First,I apologize if the title is a bit confusing, and ask the mods to edit it if it is. But I was driving just awhile ago, and was listening to finebaum. As I said previously in another thread, I don't listen for football insight just and just for moronic entertainment. But a caller from Louisville called in and brought up Howard, and more specifically how he put 2 bottom feeders on the map only to bolt for a bigger job that didn't pan out. He also said Petrino learned the same lesson that Howard learned, but was blessed with a better situation than Howard ever was (ACC expansion, new field, and other perks)This got finebaum to ask the question " how good was Howard, and what would we view him as if he stayed at Miami or Louisville by today's standards." He said he can't think of many people that ever place him in the conversation of "great" coaches because how his post Miami and Louisville careers turned out. And he further led into the question "should tom Herman look at Howard's debacle at Oklahoma and steer clear of big time jobs until the chips are more in his favor?"
So my question has two parts:
1) how good was schnellenberger?
And
2) is Howard and Bobby Petrino proof that you can be a great coach without coaching at an elite and a deep conference, and if so should Herman take their examples.
So my question has two parts:
1) how good was schnellenberger?
And
2) is Howard and Bobby Petrino proof that you can be a great coach without coaching at an elite and a deep conference, and if so should Herman take their examples.