Louisville hires Florida's Charlie Strong as HC

by wildcatlh on Dec 8, 2009 9:03 PM EST Comment 12 comments

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4725530

I don't like this at all. I really have to say this is a great hire for Louisville. Strong's a great coach and an excellent recruiter. He's also apparently going to take Florida WR coach Billy Gonzales with him. Gonzalez is a great recruiter. Now, can they recruit as well when it's Louisville and not the great University of Florida? Who knows. All I know is that I'm really going to miss Kragthorpe.

0 recs | Comment 12 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Thats a great nugget

Cause i did not hear Gonzales was going as well. Not good, not good at all. Interestingly, Strong is one of (now) 9 black head coaches in college football. I’m from Alabama and there has been a lot of buzz about Strong for a while and if i recall correctly Auburn wouldn’t hire him because hes married to a white woman. He was interviewed though, if i remember correctly. Great talent, great coach, not good for us at all.

~Luke B.

by AZLK on Dec 8, 2009 9:45 PM EST reply actions

i think you were trying to say Turner Gill, from Buffalo. He was under consideration by Auburn and is married to a white woman. Charles Barkley was pretty upset that his alma mater didn’t hire Gill, but instead hired Gene Chizik, who had a terrible record at Iowa State.

by chicagocuse on Dec 8, 2009 10:02 PM EST up reply actions

good catch

turner gill it was. maybe strong was talking with miss or miss st then, i know there were a few schools looking at him

~Luke B.

by AZLK on Dec 10, 2009 11:42 AM EST up reply actions

The Gonzales talk

Is speculation from Tomahawk Nation (the SBN Florida State blog). I expect it to become official not too long after Strong officially takes the job though.

by wildcatlh on Dec 8, 2009 10:20 PM EST up reply actions

It's bad news.

But we are just going to have to accept that there are no more Temples/Rutgers in our conference. This is an upgrade over us being the Temple/Rutgers.

I also think it adds to the reputation of the Big East. It also underscores the importance of making sure that we conform or schedule to that reality… we no longer have 2 or 3 easy conference wins. One good BCS opponent is all that is needed nowadays. No need to play three.

by ezcuse on Dec 9, 2009 11:16 AM EST reply actions

Given this year's precedent

You don’t even need 1 BCS non-conference opponent. And you surely don’t need more than 1. Heck, you don’t even need to play more than 1 halfway decent team period. Texas made it to the National Championship game with none — their non-conference schedule was Wyoming, UTEP, Central Florida, and Louisiana-Monroe. Florida’s in the BCS with Florida State… and then Charleston Southern, Troy, and Florida International. Alabama had Virginia Tech… and then Florida International, North Texas, and Chattanooga.

Texas non-conference schedule: Wyoming, UTEP, UCF, Louisiana-Monroe

by wildcatlh on Dec 9, 2009 12:27 PM EST up reply actions

All the more reason we need a 9th team in the Big East

Right now, we only have 7 conference games, and hence, 7 games against BCS schools. That means we need at least 1 BCS OOC game just to catch back up with all the other conferences. So really, if we want to match other conferences’ teams scheduling only 1 OOC against BCS competition, then we need to schedule 2.

Nova seems like an obvious choice, if we could convince them to do what needs to be done to go from 1-AA to 1-A. Right now they’re one of the best 1-AA schools, and actually ranked higher than Syracuse, Louisville, Rutgers, USF, and UConn in the Sagarin ratings. Otherwise, we’d go after someone for football-only.

by MrPlow99 on Dec 9, 2009 2:26 PM EST up reply actions

You can do that if you're Florida or Texas

… and everybody thinks you’re good just because you’re Florida or Texas. If you’re not (a few other teams are like that, but we aren’t), you aren’t going to play for national championships with that schedule. Well, unless there are only two or fewer undefeated major-conference teams, in which case you get lucky (it’s still the case that the only undefeated BCS conference teams to miss the title game did so in years when there were 3 undefeated BCS conference teams, and both times the team left out was #3 in the final rankings).

by drothgery on Dec 10, 2009 12:37 AM EST up reply actions

Precisely

Florida and Texas started at the top of the polls, so because they never lost the pollsters didn’t have the balls to drop them even if they weren’t as impressive as Bama, TCU or at times Cincy. And because they aren’t playoffs, well, there you go.

by NOLACuse on Dec 10, 2009 2:13 PM EST up reply actions