Sour Grapes From Statesboro

[WarApp]

What a sophomoric load of bull.

Trav moaning about "transparency" and voting procedure as a way of whining about awards not going the way he wanted them to go. Alleging some half-baked idea that "Lunsford wuz robbed!" because his fellow coaches are somehow threatened by him.

He doesn't give a damn about "transparency" or procedure. We know this to be true, because there is no way he writes that column if Lunsford had been selected COY. All his concerns about "transparency" and procedures wouldn't have merited a pearl-clutching article in that case, you can be assured.

It's not "transparency" he's concerned about. It's Lunsford/GaSo getting props he's concerned about. He doesn't feel like he can go full-homer, so he pushes this "transparency" red herring. Because he's not really engaged in journalism. He's engaged in boosterism.

And you know what? That's actually OK by me. Just be "transparent" about it, homeboy.

[Black Saturday]

They don't have to worry about Satterfield getting COY next year.

[ASU3432Mi]

Fake News.

[iambhooper]

They don't have to worry about Satterfield getting COY next year.

Wouldn't it be funny if Satterfield's replacement did?!

I would f'n love that... print some leaflets and rent a balloon to fly over East Ga!

[StinklikeRoses]

This is only my second post -- came to offer some friendly insights on the coaching carousel on another thread, but this one looks like a topic I can't refuse . . .

I think the problem with awards like this is that they are poorly defined: What does the "Coach of the Year" represent, and what should the criteria be for selecting the winner?

1. Is it the coach whose team performed the absolute 'best' that season? If so, it would seem to be a simple rote process to hand it to the coach of the conference champ along with the team trophy.

2. Is it the coach who has built the strongest program? i.e., does last year's success or the year before count? Are we rewarding streaks or careers here?

3. or is it, as I think a lot of people have come to understand these types of awards, the coach whose team is most improved or who outperformed expectations THAT season?

If it's 1 or 2, then of course it's Satterfield, hands down. If it's 3, then it's clearly Lunsford, with Napier a distant second. The problem, I suspect, is that if you asked all of the voters what their criteria were, you'd get all three of the above and potentially some other answers. Rather than transparency, there should be a well-defined set of criteria. That's the only way we can judge the legitimacy of the award.

[CVAPP]

This is only my second post -- came to offer some friendly insights on the coaching carousel on another thread, but this one looks like a topic I can't refuse . . .

I think the problem with awards like this is that they are poorly defined: What does the "Coach of the Year" represent, and what should the criteria be for selecting the winner?

1. Is it the coach whose team performed the absolute 'best' that season? If so, it would seem to be a simple rote process to hand it to the coach of the conference champ along with the team trophy.

2. Is it the coach who has built the strongest program? i.e., does last year's success or the year before count? Are we rewarding streaks or careers here?

3. or is it, as I think a lot of people have come to understand these types of awards, the coach whose team is most improved or who outperformed expectations THAT season?

If it's 1 or 2, then of course it's Satterfield, hands down. If it's 3, then it's clearly Lunsford, with Napier a distant second. The problem, I suspect, is that if you asked all of the voters what their criteria were, you'd get all three of the above and potentially some other answers. Rather than transparency, there should be a well-defined set of criteria. That's the only way we can judge the legitimacy of the award.

Why even put that much thought into it?

[StinklikeRoses]

This is only my second post -- came to offer some friendly insights on the coaching carousel on another thread, but this one looks like a topic I can't refuse . . .

I think the problem with awards like this is that they are poorly defined: What does the "Coach of the Year" represent, and what should the criteria be for selecting the winner?

1. Is it the coach whose team performed the absolute 'best' that season? If so, it would seem to be a simple rote process to hand it to the coach of the conference champ along with the team trophy.

2. Is it the coach who has built the strongest program? i.e., does last year's success or the year before count? Are we rewarding streaks or careers here?

3. or is it, as I think a lot of people have come to understand these types of awards, the coach whose team is most improved or who outperformed expectations THAT season?

If it's 1 or 2, then of course it's Satterfield, hands down. If it's 3, then it's clearly Lunsford, with Napier a distant second. The problem, I suspect, is that if you asked all of the voters what their criteria were, you'd get all three of the above and potentially some other answers. Rather than transparency, there should be a well-defined set of criteria. That's the only way we can judge the legitimacy of the award.

Why even put that much thought into it?

