Seth Littrell is HIGHLY OVERRATED

[hilltopwildcat]

Offensive ratings before and after Littrell took over as OC or HC:

2009 - Arizona (pre): 49
2010 - Arizona: 29
2011 - Arizona: 38

2011 - Indiana (pre): 85
2012 - Indiana: 54
2013 - Indiana: 16

2013 - UNC (pre): 35
2014 - UNC: 28
2015 - UNC: 17

2015 - UNT(pre): 128 - Even behind KU
2016 - UNT: 107
2017 - UNT: 62
2018 - UNT: 31 - Ahead of Texas, USC, and K-State

He has improved offenses everywhere he has been. Wouldn't it be nice to have a competitive offense in an offensive orientated league? Even if it goes the style of Tech where they score 50 and lose some games, I would think it would be an improvement to be competitive in games and lose 55-50 then watching a blowout because of no offense, or a boring 14-13 loss. I don't know how old you are but I think this is a millenial thing. Rules are in place to increase scoring so deal with it.

His offense is not air raid, which the Big 12 is moving away from. It is up tempo, but close to a 50/50 pass run. He doesn't run the QB as a battering ram getting injuries. The NFL is moving towards more offense, so players that want to make the NFL will play for a college that has an offense to put up numbers. In addition, schools like KU and Miles are trying to come up with a defense to stop the air raid, so not having that style, will be ahead of the curve.

Who cares if he leaves for a bigger payday? This argument is tired and worn out. Hardly any coach will stay for long term. If they have ambition, they want to be at the top. Having ambition means they will do everything they can to win at K-State. So if he gets another job, that means he has improved the program for the next hire.
We don't have Alabama, Texas, OU money but at some point in time does that really matter? I mean 4 huge to coach in MHK? If it's the right fit and the right payday and he thinks he has a chance at a natty or playoff most years, a guy may stay.
Bowl wins? Are you kidding me? An exhibition game is what we are going to decide to hire a coach on? Bill Snyder was 3-7 in his last 10 bowl games and 1-7 before the last 2 wins.

K-State was 12 points from being 9-3 and Bill Snyder coaches for another year. Exactly. That is the name of the game. Only 2 teams in the nation have not been down by more then 1 score all year long. Alabama and North Texas. While the negative people will say that is because UNT is keeping games to close, the positive people would say that UNT was in every game, including the losses.

Hard to have a lot of big highlights in the CUSA. Early on, beating Arkansas at Arkansas was a highlight, but they tanked hard.

Texas recruiting is the biggest need for K-State. It is where all the talent is and what needs to be tapped into. SL having that connection is great. What other areas is he supposed to be recruiting? He can keep some members of the current staff if he still wants to tap into KS, but that really isn't a huge market. Are you saying that it's more important to recruit KS then Texas? Nothing against KS kids, and I think K-State should still go after them, but TX has a ton of talent, and it's where the rest of the Big 12 is getting their players from.

Last 4 recruiting classes for UNT (2016-2019):
61 - Texas
8 - Oklahoma
2 - Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, Washington
1 - Alabama, Arizona, Kentucky, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee

Last 4 recruiting classes for K-State:
22 - Kansas
19 - Texas
8 - Georgia
7 - Oklahoma
5 - Missouri
3 - California
2 - Florida, Illinois
1 - Louisiana, Arizona, Iowa, Oregon, South Carolina, Maryland, Nebraska, North Carolina
*keep in mind several out of state players were from out of state JUCOs

Texas is already the #2 place for recruits for K-State, so shouldn't it be good that area is increased? KS and MO kids can still be recruited, just based on K-State being in the location and if you keep an assistant or 2 around with ties (Seiler, Klein, etc).

Does Littrell have concerns? Of course. But every possible candidate will as well. We're not having this conversation if there weren't concerns about our direction under Bill Snyder. Age of intself had very, very little to do with it. Littrell concerns for me would be if he can be a HC at a P5 level, if he can increase his recruiting to higher level of players, if he can keep some connection to KS with his staff to keep KS recruits, what kind of defense will he have and will it work in the Big 12?

So much truth in this post. I really think all this team needs is an enthusiastic leader. We had some enthusiastic coaches but I just felt a kind of disconnect from watching. We're not in bad shape. I think when Bill left the last time there wasn't a big cohesion, togetherness as this group of guys. Certainly the future is a question mark but I think our fanbase has shown great support over the years and will continue to do so.

[tmcats]

chris won as many national championships in 4 years as bohl did in eleven. and ndsu has always been a great football program dating back to the 60's when their coach ended up as head coach of the new england patriots. this is not a johnny come lately program like k-state.

[Sth89]

But Bohl built that thing and Kleiman didn't. He maintained it. Big difference. Then look at Bohl at Wyoming. Easier conference than the Big 12 so that should exclude NDSU coach in my opinion.

[tmcats]

Baloney. Bohl did not build 'that thing.'

As members of Division II, NDSU won 8 national championships with an overall record of 347–94–4 and had but 2 losing seasons from 1964–2003. Bohl arrived in 2003 and left in 2013. Collectively, the Bison have won 35 conference championships and 14 national championships. Historically, only 5 teams established after 1893; Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida, and Clemson have won more total games than NDSU's 720.

[AJcat7755]

If there is concern about a G5 coach moving up to P5, there has to be a serious concern about a FCS coach jumping the G5 step and going straight to P5. Could be the greatest hire ever, but seems very risky without knowing how they will fare at a school with more scholarships, more challenges, and one that is not the big fish in their division. Would feel much more comfortable if Kleiman moved to G5 first.

[Sth89]

Baloney. Bohl did not build 'that thing.'

As members of Division II, NDSU won 8 national championships with an overall record of 347–94–4 and had but 2 losing seasons from 1964–2003. Bohl arrived in 2003 and left in 2013. Collectively, the Bison have won 35 conference championships and 14 national championships. Historically, only 5 teams established after 1893; Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida, and Clemson have won more total games than NDSU's 720

My point was that Bohl built the most recent dynasty. Left Klieman with a national championship team. Compared to what Bohl got when he arrived there. Hence Bohl being average at Wyoming was my reason for Klieman being a bad pick.

[Jesuslives]

A grad from OU will probably not stay here if the OU job comes available.

[Tbonespop]

When it comes to coaching searches, you guys are looking at the wrong metrics. Well, some of the wrong metrics. There are many factors that can impact a coaches record - good and bad. When someone has success in one environment, it's certainly not a guarantee at the next environment. I've posted a little on this in the past as some buddies and I have compiled +3 years worth of data for the purposes of betting. We've identified some key attributes with respect to coaches making moves. It's help us have a very high betting success rate. I won't go into the details too much but I'll give you the overall important things to look for.

Many Administrators are all about hiring the new, sexy "up and comer" coach. That energetic, exciting, well spoken "recruiter type" because "he's going to get all the good talent" (Ron Prince anyone?). It's also very en vogue to go after minority based coaches as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm 1000% supportive of equal opportunity for all people of all races for any job, etc. It's not about race or youth or hot recruiter or charisma, it's about "merit". Have they "earned" it? Isn't this the reason so many people are against Sean Snyder?? The problem comes when coaches are getting advancements not based on actual earned achievements. Look at a coaches progression through the ranks. Coaching is a fraternity. Look at their stops, coaching connections - i.e. the "fraternity". Are they making moves based on being high performing and are they highly sought after? Or are they making moves as coaches because of their buddy buddy relationships (or blood relationships *cough Sean Snyder*)? Is it "earned" or is it a relationship deal or are they riding coat tails? What happens in an off year? How did they respond after a 6-6 or 5-7 season? A handful of recruits that steadily improve in a couple of years could make a program trend up over ~2-3 years. Maybe the coach accidentally caught lightning in a bottle with a couple of key recruits that gave them a couple of good years? Does that mean they will always catch lightning in a bottle? Is that sustainable?

Look at their coaching ties. Look at their moves and how are they connected? What's the back story between each coaching move - as in the REAL back story. Are they getting exposure to different head coaches and coordinators? Are they getting exposed to different schemes on both sides of the ball? Are they career position coaches? Are they getting jobs based on what takes place at coaching clinics? Dig into the "why" not the "where" and "what". Whatever happens, don't get enamored with "likability" or "young, enthusiastic" or "great recruiter". Look no further than the hype that came with Ron Prince. Have we not learned from that experience? The examples similar to that Ron Prince hire happen every year because an AD fell in love with a BS artist.

It can all be boiled down to is each coaching move a "merit based" move or are they following their buddies around?

I have some concerns about Seth Littrell and all his moves with OU cronies. Overall, I think he would be a decent hire, mainly based on him going to UNC. I have serious doubts he's a "homerun" hire. There's a reason that coaches make it into the hall of fame. It's not easy. There aren't many Bill Snyders, Urban Meyers, Nick Sabans, et al.

I will support whoever we get as a new HC, 100%. I think Littrell would be a decent hire. I also think Leavitt would be a very good hire, low risk. Brent Venebles is a VERY high risk coach, with potential high reward. Make no mistake, it's high risk though. While it was time for Bill to step aside, we have been so spoiled with him for a LONG time. I'm not 100% convinced Seth Littrell has completely earned it yet. The indicators are certainly headed in the right direction, but it's a limited data set. Leavitt on the other hand has proven his ability as a coach successfully at many levels over an extended time period.

