|
Post by HarrisburgFlame on Sept 15, 2005 22:29:54 GMT -5
we had some players then. Hout did a great job of getting central VA talent and thus building interest in the program locally. He endured the move to D-IAA, the flood, taking over Tom Dowling a month before the 84 season started. Had the program right on the brink in my opinion. They went with Sam for a quick fix. Sam did a good job but I too wonder if Hout had been allowed to see it through what might have been.
|
|
|
Post by thelaxman on Sept 16, 2005 4:12:43 GMT -5
I remember Morgan Hout. I was a Senior in the 86-87 school year. He really turned the team around over the 3 years he was there. In his last year he went 7-4 and received Coach of the Year Awards and was let go for Sam. I never felt that was fair. He was a really good Guy and had a strong Christian testimony.
After that LU Football really did not go to far over the next 12 years or so. But maybe I'm missing something. I was out west for a long time and did not keep up with stuff so maybe they had a couple of winning seasons but every time I picked up the paper or saw something on ESPN they were getting beat by 40 points or so.
I remember when they had Edwards and Banks as receivers in the mid to late 80's. Those two Guys could put on a show at the old City Stadium. Both of those Guys played in the NFL.
I do like the new Coach now. I know he has had a few tough seasons but I think he is beginning to turn the corner. We will see what happens. I do have some strong feelings about Hout and that he was not treated good and deserved to stay with the program back in the late 80's. He sure was a heck of a lot better then his predecessor Dowling. For which he cleaned up Dowling's mess and I think he was a much better Coach then Sam.
On moving up to Division 1A, I think they should move slow and continue to develop and in time go with the Div. 1A status but I don't think they are ready at this time.
Anyway just me opinion.
God Bless,
|
|
|
Post by lufbfan3 on Sept 16, 2005 23:57:04 GMT -5
I only have a few comments---
1. Sly, you mentioned IF we had the 1-A scholarships our team could recruit a higher caliber of player, obviously that's agreed. However, I feel like we don't utilize the scholarships we HAVE. Some of the players that have been brought in under full scholarship see MINIMAL playing time, if any. Why waste full scholarships on people you aren't really going to play? 2. I don't believe that LU will ever be at the level that we are discussing until Karcher is gone. I think he's got his heart in the right place, but does not have the coaching skills to make the Flames viable contenders. He got this extension by the skin on his teeth, in my opinion. He said he needed 4 recruiting classes to build a good team and I think we're on 6 or 7? I think he makes bad decisions, and blames others for it. I hate to be negative about the guy-but he has set himself up for it.
That's all I've got for now. Hopefully we'll get a new coach that can deliver some amazing results. More winning=More attendance and $$ from alumni=better chance of getting facilities and attendance that would allow us to go 1-A. It takes time to build a 1-A program, and I think we've got some time to improve before we'll be ready for that!
|
|
|
Post by Stevev on Sept 17, 2005 6:43:37 GMT -5
Totally agree with the above comments about Coach Karcher. I believe Karcher stated that with 3 recruiting classes he would have a 1AA championship calibre team. Right now we are at 5 recruiting classes and the team is nowhere near that level. All we have done the past 2 years is beat weak teams mostly Big South and the Hofstra (good program but the record was 2-9 that year). In his 3rd year we did give App State a good game and should have beaten Eastern Kentucky (blew a big lead late in the game). The progress under the Karcher rein, as I see it, has been very minimal. Just look at the scores against the 1A' and quality 1AA teams over the past 6 years and you might say no progress at all.
Would someone answer this question. Why do a great deal of his best recruits end up leaving the program (Is it grades, lack of playing time, or relationship (or lack of it)with the coaches). The list is too long to mention here but a few that I can think of are Travis Johnson, Kyle Painter, Chris Weaver, Matt Beard, and others that right now slip my mind. Could indicate a problem there as well as LUFBFAN's other comments made which I agree with totally.
|
|
|
Post by eddantes on Sept 17, 2005 9:28:54 GMT -5
I don't think that SteveV could be more correct. I was a freshman when Karcher first came in as a coach, and I bought into what he had to say. He cited teams such as Fresno State (who had David Carr back then, now the QB for the Texans) and he talked about using that model to build a franchise - redshirting freshman, having scheduled recruiting, etc. And yeah, he said that it would take three solid recruiting classes to get where he wanted to go as a program, competing at a 1-AA championship level.