Because a lot of coaches have financial incentives tied to such awards?

[proasu89]

This is only my second post -- came to offer some friendly insights on the coaching carousel on another thread, but this one looks like a topic I can't refuse . . .

I think the problem with awards like this is that they are poorly defined: What does the "Coach of the Year" represent, and what should the criteria be for selecting the winner?

1. Is it the coach whose team performed the absolute 'best' that season? If so, it would seem to be a simple rote process to hand it to the coach of the conference champ along with the team trophy.

2. Is it the coach who has built the strongest program? i.e., does last year's success or the year before count? Are we rewarding streaks or careers here?

3. or is it, as I think a lot of people have come to understand these types of awards, the coach whose team is most improved or who outperformed expectations THAT season?

If it's 1 or 2, then of course it's Satterfield, hands down. If it's 3, then it's clearly Lunsford, with Napier a distant second. The problem, I suspect, is that if you asked all of the voters what their criteria were, you'd get all three of the above and potentially some other answers. Rather than transparency, there should be a well-defined set of criteria. That's the only way we can judge the legitimacy of the award.

Why even put that much thought into it?

True, but I will comment on #3. At no point has the COY award ever been called the “Most Improved Award”.

[StinklikeRoses]

This is only my second post -- came to offer some friendly insights on the coaching carousel on another thread, but this one looks like a topic I can't refuse . . .

I think the problem with awards like this is that they are poorly defined: What does the "Coach of the Year" represent, and what should the criteria be for selecting the winner?

1. Is it the coach whose team performed the absolute 'best' that season? If so, it would seem to be a simple rote process to hand it to the coach of the conference champ along with the team trophy.

2. Is it the coach who has built the strongest program? i.e., does last year's success or the year before count? Are we rewarding streaks or careers here?

3. or is it, as I think a lot of people have come to understand these types of awards, the coach whose team is most improved or who outperformed expectations THAT season?

If it's 1 or 2, then of course it's Satterfield, hands down. If it's 3, then it's clearly Lunsford, with Napier a distant second. The problem, I suspect, is that if you asked all of the voters what their criteria were, you'd get all three of the above and potentially some other answers. Rather than transparency, there should be a well-defined set of criteria. That's the only way we can judge the legitimacy of the award.

Why even put that much thought into it?

True, but I will comment on #3. At no point has the COY award ever been called the “Most Improved Award”.

True enough. So, what then would you say the award should represent?

[Gonzo]

No coach who lost two conference games and finished third in the division should be considered COTY. Lunsford isn't even the second most worthy COTY candidate in the East.

I sounds to me like the title is being "poorly defined"....retroactively by a fanbase whose team blew it late in the season, was eager to get some all-conference consolation prizes, but were rudely awoken by the fact that the awards aren't chosen by homer Stink fans who are willing to redefine awards to suit Georgia Southern.

I really thought Georgia Southern was better than this. It's really embarrassing.

[HighPointApp]

For all Stink fans.

[hapapp]

This is only my second post -- came to offer some friendly insights on the coaching carousel on another thread, but this one looks like a topic I can't refuse . . .

I think the problem with awards like this is that they are poorly defined: What does the "Coach of the Year" represent, and what should the criteria be for selecting the winner?

1. Is it the coach whose team performed the absolute 'best' that season? If so, it would seem to be a simple rote process to hand it to the coach of the conference champ along with the team trophy.

2. Is it the coach who has built the strongest program? i.e., does last year's success or the year before count? Are we rewarding streaks or careers here?

3. or is it, as I think a lot of people have come to understand these types of awards, the coach whose team is most improved or who outperformed expectations THAT season?

If it's 1 or 2, then of course it's Satterfield, hands down. If it's 3, then it's clearly Lunsford, with Napier a distant second. The problem, I suspect, is that if you asked all of the voters what their criteria were, you'd get all three of the above and potentially some other answers. Rather than transparency, there should be a well-defined set of criteria. That's the only way we can judge the legitimacy of the award.

Why even put that much thought into it?

Because a lot of coaches have financial incentives tied to such awards?

That's a fair point. Frankly, I thought Lunsford was a strong possibility. Since there apparently isn't real criterion for the award, I guess each voter has his own that they apply.

[appaneer1984]

For all Stink fans.

You could throw Lala fans into that same category!

[HighPointApp]

nah....they're not crying babies like Stink fans.

