PeterHilton

Mooch? Really? He was out of the NFL for like 5 minutes. Jim Caldwell? He's been on the Colts staff since 01 And again..you're throwing out exceptions when I could list 20 more failures. It's a prevailing trend. And yes..Saban quit. SO he failed.

Ohhh....somehow i misconstrued more time and more attention as meaning 'harder' My bad Again..."I gave this advice to Butch when he was thinking of going to Cleveland," Johnson says. "'Don't count on having the same success in Cleveland that we had in Dallas. Things fell right for us. You can stay at Miami, you probably won't make as much money and you may not satisfy your ego, but you can win 10 or 11 games a year and have a family life. Don't count on any of those things if you go to Cleveland.' That - to me - sounds like he's saying it was harder.

You're nitpicking. Seriously. Did I have to be that specific for you? By 'harder to coach' did you think I wasn't alluding to the idea that it was harder to coach and actually succeed? Again..YOU posted that article. That thing doesn't say it's "different" it says it's harder. Yes. You're naming individual exceptions. They are still exceptions.

I don't like it because it turns a football game played under specific rules into some kind of mini-game passing drill you'd find in Madden. Both teams should get the ball..but under normal football circumstances. That's it. And again..how is it 'out in left field' based on the track record of college coaches? How? Based on years of history, what's more likely..that he flames out or that he succeeds and goes to the playoffs this year? Hell..name the last college coach that went o the NFL and even kept their job longer than three seasons.

Are you high? I referenced what the article said. Christ, it's YOUR post. Read it. It says that it's harder to coach and succeed in the NFL.

Based on what? Oregon was a total loser when he got there. He took them to bowl games, won a Pac 10 title, and went to a Rose Bowl. This is pre-Nike money Oregon...the fact he did that much with that bad a program showed a lot. And again...back to the initial point..YOU brought him up as an NFL guy who failed in college. And I'm saying that he was a decent college coach who flamed out in the NFL (which he did) and then went back to college and succeeded (which you agreed to) which proves my point.

It's a joke because you end up with teams going back and forth playing TD ping pong. It looks ridiculous. The NFL OT isn't ideal..but I'd rather make some adustments on that then watch the college OT where teams are turning 21-21 ties into 120 point shoot-outs. I live in LA. He's not as great a coach as the national media portrays. He's not some defensive genius. Staffs get turned over in the NFL all the time. And based on the history of college coaches in the NFL, it's really not that bold a prediction.

I was. That was my whole point. And don't be snide Gatorbait. Taking Kentucky from where it was to three straight bowl games makes him a success. You know that's true.

OK..one..are you guys reading the same article? I feel like you're not. Because we're referencing a piece that contains about 20 quotes from people in the league that all said it was harder to succeed in the NFL. Look..I'll give you examples: "I go with the idea that if you can coach, you can coach at any level," Green says. "But I do think a guy coming into the pro game without any experience as a pro assistant has a more difficult time." "I gave this advice to Butch when he was thinking of going to Cleveland," Johnson says. "'Don't count on having the same success in Cleveland that we had in Dallas. Things fell right for us. You can stay at Miami, you probably won't make as much money and you may not satisfy your ego, but you can win 10 or 11 games a year and have a family life. Don't count on any of those things if you go to Cleveland.' Again..I'm going to go ahead and trust with the articles I've read in countless sports magazines, the bios I've read, the interviews I've heard etc. Here's some more stuff from Jimmy Johnson (since apparently you've never heard him say this kind of thing before): Still, Johnson was surprised at how small the margin for error was once he was hired by the Cowboys. "You can be sloppy in college and still win," says Johnson, who made the transition better than anyone. "You can't in pro." "It's a long season with no easy weeks," Johnson says. "It can wear on you, and it's hard to keep your guys up. In college, you point for certain weeks. In the pros, you have to be steady."

No worries. Phenomenal segment on NXT with Bryan/Cole/Miz. Bryan continues to show an ability to 'act' and cut a better-than-expected-by-most promo And Cole was solid too.They might as well run with him as the heel announcer since Jerry is useless.

Weis was a coordinator. I'm talking about head coaches. Why do you keep mentioning Rich Brooks? Considering he was a success at Oregon, struggled with the Rams, then went and turned a crappy little program like Kentucky into a competitive team in the SEC, he proves my point. And as Bigpapa said..that article says specifically in several different ways that the NFL is tougher. Not just different. But tougher.

Pretty much what I meant by 'no great shakes'..doesn't mean he's anywhere near being terrible.