Well, he's had five, and his team has merely treaded water for those last few years. So I pose this question -- Karcher's first season as a coach was in 2000. It wasn't until 2002 that Coastal Carolina announced they were going to have a football team. By 2004, Karcher had his fourth recruiting class, and Coastal was in its second year of existence. But when the two squared off, Coastal won, and did something that Kenny Boy never did - win the Big South.
That being established -- Coastal surpassed LU in talent in fewer years -- why can't we say that we're approaching football incorrectly?
And if we are (and we are), why don't we act to correct this course?
LU has played cupcake schools for the last few years -- I'd do the research on it, but I'm lazy. If we measure success by our record after beating Charleston Southern, VMI, Norfolk State and a D-II school every year, then we have certainly lowered the standards of our program.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Lang on Sept 17, 2005 10:07:13 GMT -5
I'm not going to get into the Karcher should go/stay battle, mostly because as a beat writer, that's not my place to toss those opinions out there. But I can understand the frustration coming from the fan base, for sure.
Ed, that's a great point about Coastal. I think there's a little bit of envy from the other four teams in the league about how fast Coastal has risen. But they've got a coach that the players and administration believe in. Bennett seems to inspire anyone and everyone involved with Coastal football.
It doesn't hurt that Coastal is the only true public school in the Big South and has access to state funds. But private schools can succeed and have done so in football, so there's no reason why Liberty can't.
|
|
|
Post by Sly Fox on Sept 17, 2005 10:28:51 GMT -5
Coastal has been a rare success story. They are the exception and not the rule.
As for the attition rate of our athletes, it isn't significantly different than most other schools. Even the most successful schools have tons of turnover each season. Even CCU unexpectantly lost several starters this summer.
|
|
|
Post by eddantes on Sept 17, 2005 15:38:45 GMT -5
Sly, I think you're missing one point about the "attrition" rate. The entire premise behind the recruiting strategy was that you would get players, redshirt them their first year, and then have them ready to contribute by their fourth and fifth years. But we've since gotten away from that model.
Take the Kyle Painter / Gus Condon saga. These were the two quarterbacks that Karcher brought in during his first recruiting class. Both redshirted their first years to "learn the system," also as QB Biff Parsons finished out his senior year.
Gus Condon, a JUCO transfer, was a redshirt junior when he assumed the QB mantle. Unfortunately, he was a disaster. So, they bring in Kyle Painter, who did fairly decent. Oh, and they redshirted the new guy - J.R. Barley.
The next year, they try to stick with the plan... Keep Condon as a senior, slot Painter as the backup, Barley as third string, and redshirt the next new guy, Travis Johnson.
Well, Condon, still the disaster, gets benched. Painter gets passed over for Barley... And then eventually Brock Ferrell and Zach Terrell are brought in.
But look at it this way: If you were Painter, you came across the country (he was from California) on the basis that you were supposed to be the MAN eventually, so you quietly put in your dues for years... And then you get passed over for whoever Karcher's flavor of the month is.
Eventually, this gums up the works. People feel slighted, and then they leave the program, when the promises made to them aren't delivered.
Look at the basketball program with Jeremy Monceaux. He was the MAN coming from Alabama, and was supposed to be the MAN for LU. But LU, always forward-thinking, recruits the next MAN, Larry Blair. Monceaux, injured and disappointed at no longer being the MAN, is left with little recourse.
So that's why people leave programs. Either that, or the jocks stop going to class.
|
|
grm
Full Member
Posts: 158
|
Post by grm on Sept 17, 2005 16:10:13 GMT -5
Great reading. Go Flames. One thought: it is great and important to win at the current level, and recruiting would be a challenge in the early years at D-1, but it would also give you a better shot at the Christian athletes who had their hearts set on playing at the top level.
|
|
|
Post by Stevev on Sept 17, 2005 19:42:38 GMT -5
Great synopsis by eddantes. We have never had a good quarterback since Karcher took over. His best QB was Biff Parson who Sam recruited but he was very inconsistent. How about the 2 1A transferes Karcher brought in (JK Scott and Paul Troth). They ended up being busts and they kind of got in the way of some of the recruits coming up in the system. Karcher is a former QB and you would think he could develope a QB in that system.
