For those Gill supporters some interesting FACTS from Joe Cribbs

[JohnDeere]

http://www.warblogeagle.com/search?updated-max=2008-12-12T10%3A12%3A00-05%3A00

Yes, the Bulls offense took another step forward this year. But the team as a whole ... um, despite that whole "record" and "championship" thing, Gill's Bulls were not actually a better team this season.

Consider: that +70 yardage margin in MAC play in 2007? Gone in 2008--the Bulls are giving up 400 yards a game and gaining about 13 yards less than that. Per-play, the story's a little better, but not much: after a net of +.2 per play in 2007 MAC play (5.4/5.2), the Bulls have backslid to -.2 in 2008 (5.6/5.8).

The issue is coordinator Jimmy Williams's defense. After their 72nd-place finish in 2007 the Bulls dropped to 94th this season; even if the yardage totals are similar, the substantially easier schedule the Bulls played this season and additional .6 yards-a-play given up in MAC play should tell you something about how much trouble the Bulls had on defense this year. (Also: these stats were tabulated before the MAC championship game, where the 500 yards given up to Ball St. won't help.) It would be one thing if Williams was working with a bevy of underclassmen and newcomers--but the Bulls returned eight defensive starters, including the entire secondary, and had the luxury of starting three senior defensive linemen. Despite those advantages, the Bulls' D regressed to the point that Bulls were, overall, no better (and were possibly worse) than they were in 2007.

So how did the record improve from 5-7 to 7-5? How'd they go from also-ran to MAC champs? Well, first, remember that their regular season MAC record didn't actally improve--they were 5-3 in 2007 and 5-3 in 2008, and only advanced to the MAC title game via 1) playing in the substantially weaker of the MAC's two divisions 2) beating division rival Bowling Green 40-34 in overtime after a furious fourth-quarter rally 3) this:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cnrc_r69B2A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cnrc_r69B2A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Outside of the MAC, it's simply a matter of scheduling: in 2007 they visited Rutgers, Penn St., Baylor, and Syracuse; in 2008, two of those trips were replaced with home games against UTEP and Army. Easy.
Buffalo probably wouldn't have even held steady at 5-3 in the MAC if not for their stunning good fortune in the realm of turnovers: the Bulls finished at +13 in the regular season, tied for a spot in the top 10, after Bull opponents put the ball on the ground 29 times, ranking the Bulls in the country's top 5 in that department. Some of turnover margin isn't random--the Bulls defenders' made some savvy plays to force some of those fumbles, and having a senior quarterback who finishes the year with only five interceptions helps--but by and large, numbers that high are luck. And the regular season, of course, just ended up being prelude to the insane MAC title game, when Ball St. outgained the Bulls by a full 200 yards and would have won if they hadn't put the ball on the turf four different times, with the Bulls walking two of them back for scores.

So, yeah: whatever the record says, Buffalo did not improve in 2008. Saying Gill "took the Bulls from 1-10 to a MAC title in three years" isn't as accurate as saying "Gill took the Bulls from 1-10 to MAC East contention in two years, then totally lucked into a title his third year." So, yeah, I'm troubled:

1. When you're talking about a candidate with only three years had coaching experience, and in one of those three years the team failed to improve in several measurable ways, that's troubling.

2. When the reason a candidate is a candidate because of his record this season, and that record is built on Hail Marys and opponent's mistakes, that's troubling.

3. When the candidate may bring with him a defensive coordinator whose defense took a dramatic step back this season despite having more experience on hand than in his previous seasons--and who I believe, based on what little evidence we have, would not be able to hold the line drawn in the sand by Tubby and his DCs--that's troubling.

One other thing that probably deserves mentioning in this space: it doesn't change my opinion that hiring Gill would be a boom for Auburn's recruiting, but there's not any hard guru evidence that Gill's done wonders for the Bulls' recruiting efforts. Buffalo currently has the smallest, lowest-ranked class in the MAC and there's basically no difference between the ratings of Gill's classes with his predecessor's. I don't think that means a whole lot, if anything; the gurus might be able to tell you with a certain amount of accuracy what's going on in the SEC, but I can't imagine their credibility extends all the way down into the morass of no-stars that make up the overwhelming bulk of MAC prospects. But if you want to have some kind of firm assurance of Gill's recruiting pull, you're either going to have to rely on the old Nebraska anecdotes or what your gut tells you during that postgame interview. (That's what I'm relying on, anyway.)

(And oh one more thing: Gill's not as young as you think. He's 46, three years older than Fisher, only a year younger than Kelly and Leach. It's not a detriment, and Gill's probably more energetic than any of those guys regardless, but he doesn't have, say, 25 years left on the coaching odometer, either.)

Final endorsements? Let me say this: I think Gill is a good candidate. His combination of charisma, offensive pedigree, and willingness to put in the work to turn freaking Buffalo around means he would be a hire with a tremendous amount of potential. Because of that upside, I'd take him over any other coach currently at a mid-major school, and I do believe there's an excellent chance he becomes a big winner at some BCS school someday.

But, finally, my advice to Auburn would be: let some other school take that chance. It's too soon. As staggering an accomplishment as resurrecting this Buffalo program is, it's a completely different kind of challenge from leading Auburn into battle against the likes of Nick Saban and Mark Richt and Les Miles. Three years just isn't enough time, especially when one of those years was spent mostly spinning the team's wheels rather than moving it forward.

Yes, Gill will be able to recruit, but so could Ed Orgeron. Yes, Gill is a man of impressive character, but so was Sly Croom. Yes, Gill resurrected a dormant mid-major program, but so did Steve Kragthorpe. I just can't shake the feeling that we're not even having this conversation if that Hail Mary hits the turf, and if the margin between being Auburn's next head coach and not even getting an interview is that slim, the candidate probably shouldn't be the head coach.

Sorry, guys.

[Kaos]

I'm sorry, but I find this entire argument to be retarded.

You can do the same thing about any situation:   

If Wes Byrum makes a PAT against Vandy and an easy FG against Arkansas and Auburn tackles Knowshon Moreno for a loss every time he touches the ball, Auburn wins 10 games and we're not having this discussion.

If Arenas doesn't run back a kick against Tulane, if Ole Miss isn't Ole Miss, if Georgia plays two halves, if Auburn doesn't fumble twice, Alabama loses five games and Saban is on the hotseat instead of being fitted for a pedestal.

Ifs and buts aren't candy and nuts.

What MATTERS is that Gill's teams DID improve their winning percentage every season he was there. What MATTERS is that Gill's players responded to his enthusiasm and played every game as if they could win. Before Gill, Buffalo just went through the motions and picked up paychecks. He sold those guys on the fact that they COULD win.

You apply that same "what if" progressional logic to Chizik and jeezmarie, how awful he looks. His teams were statistically worse than Gills in practically every category despite having a much more solid foundation from which to work.

And who really gives a fuck anyway?

[JohnDeere]

What MATTERS is that Gill's teams DID improve their winning percentage every season he was there. What MATTERS is that Gill's players responded to his enthusiasm and played every game as if they could win.

Enthusiasm might can push a team past the Temples, UTEPs, and Armys of D1; but it ain't going to do shit against LSU, UGA, and UAT.

And who really gives a fuck anyway?

You responded and keep making an arguement out of this crap.

[Kaos]

Enthusiasm might can push a team past the Temples, UTEPs, and Armys of D1; but it ain't going to do shit against LSU, UGA, and UAT.

Tell that to the Chiz.  His teams lost to the Temples, UTEPs and Armys of D1. 

[JohnDeere]

Tell that to the Chiz.  His teams lost to the Temples, UTEPs and Armys of D1. 

"racism!"