Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
superold

How many more years do Koll and Flynn...

Recommended Posts

Koll and Flynn both are in the conversation for top dog in the coaching department.

 

As I've stated many times before, I disagree.

 

Neither can hang their hat on a national title...

 

This is why I disagree.

 

Flynn no doubt has done as much as anyone could given the resources available to him.

 

How do you know? How many scholarships did Cael use to get Ruth, Taylor, and Brown? Is it safe to say that he used less than the number that Flynn has to give? Seeing that Flynn's team finished where they did on the strength of pretty much 3 wrestlers, I think Cael with these 3 guys alone would probably outperform Flynn.

 

...do realize what Flynn has done and it doesn't hurt the #1 heavyweight in US Olympic history is the AD. For many reasons they are not the go to place for the blue chippers. That said Flynn recognizes talent and gets enough good blue collar kids from the Ohio, PA and NY region to be competitive beyond where most expect of him.

 

Wouldn't the combination of these factors put Flynn in one of the very best situations in the country? Top 15 to Top 20?

 

 

Bottom line is I don't see how a young recruit can go wrong wrestling for any of these 3 and there are a number of others out there as well who would do them justice. JUST OPEN YOUR EYES (and shut your mouth).

 

My eyes are open and I see some good things from Koll and Flynn. Still, I believe their accomplishments leave them short of the great category. I think both are very good coaches and nothing more.

 

And I could see how a recruit would be very hesitant to sign on with Flynn. Flynn has never produced a multiple time national champion. None of his 3 champions have ever repeated. 3 champions in 16 years.

 

 

I don't believe you have to win national titles to be at or near the top of the coaching profession. Each institution is different and certainly having less in terms of scholarships, facilities and academic prestige affect who you can attract. Those factors have a great effect in who you can bring in and as a result little to do with how good a coach is.

 

And Yes.....Flynn is in one of the 15-20 best situations in the country even without the schollies, facilities etc and he responds by producing! One of the reasons that you over look is "the room". With a higher profile program with top notch backing and academic reputation Cael is able to have close to blue chip recruits walk on and the wars within the room on a daily basis create the monsters we have seen at PSU.

 

You point to Taylor, Ruth and Brown.....Edinboro has a solid base with Schopp, Port and Habat who were less coveted but have done exceptionally well without the "room" at other top programs. That has to have a lot to do with Flynn and his staff.....that is coaching! It is my understanding that Flynn does not give out scholly money to reruits until they have produced on the mat. That makes it a bit difficult to get many of the top recruits who expect full schollies. Ruth and Taylor have been PSU's bread and butter but the depth on the team has contributed to every national title and that is something that Edinboro can not replicate and that is not due to coaching!

 

Cael may still be 2nd fiddle to Brands had he not taken the leap of faith that the situation at PSU was a great situation, but he would have still been a great coach though under appreciated! So I will stick with my assumption that there are more dogs in this race than you want to assert!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop cherry picking through my post, if ur going to quote me quote everything I said cherry picker.

 

Last crumb for the troll(that's u superold)

 

Results don't happen in a vacuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
superold: True/False?

 

Trent Dilfer is a great quarterback, but Dan Marino is not a great quarterback.

 

Different sport, different circumstances.

 

Please explain. Because Dilfer has a championship, Marino does not. If championships are the penultimate factor in determining greatness - it seems like a no-brainer.

 

If by different circumstances you are referring to the support provided by the other team members, then doesn't that same principle apply to coaches regarding scholarships, financial resources, facilities, school size, academic standards, etc.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
superold: True/False?

 

Trent Dilfer is a great quarterback, but Dan Marino is not a great quarterback.

 

Different sport, different circumstances.

 

Please explain. Because Dilfer has a championship, Marino does not. If championships are the penultimate factor in determining greatness - it seems like a no-brainer.

 

If by different circumstances you are referring to the support provided by the other team members, then doesn't that same principle apply to coaches regarding scholarships, financial resources, facilities, school size, academic standards, etc.?

 

Comparing individuals in wrestling and football are different things flaBigRedfan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's that gif that looks like a guy beating a dead horse?

 

Isn't there also some quote on the Interweb about "opening your mouth and proving you're a fool" that some famous historical, possible Cornell grad., said a long time ago...

 

This guy reminds of having conversations with some drunk buddies back in college...no matter how logical and simply you present your side, he still wants to walk 3 miles for a pizza.