George was actually really good. His matches did open up with more antics than ring action. But again..was he famous for his ringwork? Or for the act? Lawler...? Like I said I don't like him, his act, his territory.. And he was a very basic worker. I don't know about 'freaking good' but yeah maybe he wasn't terrible.

Considering how long he was on top of Memphis, he was one of the worst workers I've seen. (My opinion is biased though; I can't stand him or 99% of the stuff that ran in Memphis. ) But again..he proves my point: he wasn't innovative or spectacular in the ring, but he knew how to get his crowds worked up.

Fair enough. I'd say the sheer amount of heat he drew plus the fact that his turn created such a shift in the industry deserves consideration though. I watch wrestling to be entertained. Period. The Rock was no great shakes in the ring. Huge draw. Stone Cold's hottest period was during his lowest point in terms of in-ring work. Bruno Sammartino? Basic brawler. Gorgeous George? A 20 minute slapfest. Jerry Lawler? One of the biggest single draw in terms of a single territory and arguably one of the worst workers I've seen. I can go on but you get my point...PRO WRESTLING has never been about who is capable of being the best wrestler. It's about who is the best entertainer.

This shows that you pretty much have no idea how the wrestling business works. Like...not one clue. The entire point of pro wrestling is to make people want to pay money to see you. That's it. It's not about flipping around the ring or workrate or movesets or any of these other bullsh*t terms that internet wrestling nerds love so much. Can you make people care so much about what you do in character, in the ring, that they are willing to go to the arena, buy a ppv, turn on their tv, buy your merchandise...? If you can make people PAY TO SEE YOU you are a good worker (the history of the industry is littered with guys who weren't mind blowing in the ring but were still insanely hot draws). As jbergey said, he's arguably the greatest heel and greatest face of all time. He's been one of if not the bigest draw in the business for damn near 30 years. If you ask me, Hogan is the greatest PRO WRESTLER EVER.

Yes. Because every single person in the business of football who's done both has said so.

I'll be gentle. Can't. Can't do it legally due to sports licensing issues. Cant do it from a PR standpoint because actual legit fighting sports would make them look stupid. Not a bad idea. This probably has more to do with the E needing to rely on a certain amount of predictability to generate revenue. If you KNOW a guy can draw, it's hard for them to justify moving him of his spot. See above. good point though. To be fair...they 'came out' as an entertainment fed in the mid 80s. They are the essentially the only name in their industry and have destroyed all their major competition and there's n end in sight. That's not exactly short term. A lot of it has to do with who they're marketing to. They've made a conscious decision to not worry about the 'smart' or 'hardcore' fans. If you stop watching now and come back in 6 months or so, you'll pick up all the storylines after watching one or two episodes. (Ive done it..it's easy) They WANT the casual fan, which leads to a slower, more predictable, easier to relate to product. For better or worse.

Not as much as in the NFL. College coaches - even the highly successful ones - more often than not flame out. That's just a fact. And getting better talent IS a big part of the equation. Spurrier - as an example - never really had to gameplan that much because his guys were just better than almost everyone he faced (back then the SEC wasn't the beast it is now; he's probably be in over his head if he'd stayed at Florida as well). Saban left because he failed. Petrino left because he failed. Erickson got fired because he failed. Carroll was a failure. Butch Davis failed. Lou Holtz. Rich Brooks. In college, talent hides your deficiencies as a coach. In the NFL, it doesn't.

Big difference between watching sports and actually relating to and geting along with the frat boy mentality.

It was a joke aimed at Hyde. Calm down.

Honestly, that's just a difference of opinion. i don't think he's that great persnally, but he's clearly been able to get the crowds to buy into him and -more importantly than anything - he elicits a response. He gets a good old fashioned "i hate this guy and i want someone to punch him in the face" heel reaction from the crowd. And that's his job. The fact that his "catchphrase" is trite and lame and a billion percent predictable makes him even more heelish. If Spencer from The Hills was a wrestler, he'd be The Miz. And that's exactly what he;s going for IMO. So ..he's doing his job. That's his talent. (not sure why you think he's a jackass of the screen. you must have a low tolerance for the jock/meathed type)

WCW proved this years ago. (waits for Hyde's head to explode at umpteenth WCW reference )

That's true. Interesting. Honestly, if that were the case, then it's worth it. I'd much rather have 0.4 of the TNA internet dorks (or the 'passionate faithful' as I'm sure they'd prefer to be called) in exchange for 0.2 of an audience that will pay for PPVs and merch.

Yknow..it's gonna be close IIRC the Impact shows before Angle were in the low 0.7's at their absolute best. He may have been the first (and only) signing that atually created a long term bump in the ratings. i could be wrong though.