You are going to see a common pattern of the many coaches that are supposed to be "the next hot shots, "or "genius's" at the non P5 schools that get a job at the P5 schools. The common factor in failures rests in two things. They had a small sample size (not many years at the non P5 school) and they had an elite QB for at least 2 of those 4 winning years. When you put those two together, you can get skewed numbers statistically. In summary, the sample size is to small. Add an elite QB, and you get what could be great records, but if the coach would have been at the non P5 school for 2 to 3 more years, you would have seen his true coaching abilities or lack of ability to win.
Herman at Houston- Only there for 2 years. 2 years folks as the Head Coach. 2 years is a couple of plays go your way and you get a solid record. It's not long enough to evaluate a guy's ability to win. He also had a top notch QB that helped that record. Texas took the bait.
Brown at WVU, and formerly at Troy. At Troy for a total of only 4 years, and a losing record his first year and in his last 3, he had a QB for 2 of those 3 years that actually made an NFL roster for 1 season.
Fu at Memphis. Guess how long? Only 4 years, and his first two seasons were losing seasons. He only had 2 winning seasons and guess what, a future NFL QB to help that record. Va Tech took the bait and fell hook, line, and sinker.
Napier at Louisiana. The exact same thing above. He's been there only 4 years as Head Coach. His first year record was around .500, and his last 3 years, a QB that is now projected by some to possibly go as high as the 4th round who has started there the last 3 years. See the pattern? It's fools gold in my opinion.
Now, Chadwell and why I think he's DIFFERENT. 10 year sample size, not 2 or 3 or 4 years, but a decade of sample size as a Head Coach and oh yea, he's won at 3 different schools at 3 different levels of college football. Greenville, Charleston Southern, and Coastal. When you have a decade of success, you have large enough of a sample size to rule out "good luck" or the effects of elite QB's. When you do it at 3 different schools and at 3 different levels of college football, it wreaks of his likely incredible ability to be successful at Va Tech.
Urban Meyer, I know, only 4 years as a HC before taking over Florida, but........he was at 2 different schools with 2 different QB's at Bowling Green and Utah. That's a bit different than just coaching at 1 school for 4 years, and lets be honest, Utah wasn't P5 yet back then, but they were kind of one of those 5 non P5 schools in the country that had P5 type status. Same thing applies to a team like BYU today. Yes, BYU is still non P5, but BYU's level of play over the past 40 years is one of those few schools that has the reputation or prowess of a P5, and of course they go in the Big 12 soon.
In conclusion, I know many of you like Napier, but I'm warning you, it's the EXACT same pattern as many of the one's above who have failed. It's almost identical. It's a short sample size and he has had an elite type QB, and it's the perfect setup. Could he be the next Frank Beamer? Maybe, he might do very well, but I'm just pointing out that his resume and patterns is near exact as the one's listed above who did not succeed. Chadwell on the other hand is a slam dunk for success. 10 years is simply to long, it's a large sample size that rules out statistical anomalies.
Herman at Houston- Only there for 2 years. 2 years folks as the Head Coach. 2 years is a couple of plays go your way and you get a solid record. It's not long enough to evaluate a guy's ability to win. He also had a top notch QB that helped that record. Texas took the bait.
Brown at WVU, and formerly at Troy. At Troy for a total of only 4 years, and a losing record his first year and in his last 3, he had a QB for 2 of those 3 years that actually made an NFL roster for 1 season.
Fu at Memphis. Guess how long? Only 4 years, and his first two seasons were losing seasons. He only had 2 winning seasons and guess what, a future NFL QB to help that record. Va Tech took the bait and fell hook, line, and sinker.
Napier at Louisiana. The exact same thing above. He's been there only 4 years as Head Coach. His first year record was around .500, and his last 3 years, a QB that is now projected by some to possibly go as high as the 4th round who has started there the last 3 years. See the pattern? It's fools gold in my opinion.
Now, Chadwell and why I think he's DIFFERENT. 10 year sample size, not 2 or 3 or 4 years, but a decade of sample size as a Head Coach and oh yea, he's won at 3 different schools at 3 different levels of college football. Greenville, Charleston Southern, and Coastal. When you have a decade of success, you have large enough of a sample size to rule out "good luck" or the effects of elite QB's. When you do it at 3 different schools and at 3 different levels of college football, it wreaks of his likely incredible ability to be successful at Va Tech.
Urban Meyer, I know, only 4 years as a HC before taking over Florida, but........he was at 2 different schools with 2 different QB's at Bowling Green and Utah. That's a bit different than just coaching at 1 school for 4 years, and lets be honest, Utah wasn't P5 yet back then, but they were kind of one of those 5 non P5 schools in the country that had P5 type status. Same thing applies to a team like BYU today. Yes, BYU is still non P5, but BYU's level of play over the past 40 years is one of those few schools that has the reputation or prowess of a P5, and of course they go in the Big 12 soon.
In conclusion, I know many of you like Napier, but I'm warning you, it's the EXACT same pattern as many of the one's above who have failed. It's almost identical. It's a short sample size and he has had an elite type QB, and it's the perfect setup. Could he be the next Frank Beamer? Maybe, he might do very well, but I'm just pointing out that his resume and patterns is near exact as the one's listed above who did not succeed. Chadwell on the other hand is a slam dunk for success. 10 years is simply to long, it's a large sample size that rules out statistical anomalies.
Last edited: