Cuse9 128 Posted January 9, 2007 My friend and I are discussing this: Which is more prestigous? A college coach such as Bear Bryant, Woody Hayes, Are Parsegian and so on..... Current greats....Pete Carrol, Jim Tressell, Bobby Bowden, Joe Paterno OR An NFL coach such as Vince Lombardi, Don Shula, Chuck Noll.....and so on Bill Parcells, Bill Belicheck........ Here is the reasoning: Pete Carroll has a chance to go down in history as one of the top college coaches of all time if he stays at USC. Should he stay and try to reach that status or try to win a Super Bowl? History shows that college coaches do not fair well in the NFL. Other than Jimmy Johnson.....most have failed and faild miserably! So why would Carroll want to go to the NFL. My opinion is if you want to be the best football coach you have to win a Super Bowl. You're on a even playing field in the NFL and to win the Super Bowl you truely have to coach your team to a victory. In college you can stack your team with so much talent that, while you still have to coach, the talent usually makes a big difference. Yes, talent matters in the NFL, but not nearly as much as in college, hence coaching a Super Bowl team means you are a better coach. I can easily see how anyone could differ from my opnion........so let's hear it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shake_a_leg 0 Posted January 9, 2007 The biggest argument against Pete Carroll coming back to coach an NFL team is his past "success" at New England. Obviously the man is a fantasic talent scout for a top-rated team (I do kind of like the statement made during the Rose Bowl that LA doesn't need an NFL team as long as they have USC). If Carroll can come in to the NFL with total control, GM and coach, then it all rests on his shoulders. The problem is the same that Saban faced....one 1st round pick a year versus 25. However, I think what makes a college coach great and an NFL coach great are completely different. At the college level, the coach is still able to mold the players into what he wants them to become. In the NFL, you're pretty much stuck with million dollar egos that "don't need to be coached". I liken this more to the NBA/NCAA debate...do NBA coaches actually DO anything? Yes, Belicheck is a great game planner...obviously the way the Patriots seem to change their M.O. from game to game he'd be the serial killer that never gets caught on CSI:. I don't know what it takes for a coach to make the players buy in to his system, but I do think that it takes a few leaders on the team to stand up on the coach's side (see Belicheck/Brady). Without that, the team rebells against the coach like an unruly teenager (see Coughlin/Giants). Yes, talent matters in the NFL, but not nearly as much as in college, hence coaching a Super Bowl team means you are a better coach. In the purist sense of the term, I think the better coach is the one that succeeds at a high level at a big time college. Coaching up a player to achieve beyond his talents in college shows a "teacher" of the game. "Coaching" Mike Vick or Peyton Manning or Ladanian Tomlinson is minimal at best, since when the going gets tough those players are going to rely more on their talent than any game plan or coaching given to them. All that said, Carroll made his stint in the pros and didn't succeed. He's lost 4 games in 4 years or something like that at USC and he'll be sure to lose more than that next year ALONE if he takes over the Dolphins. Ego is all about winning. If the NFL situation is right, I can see it happening...I just don't think it's going to be Miami. Maybe next year after USC beats Michigan in the BCS Championship game Carroll will come out and coach the Redskins after Gibbs retires again... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted January 9, 2007 You need to ask this question then.... Has Joe Paterno touched more people, players, community through the years? Would Joe Pat turn in all those years as a college coach just to win one superbowl? I don't think so. Has Don Shula touched more people, players, community through the years? Would Shula turn in that great run to be considered the greatest college coach of all time? I don't think so Hard to say if either of these guys is/was better than the other. However, Who has the biggest audience? Well that's easy - the superbowl with 1 billion watching that night. Which is more important is toooo tough to answer. Great debate though. JocStrap's answer = neutral Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
berven 0 Posted January 9, 2007 For many decades, it was more prestigious to be a collegiate legend, because the NFL played second fiddle to college ball. Now, I would say it's a bigger deal to be one of the elite NFL coaches--a Lombardi, Landry, or Walsh. It's also more difficult. There are fewer opportunities, since there are many more colleges than pro franchises. Successful college coaches enjoy more control than an NFL coach, who will often get more interference from ownership than a college coach will from his university. It's easier to build a dynasty at a college with a high-powered recruiting program; a college team can dominate opponents in a way that a pro team generally cannot. Although I think legendary status is harder to attain in the NFL, it is not necessarily more desirable. College coaching legends can stay on forever, as Paterno has. They are treated like royalty by alumni and community members. They tend to have more fun in that u-rah-rah atmosphere, because players and fans tend to have more fun. I'd prefer to be an NFL coaching legend, but it's so difficult that if I ahd to pursue one or the other, I might choose to try to be Bear Berven, beloved collegiate coach. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