[CVAPP]

This is only my second post -- came to offer some friendly insights on the coaching carousel on another thread, but this one looks like a topic I can't refuse . . .

I think the problem with awards like this is that they are poorly defined: What does the "Coach of the Year" represent, and what should the criteria be for selecting the winner?

1. Is it the coach whose team performed the absolute 'best' that season? If so, it would seem to be a simple rote process to hand it to the coach of the conference champ along with the team trophy.

2. Is it the coach who has built the strongest program? i.e., does last year's success or the year before count? Are we rewarding streaks or careers here?

3. or is it, as I think a lot of people have come to understand these types of awards, the coach whose team is most improved or who outperformed expectations THAT season?

If it's 1 or 2, then of course it's Satterfield, hands down. If it's 3, then it's clearly Lunsford, with Napier a distant second. The problem, I suspect, is that if you asked all of the voters what their criteria were, you'd get all three of the above and potentially some other answers. Rather than transparency, there should be a well-defined set of criteria. That's the only way we can judge the legitimacy of the award.

Why even put that much thought into it?

Because a lot of coaches have financial incentives tied to such awards?

Not buying that. If you think these finincial incentives will keep a coach as deserving as Satterfield around you are asleep at the wheel.

[StinklikeRoses]

No coach who lost two conference games and finished third in the division should be considered COTY. Lunsford isn't even the second most worthy COTY candidate in the East.

I sounds to me like the title is being "poorly defined"....retroactively by a fanbase whose team blew it late in the season, was eager to get some all-conference consolation prizes, but were rudely awoken by the fact that the awards aren't chosen by homer Stink fans who are willing to redefine awards to suit Georgia Southern.

I really thought Georgia Southern was better than this. It's really embarrassing.

Wow. Let the hate flow through you. LOL

I assure you that you appear to care more about it than I do . . .

So, are you saying it’s basically for the coach of the conference champs? That’s cool, but it would seem kind of redundant. It just seems that historically these kinds of awards have a little bit more story behind them, like engineering a turnaround or overcoming lots of injuries or some other disadvantage as opposed to maintaining the status quo-however superior that may be. Otherwise, the “Best Coach in the Conference” wouldn’t likely be expected to change very often and one guy would just rack up awards unless some other factor came into play. I mean, there’s a reason Scott Frost won a lot of COTY awards instead of Nick Saban in 2017. Even if GS somehow won the conference championship next year I’d still consider the turnaround this season to have been the more impressive feat.

Cheers

[StinklikeRoses]

This is only my second post -- came to offer some friendly insights on the coaching carousel on another thread, but this one looks like a topic I can't refuse . . .

I think the problem with awards like this is that they are poorly defined: What does the "Coach of the Year" represent, and what should the criteria be for selecting the winner?

1. Is it the coach whose team performed the absolute 'best' that season? If so, it would seem to be a simple rote process to hand it to the coach of the conference champ along with the team trophy.

2. Is it the coach who has built the strongest program? i.e., does last year's success or the year before count? Are we rewarding streaks or careers here?

3. or is it, as I think a lot of people have come to understand these types of awards, the coach whose team is most improved or who outperformed expectations THAT season?

If it's 1 or 2, then of course it's Satterfield, hands down. If it's 3, then it's clearly Lunsford, with Napier a distant second. The problem, I suspect, is that if you asked all of the voters what their criteria were, you'd get all three of the above and potentially some other answers. Rather than transparency, there should be a well-defined set of criteria. That's the only way we can judge the legitimacy of the award.

Why even put that much thought into it?

Because a lot of coaches have financial incentives tied to such awards?

Not buying that. If you think these finincial incentives will keep a coach as deserving as Satterfield around you are asleep at the wheel.

Nah, they’re usually ridiculously undersized incentives relative to their salaries. Just answering the question as to why there should be a stated criteria. But then, what would we have to argue about?

[The Rock]

the stink is the UNCC of the Sunbelt

[BUTCH1991]

Strong case for Lunsford and Satt. I wouldn't have been upset either way, but of course, glad that Satt won it.

[AppStFan1]

If coaches won't throw in his direction, then Duck won't have that many pass break ups.

He clearly doesn't know football. DBs who are well known are respected and not thrown to as much. To the victors go the spoils and thus App and Troy had the most picked because of their results.

App had some players screwed and some who were too high. Greer was not 2nd team worthy but Fehr and Gaither both should have been first team.