My Opinion

[youwouldno]

Even when conceding the primary point of a longer-term, organic approach, it should not be overlooked that Hendrix has been head coach long enough to have tangible results from such an approach. I am not sure the current issues can be attributed to the last 12 months or so.

Yeah, this is a super weak excuse for a coach in year 5. Actually, the advantages of the organic approach should now be reaching their peak, instead of bottoming out -

CCH's Massey rating by year:
2017: 25
2018: 25
2019: 33
2020: 51
2021: 54

When you see this pattern, it means you have an ineffective coaching staff. I'm not aware of any coach in the history of college football that ultimately reversed a 4-year trend of stagnation/deterioration.

Teams that are perpetually "young" reflect poor recruiting and retention by the staff, which helps explain why there is such heavy reliance on young players in CCH year 5. His teams will always be "young."

[Ltcfitz]

Apologies if this has been asked and answered.

Has Jace already forgone the possibility of redshirt status? If not, is that why we saw HS on the field at Western?

Thanks

[MidlandsPaladin]

Unless someone knows something different, Jace is no longer eligible for a redshirt because he appeared in five games this season. NCAA language says “less than four”.

[apaladin]

Unless someone knows something different, Jace is no longer eligible for a redshirt because he appeared in five games this season. NCAA language says “less than four”.

The limit is four, not less than four so you are correct, he is not eligible for a RS.

[FU3]

Even when conceding the primary point of a longer-term, organic approach, it should not be overlooked that Hendrix has been head coach long enough to have tangible results from such an approach. I am not sure the current issues can be attributed to the last 12 months or so.

Yeah, this is a super weak excuse for a coach in year 5. Actually, the advantages of the organic approach should now be reaching their peak, instead of bottoming out -

CCH's Massey rating by year:
2017: 25
2018: 25
2019: 33
2020: 51
2021: 54

When you see this pattern, it means you have an ineffective coaching staff. I'm not aware of any coach in the history of college football that ultimately reversed a 4-year trend of stagnation/deterioration.

Teams that are perpetually "young" reflect poor recruiting and retention by the staff, which helps explain why there is such heavy reliance on young players in CCH year 5. His teams will always be "young."

Furman has been the beneficiary of some very large gifts toward the football program. FU has with out a doubt the best facilities in the Socon and some of the best in FCS. Our coaching salaries have been upgraded and recruiting budgets expanded,our HC position is endowed. In short the kind of outside support most Socon schools could only dream of. What I have a tough time understanding is why given our disastrous spring season did the administration decide that giving CCH a 5 year extension was warranted? Was he going to leave?..the results during his tenure warranted it ?..he had a great plan to navigate the changes in the new transfer environment? Would love to have a staff and administration lay out the goals of the football program and how we are going to get there. Our players performances are publicly discussed on a weekly basis, seems only fair that it should apply to coaching staff and administration as well.

[apaladin]

Even when conceding the primary point of a longer-term, organic approach, it should not be overlooked that Hendrix has been head coach long enough to have tangible results from such an approach. I am not sure the current issues can be attributed to the last 12 months or so.

Yeah, this is a super weak excuse for a coach in year 5. Actually, the advantages of the organic approach should now be reaching their peak, instead of bottoming out -

CCH's Massey rating by year:
2017: 25
2018: 25
2019: 33
2020: 51
2021: 54

When you see this pattern, it means you have an ineffective coaching staff. I'm not aware of any coach in the history of college football that ultimately reversed a 4-year trend of stagnation/deterioration.

Teams that are perpetually "young" reflect poor recruiting and retention by the staff, which helps explain why there is such heavy reliance on young players in CCH year 5. His teams will always be "young."

