Massey's has us ranked 115 out of 124

 

I don't care if it's your first year, first week, first day....that's turrible

Yep that's pretty bad. I have no problem agreeing that LU stinks this year, but if the SLC is supposed to be one of the better FCS conferences based on two teams in the top twenty of Massey's rankings and a possibility of four teams making the playoffs then does the ranking make sense?

The SLC isn't one of the better FCS conferences. Massey has the SLC ranked 8th, even lower than the Ivy League! I think there's just too much competition for talent in this part of the country and with LU's long history of losing along with it killing the program for 18 years, it's a long shot LU can build a consistently winning program year after year. As soon as they get a good coach he's going to move on to a better job right away. With LU's track record of picking head coaches, I don't see how they can suddenly become good at picking a successor coach to keep the momentum going. Look at the basketball program, they were able to hire a few good coaches in a row back in the 70s and 80s but after that dud after dud. I hate to sound like a downer but that's how I see things.

The SLC isn't one of the better FCS conferences. Massey has the SLC ranked 8th, even lower than the Ivy League! I think there's just too much competition for talent in this part of the country and with LU's long history of losing along with it killing the program for 18 years, it's a long shot LU can build a consistently winning program year after year. As soon as they get a good coach he's going to move on to a better job right away. With LU's track record of picking head coaches, I don't see how they can suddenly become good at picking a successor coach to keep the momentum going. Look at the basketball program, they were able to hire a few good coaches in a row back in the 70s and 80s but after that dud after dud. I hate to sound like a downer but that's how I see things.

 

They only got Tic because......google it

Massey is not the only ranking system but maybe the SLC isn't as good from top to bottom. You have to pay more to keep a good coach when you get lucky enough to find one. I think to get and keep a good coach in the future LU will have to offer at least what the average contract is in the Sunbelt and C-USA. Who knows maybe eventually you can steal a good coach from another FCS conference if your willing to pay the dollars.

Edited November 8, 20178 yr by geezer

Massey is not the only ranking system but maybe the SLC isn't as good from top to bottom. You have to pay more to keep a good coach when you get lucky enough to find one. I think to get and keep a good coach in the future LU will have to offer at least what the average contract is in the Sunbelt and C-USA. Who knows maybe eventually you can steal a good coach from another FCS conference if your willing to pay the dollars.

 

not too many coaches at a lower level are gonna stick around anywhere if they are successful

Your right Puddin, eventually successful coaches move up, but when they do you want it to be to a Power 5 or maybe the American Conference. You don't want them moving to the Sunbelt, MAAC or another FCS program. Also maybe if they can be successful at LU the Cards could move up to an FBS conference.

Pat Knight coached Mike James......should we have kept Knight as coach?

 

I am not saying that at all. In fact Knight was the prime example of a coach who lost a locker room. Ray tried really hard but he couldn't get Lamar to the next level. It looked like he was but in his last year it was clear it was time for a change. But, he did get a chance to prove himself so, of that I'm glad. Also, wasn't Mike James a recruit of Coach Roc? I actually believe there are two Cards in the NFL, it seems like there is a Lamar man on the Steelers D-line and they were both recruited by Woodard. Woodard got this new football program off the ground starting from scratch and he deserves credit for that. It's just too bad he fizzled out in the end. I am all for giving Schulz a chance. It's a proven fact if you change coach's every year you will definitely not be worth a damn ever. The team is still playing hard and given the results this season that is saying something about coach that is positive.

This might be a stretch for an example but the Astros lost over 100 games for 3 straight seasons while they rebuilt their program. Granted Lamar isn't going to get any first round talent like the Astros did with the number one or two pick 4 straight seasons but there is no reason why Schulz and his staff can't put together a nice team when they get a complete offseason/s to work the recruiting trail. That's all I'm saying, puddin'.

I am not saying that at all. In fact Knight was the prime example of a coach who lost a locker room. Ray tried really hard but he couldn't get Lamar to the next level. It looked like he was but in his last year it was clear it was time for a change. But, he did get a chance to prove himself so, of that I'm glad. Also, wasn't Mike James a recruit of Coach Roc? I actually believe there are two Cards in the NFL, it seems like there is a Lamar man on the Steelers D-line and they were both recruited by Woodard. Woodard got this new football program off the ground starting from scratch and he deserves credit for that. It's just too bad he fizzled out in the end. I am all for giving Schulz a chance. It's a proven fact if you change coach's every year you will definitely not be worth a damn ever. The team is still playing hard and given the results this season that is saying something about coach that is positive.

This might be a stretch for an example but the Astros lost over 100 games for 3 straight seasons while they rebuilt their program. Granted Lamar isn't going to get any first round talent like the Astros did with the number one or two pick 4 straight seasons but there is no reason why Schulz and his staff can't put together a nice team when they get a complete offseason/s to work the recruiting trail. That's all I'm saying, puddin'.

 

Umm, Hinch wasn’t the coach during those 100 yr losses. His first season they won 86 games...not quite what LU is seeing under Schulz.

Joe Okafor (defensive lineman) went to camp a couple of years ago with Pittsburgh, but he was cut during training camp.

Umm, Hinch wasn’t the coach during those 100 yr losses. His first season they won 86 games...not quite what LU is seeing under Schulz.

 

I did a bad job of making a point. I realize Hinch wasn’t the manager during those down years. The point is, the team had to endure a rebuilding process before they got good. Jeff Luhnow was the GM during those down years and that might be a more appropriate comparison as the GM is responsible for the players acquired by the team is his responsibility just as a college coach is. Clear as mud, right?