Just saw an Athlon ranking of Sunbelt football coaches. Have Napier at #1 and Clark at #7.

Blackshirt68 wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2020 2:02 pm

Just saw an Athlon ranking of Sunbelt football coaches. Have Napier at #1 and Clark at #7.

It kind of makes sense to have Clark towards the bottom just because he is a first time head coach. The confusing part to me was Matt Viator being #3, he and ULM have been underwhelming for years.

I agree. Clark is low for one reason: He's new and has no (or very little) track record. He will climb that ladder rapidly when we start playing. Napier is a very good coach and I doubt UL can keep him a whole lot longer.

NavyApp wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2020 2:35 pm

Blackshirt68 wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2020 2:02 pm

Just saw an Athlon ranking of Sunbelt football coaches. Have Napier at #1 and Clark at #7.

It kind of makes sense to have Clark towards the bottom just because he is a first time head coach. The confusing part to me was Matt Viator being #3, he and ULM have been underwhelming for years.

Sometimes you have to do a little projection and I would say worst case Clark should be 5. I understand 4 or 5 because he is a first time head coach. Like you, the Viator rating baffles me some. Maybe they know something we don't? Or maybe they think ULM has the worst team in the league by far and he is actually doing more with less? lol

These rankings are always weird. No real way to rank a first-year coach besides just guessing.

I definitely recall a Sun Belt coach ranking list the year we joined that had Satt at something like 11 out of 12.

EastHallApp wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2020 2:48 pm

These rankings are always weird. No real way to rank a first-year coach besides just guessing.

I definitely recall a Sun Belt coach ranking list the year we joined that had Satt at something like 11 out of 12.

Given the previous year that would make sense and it would have been hard to argue until the Troy game that year.

Clark is the kind of guy who will use this as motivation. And seriously, it would be hard to rate him since he's never been a HC before. I have a feeling he'll be towards the top by December...

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2020 2:58 pm

EastHallApp wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2020 2:48 pm

These rankings are always weird. No real way to rank a first-year coach besides just guessing.

I definitely recall a Sun Belt coach ranking list the year we joined that had Satt at something like 11 out of 12.

Given the previous year that would make sense and it would have been hard to argue until the Troy game that year.

Or maybe it would make more sense to just say “Hey we have no idea, we’re just doing this list to generate content and it’s totally meaningless,” or idk maybe that’s just me...

Sportswriters have had a crush on Viator since he started, I guess because he had success at McNeese State. But at this point, he’s going into his fifth year at ULM and he’s had 3 losing seasons and a .500 season. I know ULM has structural disadvantages—budget, etc.—but I think it’s time to be real.

It surprised that Clark isn’t ranked higher as a first year, but I suspect next year’s list might be kinder to him.

I was impressed with Viator the first couple of years. It seemed like he was getting more out of the ULM talent and they were making progress. Since then he has regressed and seems to be adequate but not particularly impressive. That said, sustaining success at ULM is a pretty hard task. Zero football culture, terrible facilities and little support.

Yosef84 wrote: ↑

Sat May 16, 2020 9:29 am

I was impressed with Viator the first couple of years. It seemed like he was getting more out of the ULM talent and they were making progress. Since then he has regressed and seems to be adequate but not particularly impressive. That said, sustaining success at ULM is a pretty hard task. Zero football culture, terrible facilities and little support.

You're not wrong but a 19-29 record with zero bowl games should not equate to third best coach in the conference. I don't like saying this but Lunsford and Elliot have coached circles around this guy. Heck even Chadwell had Coastal looking like a problem last year. I just would like to know what the authors criteria was. It's almost as if he knew Napier and Anderson (which I agree they are the two best going into the season) and then he threw the rest of the coaches in a hat and pulled them out one by one.

EastHallApp wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2020 7:18 pm

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2020 2:58 pm

EastHallApp wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2020 2:48 pm

These rankings are always weird. No real way to rank a first-year coach besides just guessing.

I definitely recall a Sun Belt coach ranking list the year we joined that had Satt at something like 11 out of 12.

Given the previous year that would make sense and it would have been hard to argue until the Troy game that year.

Or maybe it would make more sense to just say “Hey we have no idea, we’re just doing this list to generate content and it’s totally meaningless,” or idk maybe that’s just me...

For a brand new head coach what you say makes sense, but Satterfield had a year before to judge on and he was 4-8. It wasn't as if there was nothing to go on.

At the end of the day all of this is to fill content and one need not read it, though if it is going to be done it ought to be done with some level of actual explanation of how the analysis was computed and have it quantified as much as possible. It seems that is usually missing.

They should have said “ With only a bowl victory under Clark’s belt we didn’t think it fair to rate him”

Keep the chip.