Furman has been the beneficiary of some very large gifts toward the football program. FU has with out a doubt the best facilities in the Socon and some of the best in FCS. Our coaching salaries have been upgraded and recruiting budgets expanded,our HC position is endowed. In short the kind of outside support most Socon schools could only dream of. What I have a tough time understanding is why given our disastrous spring season did the administration decide that giving CCH a 5 year extension was warranted? Was he going to leave?..the results during his tenure warranted it ?..he had a great plan to navigate the changes in the new transfer environment? Would love to have a staff and administration lay out the goals of the football program and how we are going to get there. Our players performances are publicly discussed on a weekly basis, seems only fair that it should apply to coaching staff and administration as well.

I said this elsewhere. I do not believe anyone was knocking CCH’s door down. Everyone knows the sprng season was a disaster going from favorite to under .500. I think someone took the easy way out since the spring season could pretty much be excused but if it continued in the fall, which was likely, justifying an extension would be hard to do. A coaching search takes time, money and lots of effort. No one has to worry about that now. That is off the table for 5 years. Speaking of which, why 5 years? Why not 2 or 3 years? Anyway, on the surface that is what it looks like to me.

[youwouldno]

I said this elsewhere. I do not believe anyone was knocking CCH’s door down. Everyone knows the sprng season was a disaster going from favorite to under .500. I think someone took the easy way out since the spring season could pretty much be excused but if it continued in the fall, which was likely, justifying an extension would be hard to do. A coaching search takes time, money and lots of effort. No one has to worry about that now. That is off the table for 5 years. Speaking of which, why 5 years? Why not 2 or 3 years? Anyway, on the surface that is what it looks like to me.

Yeah, it was an unforced error by JD. I like him but maybe his non-football background hurt in this case. I assume he would justify it by saying that coaches have a better time recruiting when they are under contract for an extended period of time (i.e., for most or all of a HS players' college career). So while there was no market demand for CCH personally, perhaps JD did not recognize the possibility that CCH might fail to meet even the minimum performance standards of Furman football.

I'm sure there's blame to go around though . . . Hendrix earned a lot of goodwill at Furman before being head coach, and showed some promising signs early on after being hired. Nor was it obviously a mirage as happened for one season each with Bruce Fowler and, in basketball, Jeff Jackson. Even then though, five years was excessive.

[Furmanoid]

I think apaladin right. They nipped any "hot seat" talk in the bud before it could get started. I think the Pres and AD are content just to field a team and have a coach who doesn't do anything embarrassing for a few years. Trying too hard to be a winner is a headache. And I bet we'll have at least one playoff team sometime before CH is gone. Not gonna bet on playoff wins.

[gofurman]

In today’s college football (at least this season after COVID), lots of guys moved. I think maybe the question might be why didn’t Furman try and take advantage of the opportunity…

This is all you needed to type.

In today’s Transfer Portal, Covid issues/opportunities, NIL, Cost-of-Attendance, Conference Realignment environment, the Administration of a School that cares about having a successful / winning Football program will do everything they can, within the broadest guidelines / interpretations of the overall mission & goals of the school, to support that Football program in Recruiting, Retention, and (overall) Development of Football playing Students. The Adminstration will recognize that the environment is extremely volatile & turbulent, and, of course, EXTREMELY COMPETITIVE, thus requiring new & innovative solutions to effectively support the Football Program.

If FU’s Administration cares about having a successful Football program and has been, are, and will continue to do that, FANTASTIC!

If FU’s Administration cares about having a successful Football program and has NOT been doing that, they must begin to do so immediately.

If FU’s Administration does not care about having a successful Football program, no need to make any changes.

GREAT POST FUBeAR - we will find out how much they care in the next few months/years. Do we see some change in who/how the offense is run? Do we see new and innovative moves? Or the same thing and .500 seasons for the next few years.?

[FUBeAR]

In today’s college football (at least this season after COVID), lots of guys moved. I think maybe the question might be why didn’t Furman try and take advantage of the opportunity…

This is all you needed to type.

In today’s Transfer Portal, Covid issues/opportunities, NIL, Cost-of-Attendance, Conference Realignment environment, the Administration of a School that cares about having a successful / winning Football program will do everything they can, within the broadest guidelines / interpretations of the overall mission & goals of the school, to support that Football program in Recruiting, Retention, and (overall) Development of Football playing Students. The Adminstration will recognize that the environment is extremely volatile & turbulent, and, of course, EXTREMELY COMPETITIVE, thus requiring new & innovative solutions to effectively support the Football Program.

If FU’s Administration cares about having a successful Football program and has been, are, and will continue to do that, FANTASTIC!

If FU’s Administration cares about having a successful Football program and has NOT been doing that, they must begin to do so immediately.

If FU’s Administration does not care about having a successful Football program, no need to make any changes.

GREAT POST FUBeAR - we will find out how much they care in the next few months/years. Do we see some change in who/how the offense is run? Do we see new and innovative moves? Or the same thing and .500 seasons for the next few years.?

Doubtful the FU Administration will have their hands directly on the levers of the Offensive schemes deployed by Furman Football.

When FUBeAR says/said “FU Administration,” he is referring to…
the Trustees,
the President,
the most Sr leadership in Admissions,
the most Sr leadership in Academics,
and the most Sr leadership in Athletics.

FUBeAR has had enough personal interaction & heard enough from ‘inside sources’ to feel highly confident that the most Sr. leadership in Athletics definitely cares about having a successful/winning Football program and has, is, and will continue to work to enable new & innovative solutions to that end.

[The Jackal]

I don't think we need to overcomplicate this.

We average 6.5 yards per completion. That's not going to get it done running the system we want to run.

Bottom line - we do virtually nothing on offense to force defenses to defend downfield.

If you look back, virtually all of our big offensive strikes this season have been short plays - either runs that broke through the line or pass plays that only went a few yards, broke a tackle, and out ran the defense.

Some disagree, but a lot about this team reminds me of the 2003 team - good defense. Offense that struggles to score led by a QB rotation of the veteran leader and promising freshman.

[FU3]

Being serious, is that a good thing because they were 6-5? I guess that sounds better than the 4-7 we might be facing now but that comparison doesn’t really cheer me up.

[youwouldno]

Being serious, is that a good thing because they were 6-5? I guess that sounds better than the 4-7 we might be facing now but that comparison doesn’t really cheer me up.

We all know this isn't 2003. It's just such a bad football situation that folks have to try harder and harder to spin it.

[Louis Tully]

I don't think we need to overcomplicate this.

We average 6.5 yards per completion. That's not going to get it done running the system we want to run.

Bottom line - we do virtually nothing on offense to force defenses to defend downfield.

If you look back, virtually all of our big offensive strikes this season have been short plays - either runs that broke through the line or pass plays that only went a few yards, broke a tackle, and out ran the defense.

Some disagree, but a lot about this team reminds me of the 2003 team - good defense. Offense that struggles to score led by a QB rotation of the veteran leader and promising freshman.

And then Ingle Martin showed up.

[The Jackal]

Being serious, is that a good thing because they were 6-5? I guess that sounds better than the 4-7 we might be facing now but that comparison doesn’t really cheer me up.

The 2003 team was Bobby Lamb's second year.

He still had a strong defense, many of whom were core pieces of the 2001 title run.

Offensively, Furman really didn't have a QB after Napier graduated. Most of the snaps went to a veteran - Bo Moore - who wasn't terribly effective. The other snaps went to an athletic freshman, Josh Stepp, who, while talented, didn't have much of a command of the offense.

Much like this season, Furman lost a number of very low scoring games. They lost games where the opponent scored 13 (App State), 10 (Citadel), and 7 (Wofford).

The 2003 team had a strong core, but lacked a QB. That was remedied the next season with the arrival of Ingle Martin, which facilitated two back to back excellent seasons in 2004 and 2005. Martin stepped into a program with a solid defense and plenty of talent on offense - the same team that struggled to score in 2003 was one of the nation's best offenses in 2004.