 

Can we get some more "great" posters around here, so we don't have to indulge in this non-championship posting?

 

Anyone want to discuss a Dake/Taylor rematch???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Comparing individuals in wrestling and football are different things flaBigRedfan.

 

I'm not talking about comparing wrestling to football. I'm simply talking about comparing two football players: one that won a superbowl, one that did not. which is better? Take wrestling off the table.

 

So, speaking strictly about football - which quarterback is great? Dilfer or Marino or both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"the sky is blue today"

 

"No, it's white"

 

Your quote from a previous thread:

 

With three consecutive team titles, Cael Sanderson of Penn State is the one who objectively is the best coach.

 

We are in agreement Tbar! Are you aware that several on this thread are arguing that the best coach in the ncaa is up for debate? :)

 

It is not what you are saying that makes you a troll, but rather how and how many times you are saying it that makes you a troll. You are a troll, superold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about comparing wrestling to football. I'm simply talking about comparing two football players: one that won a superbowl, one that did not. which is better? Take wrestling off the table.

 

So, speaking strictly about football - which quarterback is great? Dilfer or Marino or both?

 

Are you under the impression that I use the same standard of greatness for everything? Is that what caused this line of questioning?

 

A title doesn't guarantee greatness across the board. For example, I don't believe that Alan Fried was a great ncaa wrestler and he won a national championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not what you are saying that makes you a troll, but rather how and how many times you are saying it that makes you a troll. You are a troll, superold.

 

I think some are calling me a troll because of what I'm saying. Even if I only mentioned my opinion on Flynn and Koll once, I believe that would put me in the troll category of several posters.

 

The only reason my position is constantly repeated is because I'm responding to other people's posts that are directed towards me or addressing my position. My position has been misrepresented a few times, so I had to clear it up. Some believe that I was saying that Koll and Flynn weren't good coaches. I never said that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you under the impression that I use the same standard of greatness for everything? Is that what caused this line of questioning?

 

A title doesn't guarantee greatness across the board. For example, I don't believe that Alan Fried was a great ncaa wrestler and he won a national championship.

 

Yes, I am under the impression that you define greatness across the board in terms of championships. If you have completely blinded yourself to the obstacles that Flynn and Koll have had to overcome to get their teams where they are - then I have to assume that you have blinded yourself across the board to where championships are the only things that matter.

 

You repeatedly ignore and dismiss all facts other than one: that Cael has an NCAA championship, Koll and Flynn do not. That seems to be the only fact that you care about - so I have to assume it is the same with other things: Dilfer has a championship, Marino does not. Ergo - Dilfer is great, Marino is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I am under the impression that you define greatness across the board in terms of championships.

 

I usually do.

 

You repeatedly ignore and dismiss all facts other than one: that Cael has an NCAA championship, Koll and Flynn do not.

 

I don't ignore and dismiss all the facts; I acknowledge them all. It's just that I don't think their accomplishments put them in the great category.

 

That seems to be the only fact that you care about - so I have to assume it is the same with other things: Dilfer has a championship, Marino does not. Ergo - Dilfer is great, Marino is not.

 

Could you put forth some wrestling related comparisons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where's that gif that looks like a guy beating a dead horse?

 

Isn't there also some quote on the Interweb about "opening your mouth and proving you're a fool" that some famous historical, possible Cornell grad., said a long time ago...

 

I know this isn't the one but I like it

1812.strip.gif

 

Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) didn't attend Cornell. He was friends with some of the administration and visited Ithaca a couple of times when visiting Elmira.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Could you put forth some wrestling related comparisons?

 

There are hundreds of them in this thread alone. But it obvious that you don't want to answer my question.

 

I don't know as much about football as I do about wrestling. I'm not sure why we can't keep this in wrestling. I'd feel more confident giving an answer if I knew more. But if you really, really want an answer, from my limited knowledge, I'd say that both Marino and Dilfer are not great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FlaBigRedFan,

 

Is it safe to assume that you believe that winning a team title is not necessary in order to go down as the greatest ncaa D1 coach of all time? That is, a coach with 0 ncaa titles at the top of the all time list is not necessarily an absurd thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I had no idea we were talking about the title of the greatest NCAA D1 coach of all time.

 

But, yes, it is safe to assume that I believe winning a team title is not necessary to define a great NCAA D1 wrestling coach.

