over the last 3 years?
over the last 3 years?
yes.
Depends on how you look at it. For example, Willie Taggart took a team with 20 straight losses, then went 2-10, 7-5 and 7-5. I would hire that coach with a 16-20 record.
On the other hand, Holtz took a rapidly rising team and went 8-5, 5-7, and 3-9. I would defiantly not hire that 16-20 record.
I agree. Just shut up. I guess you prefer a coach who's never been a head coach 0-0 right.... test the waters at Tech.
Don, you know I'm a fan of yours...and I think I know you (from here anyway) well enough to know YOU would LOVE ... LOVE ... to be wrong about this. You're a BULLDAWG, brother, and I know you want the best for our University.
Let's give Coach Skip a chance. And like Tech77 says...hopefully we'll all be smilin'
Yep !
Yep ..... coaching football at a school on a beach has to have it's own problems:
16-20 was Jack Bicknell's record his last 3 years at Tech. Skip Holtz was 16-21 at USF in his 3 years there. If we were going to go after a former USF coach, we should have hired Leavitt. He was 25-14 his last 3 years. This was all about getting a coach cheap. USF has to pay Holtz 2.5 million per year over the next 6 years, so, I would assume Tech won't have to pay him anything. That's about as cheap as you can get. I guess Guice was trying to show LFR that he could make a good business decision. That's a good ROI. Since Holtz was hired coming off of a 3-9 season, it seems like everybody is happy with that. So, if he ever gets to 6-6 and gets us in a bowl, everybody will just be overflowing with joy, even if we lose the bowl game. Happy days are here again!!!!:bigcry: