, either Pitt or Army, and win something like eight or nine games this season; the general opinion of him in Oxford and the college football world will improve immeasurably and he might be looking at a P5 job.

It's a fair reply but I think winning the MAC trumps everything you said. Take it from a CMU fan. We were at the top of the MAC, then spent a few years being mediocre. Since we won the MAC in 2009, we have beaten Iowa, Purdue, Oklahoma State, Kansas, won bowl games, etc. We actually got railroaded by an FCS team one of the years we won the MAC.

None of that matters really. What matters is winning the conference. That is just my opinion though, I understand if others prioritize their fandom differently.

(06-26-2020 12:35 PM)george14 Wrote:  It's a fair reply but I think winning the MAC trumps everything you said.

One thing depends on your vintage as a fan.

There is a certain set of older fans who recall the glory days, when Miami was ranked nationally in consecutive years, beat UC six years running, and went to three Tangerine bowls in a row.

And a younger set of fans for whom that is all just dusty pictures on the wall, and playing UC is another one of the guarantee games that are an unpleasant necessity to fund the program.

Losing to a "College Division" or "1-AA" school is going to really rankle the first crowd, and a top-25 unranked MAC championship year is not automatically sufficient consolation.

Get out of the gate fast enough, for once, to be part of the Access Bowl conversation? for that same older crowd, that could well bring up tenuous echoes of glory days gone by.

Mind you, that is not an insider's account ... I didn't go to Miami to watch college football, and indeed tended to work Saturday afternoon in the library back in the days when college work study could give you 1/3 of the funds needed to go to school.