 

And, it is also safe to assume that I do not believe Cael has yet proven himself to be the greatest NCAA D1 wrestling coach of all time. He needs to do a lot more to earn that title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superold are you arguing that Koll,Flynn are not great or are you arguing that Cael is the greatest?

 

You keep making claims that some refer to Koll and Flynn as great coaches(something you disagree with, we get it), then in the next breath you claim that some state Koll and Flynn are greater than Cael(something you disagree with). Now you are bringing all-time greatness status into the convo instead of just current greats in college coaching. Which transforms the argument into a different level of thinking.

 

You seem to flip between them depending upon how it fits into your agenda. What are you attempting to argue? Can a child get some clarification here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. I had no idea we were talking about the title of the greatest NCAA D1 coach of all time.

 

But, yes, it is safe to assume that I believe winning a team title is not necessary to define a great NCAA D1 wrestling coach.

 

And, it is also safe to assume that I do not believe Cael has yet proven himself to be the greatest NCAA D1 wrestling coach of all time. He needs to do a lot more to earn that title.

 

Just so we're clear since I'm not 100% certain about your answer. We'll do it your way.

 

True or False flaBigRedfan:

 

It's not necessary for a coach to win an ncaa team title in order to be go down as the greatest ncaa D1 coach of all time.

 

True or False:

 

It's absurd to consider any D1 coach with 0 ncaa titles the greatest coach of all time no matter what else they accomplish during their careers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. I had no idea we were talking about the title of the greatest NCAA D1 coach of all time.

 

But, yes, it is safe to assume that I believe winning a team title is not necessary to define a great NCAA D1 wrestling coach.

 

And, it is also safe to assume that I do not believe Cael has yet proven himself to be the greatest NCAA D1 wrestling coach of all time. He needs to do a lot more to earn that title.

 

Just so we're clear since I'm not 100% certain about your answer. We'll do it your way.

 

True or False flaBigRedfan:

 

It's not necessary for a coach to win an ncaa team title in order to be go down as the greatest ncaa D1 coach of all time.

 

True or False:

 

It's absurd to consider any D1 coach with 0 ncaa titles the greatest coach of all time no matter what else they accomplish during their careers.

Only one can be the greatest

 

many can be great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. I had no idea we were talking about the title of the greatest NCAA D1 coach of all time.

 

But, yes, it is safe to assume that I believe winning a team title is not necessary to define a great NCAA D1 wrestling coach.

 

And, it is also safe to assume that I do not believe Cael has yet proven himself to be the greatest NCAA D1 wrestling coach of all time. He needs to do a lot more to earn that title.

 

Just so we're clear since I'm not 100% certain about your answer. We'll do it your way.

 

True or False flaBigRedfan:

 

It's not necessary for a coach to win an ncaa team title in order to be go down as the greatest ncaa D1 coach of all time.

 

True or False:

 

It's absurd to consider any D1 coach with 0 ncaa titles the greatest coach of all time no matter what else they accomplish during their careers.

 

I'll answer your true/false questions after you answer mine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which transforms the argument into a different level of thinking.

 

I don't think that it does transform the argument in a meaningful way that involves a different level of thinking. I believe it involves an identical level of thinking. I'm not sure why you say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which transforms the argument into a different level of thinking.

 

I don't think that it does transform the argument in a meaningful way that involves a different level of thinking. I believe it involves an identical level of thinking. I'm not sure why you say that.

Cherry picking I see.

 

So these arguments are identical?

 

Koll and Flynn are great coaches.

 

Koll or Flynn are the greatest coaches of all time.

 

If they are not identical arguments then they will not include the same level of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Superold are you arguing that Koll,Flynn are not great or are you arguing that Cael is the greatest?

 

You keep making claims that some refer to Koll and Flynn as great coaches(something you disagree with, we get it), then in the next breath you claim that some state Koll and Flynn are greater than Cael(something you disagree with). Now you are bringing all-time greatness status into the convo instead of just current greats in college coaching. Which transforms the argument into a different level of thinking.

 

You seem to flip between them depending upon how it fits into your agenda. What are you attempting to argue? Can a child get some clarification here?

Superold instead of cherry picking(something you claim not to do) please respond to my questions.

 

What are you attempting to argue?

 

I think the consensus on this forum was that you were attempting to argue that Koll and Flynn are not great coaches. However, recently you argument has appeared to shift to you arguing that Koll and Flynn are not the greatest coaches of all time. Again, what are you trying to argue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...