[stlcatfan]

I have some concerns about Seth Littrell and all his moves with OU cronies. Overall, I think he would be a decent hire, mainly based on him going to UNC. I have serious doubts he's a "homerun" hire. There's a reason that coaches make it into the hall of fame. It's not easy. There aren't many Bill Snyders, Urban Meyers, Nick Sabans, et al.

I will support whoever we get as a new HC, 100%. I think Littrell would be a decent hire. I also think Leavitt would be a very good hire, low risk. Brent Venebles is a VERY high risk coach, with potential high reward. Make no mistake, it's high risk though. While it was time for Bill to step aside, we have been so spoiled with him for a LONG time. I'm not 100% convinced Seth Littrell has completely earned it yet. The indicators are certainly headed in the right direction, but it's a limited data set. Leavitt on the other hand has proven his ability as a coach successfully at many levels over an extended time period.

Good post. I, too, have concerns about Littrell. Not only what you have pointed out, but also that he may end up pulling a "Huggins" on us and take off for OU the minute the job opens. I know, like Huggins, he would likely get the program back on its feet in the short time he was here, but I would prefer someone like Leavitt, who sees this job as a destination, rather than a stepping-stone. Leavitt is a very good, hard-working coach, who still has lots of energy left in him. And, as you mentioned, he has already proved himself by what he accomplished as USF. He, like Littrell, would move this program forward.

I guess we will see how things play out in the coming days. I will support whoever becomes our next head coach.

[Gorhoops]

When it comes to coaching searches, you guys are looking at the wrong metrics. Well, some of the wrong metrics. There are many factors that can impact a coaches record - good and bad. When someone has success in one environment, it's certainly not a guarantee at the next environment. I've posted a little on this in the past as some buddies and I have compiled +3 years worth of data for the purposes of betting. We've identified some key attributes with respect to coaches making moves. It's help us have a very high betting success rate. I won't go into the details too much but I'll give you the overall important things to look for.

Many Administrators are all about hiring the new, sexy "up and comer" coach. That energetic, exciting, well spoken "recruiter type" because "he's going to get all the good talent" (Ron Prince anyone?). It's also very en vogue to go after minority based coaches as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm 1000% supportive of equal opportunity for all people of all races for any job, etc. It's not about race or youth or hot recruiter or charisma, it's about "merit". Have they "earned" it? Isn't this the reason so many people are against Sean Snyder?? The problem comes when coaches are getting advancements not based on actual earned achievements. Look at a coaches progression through the ranks. Coaching is a fraternity. Look at their stops, coaching connections - i.e. the "fraternity". Are they making moves based on being high performing and are they highly sought after? Or are they making moves as coaches because of their buddy buddy relationships (or blood relationships *cough Sean Snyder*)? Is it "earned" or is it a relationship deal or are they riding coat tails? What happens in an off year? How did they respond after a 6-6 or 5-7 season? A handful of recruits that steadily improve in a couple of years could make a program trend up over ~2-3 years. Maybe the coach accidentally caught lightning in a bottle with a couple of key recruits that gave them a couple of good years? Does that mean they will always catch lightning in a bottle? Is that sustainable?

Look at their coaching ties. Look at their moves and how are they connected? What's the back story between each coaching move - as in the REAL back story. Are they getting exposure to different head coaches and coordinators? Are they getting exposed to different schemes on both sides of the ball? Are they career position coaches? Are they getting jobs based on what takes place at coaching clinics? Dig into the "why" not the "where" and "what". Whatever happens, don't get enamored with "likability" or "young, enthusiastic" or "great recruiter". Look no further than the hype that came with Ron Prince. Have we not learned from that experience? The examples similar to that Ron Prince hire happen every year because an AD fell in love with a BS artist.

It can all be boiled down to is each coaching move a "merit based" move or are they following their buddies around?

I have some concerns about Seth Littrell and all his moves with OU cronies. Overall, I think he would be a decent hire, mainly based on him going to UNC. I have serious doubts he's a "homerun" hire. There's a reason that coaches make it into the hall of fame. It's not easy. There aren't many Bill Snyders, Urban Meyers, Nick Sabans, et al.

I will support whoever we get as a new HC, 100%. I think Littrell would be a decent hire. I also think Leavitt would be a very good hire, low risk. Brent Venebles is a VERY high risk coach, with potential high reward. Make no mistake, it's high risk though. While it was time for Bill to step aside, we have been so spoiled with him for a LONG time. I'm not 100% convinced Seth Littrell has completely earned it yet. The indicators are certainly headed in the right direction, but it's a limited data set. Leavitt on the other hand has proven his ability as a coach successfully at many levels over an extended time period.

Ok bones, you have me hooked, now I need to know, who is a home run hire for KSU in this search?? You have posted your merit system, now give me the guy that is a home run.

I enjoy reading your informed posts, am interested to hear, based on your metrics, who you would consider a home run.