Right now I just don't know if Terrill or Smith could develope in that system. Would probably end up transfering somewhere else.
Disagree with the Monceaux situation. He wasn't all that good anyway. Might have been okay off the bench but this is about as far as he was going to go.
|
|
|
Post by lufbfan3 on Sept 17, 2005 22:59:51 GMT -5
To comment on the Monceaux sidebar: He wasn't that good. I think he thought he was the man more than anyone else did. Recruiters are going to kiss your butt so you come to their college.
As for the subject at hand--I would say that HUGE part of the reason that so many good players have gone (and the list could go on for posts and posts) are MAINLY-and don't get me wrong about the fact that there are several reasons-but MAINLY because of bad relationships with the coaches (i.e. getting screwed out of playing time, empty promises, etc.). Travis Johnson and JR were both excellent QB's. If I have the story right, JR was studying to be a Dr. and was told he couldn't go home for summer classes AND be a starter the following year. Thus, he decided to leave. (POOR CHOICE on Karcher's part-JR was a very good pick) Kyle Painter was better than Gus, but as was stated-Karcher picks a "Golden Boy" and sticks with him. Prime example, Paul Troth. Not to be a "hater" but he was just not a good QB. He had a good arm, don't get me wrong-I watched him practice several times-but he just wasn't good in game situations. Throwing the heck out of a football doesn't mean you're a good QB. There is no way that you can possibly justify why he was the starter in the first 6 games. And THEN he got treated like crap for the rest of the season, which is also unacceptable. On the same note, Travis Johnson was promised big things and had a LOT of talent but got screwed. I don't blame him for playing baseball instead of spring ball. It would have been a waste of another season of eligibility for him.
As for Chris Weaver, Matt Beard, Caleb Maher, Michael Pearson, and many other that I can't even think of right now-I think that a huge part of them leaving is the Karcher "system". Caleb was injured in 2003, and last year lost a LOT of weight so he could play where they wanted him-but it wasn't his natural position. Then they were unhappy with him because his performance at a position he had NEVER played before wasn't as good as they hoped. I think Matt Beard got tired of having to take almost EVERY rep because there was no other O-Line to fill in and give them a rest!
I'm going to climb off my soapbox, but I will end with this. Turn-over is one thing, but I think that the cause of the turnover should be looked at. There aren't many people that will turn down a full ride for no good reason.
|
|
|
Post by eddantes on Sept 18, 2005 13:10:32 GMT -5
Just a follow-up about that "golden boy" thing... One thing I will never understand is that we recruited some amazing running backs under Karcher - Dre Barnes, Eugene Goodman and Sam Gado. Yet it seems like we never utilized them to their full potential. Barnes was always the go-to guy, and I think is LU's leading rusher... But when he got injured, Goodman seemlessly was plugged in, and I think HE holds the record for most consecutive 100+ yard games. And when HE got injured, we plugged in Gado, who was so good he got signed by the Kansas City Chiefs.
And yet, we decided to pass the ball 37 times a game with that talented backfield.
|
|
|
Post by Stevev on Sept 19, 2005 15:10:56 GMT -5
Yes LU did recruit some good running backs. The offensive line was so-so, maybe good at run blocking but terrible at pass protection. The running game as a whole was a little overrated pilling up 200-300 years against suspect competition ( like Norfolk State and Chuck South) and then putting up just average numbers against legitimate competition. I guess the other teams focused on the run figuring the passing game wasn't going to do much anyway. I would think that the formation they use would lend itself to a balanced or a more pass oriented game plan.
|
|
|
Post by flameshaw on Sept 19, 2005 15:44:29 GMT -5
Not certain of this, but was told by someone on the athletic department staff that 35 players did not return last year from the 2003 team. Regarless of who is at fault, one thing is very clear, we are not making foward progress with our football program, we are going the other way, quickly. Hopefully someone will have some good ideas on how to fix it. It is embarassing to tell someone you played football for LU with the type of program that we currently have. It is not going to help recruitng. Go Flames!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Stevev on Sept 19, 2005 16:01:17 GMT -5
I know that those 35 that left were not all senior. I believe that 16 of those were seniors who had playing time last year. That means 19 left due to attrition. That is a big problem.
|
|