CC: Lance Leipold
Lance Leipold. Head Coach of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Warhawks, which have been the dominant force in D-III since 2005 winning multiple national titles. Even more impressive than Mount Union. Say what you will about level of competition, but any coach making this kind of history is impressive: 0.943 (100W - 6L) winning percentage, five national championships in seven years and the fastest coach to 100 wins in history. A quick Google search yielded minimal results of what system they run. Landing him as coach may be a long shot. He does coach for his Alma mater...
October 19th, 2014 at 10:29 AM ^
Greg Robinson
October 19th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^
October 19th, 2014 at 10:52 AM ^
He coaches at a level that doesn't have athletic scholarships, so this is just slightly above being a high school coach.
October 19th, 2014 at 10:56 AM ^
I don't know how much this guy really has to do in the way of recruiting, either. D-III schools, to my knowledge, don't give athletic scholarships, so I'm guessing he doesn't have to place a very big emphasis on recruiting. I could be wrong.
Also, looks like he's been at this place since '07. If he wanted to leave, he's likely had every opportunity by now to do so.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 19th, 2014 at 11:26 AM ^
I've seen D3 college basketball coaches lure kids from MAC programs.
October 19th, 2014 at 2:59 PM ^
Many (most?) D-III schools don't make much effort to be good in sports. The whole point of being in D-III is to avoid the big-time sports culture. That's the problem with evaluating a coach at this level - the few schools who really try to compete should, by all means, mop up their competition.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:32 AM ^
I believe he was an assistant at Nebraska, then went to DIII to become a HC. Maybe a calculated move on his part, seeing it as a quicker route to being a DI HC than rising through the assistant ranks. As others have implied, he's more likely to end up at a non-Power 5 school, like a MAC school. Someone will give him a shot based on his record, and those schools have a lot less to lose.
October 19th, 2014 at 7:17 PM ^
at least not to become a D-1 HC. He's 50 and coaching at a level that no D-1 school hires from. He's making about what a MAC position coach gets.
He wasn't a listed assistant coach at Nebraska, must have been a QC job. He was a GA at Wisconsin too. Since working in Lincoln, he's twice dropped to lower levels of competition, skipping the FCS altogether. At some point one would think he'd move up if he had the ambition or capability for a bigger job.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:45 AM ^
6-0 this season and outscoring opponents 378-37 and over the last 15 years.....214-9. WOW
October 19th, 2014 at 11:53 AM ^
To me this hire would have more merit than the Hoke hire based on his track record. The problem is that this would very low on the list of options. You would shoot much higher before going here, but I would definitely go for this option over another uninspired Hoke level pick.
Demonstrated success at any level should trump average performance at a higher level. I see it in the NBA all the time, where coaches that did not do much are rehired. Someone always thinks this time will be different. It doesn't work that way.
Good/Great Coaches usually show something early. Not one good season, but several reaching championship level.
Remember Urban Meyer made Utah a top flight football school before going to Florida. They were top 10 while he coached there.
October 19th, 2014 at 4:28 PM ^
1: the Michigan job is terrible and they can't get a big time hire or
2: the above plus UM has been so shitty that I have paid way less attention to CFB the last few years.
Both of these scenarios suck ass.
October 19th, 2014 at 7:19 PM ^
People are making posts about coaches that have a snowball's chance of even being considered for our job.
October 19th, 2014 at 5:24 PM ^
October 19th, 2014 at 10:47 PM ^
Over the last month or so, I have posted several posts about this guy, and his amazing success, but all I received were a bunch of negative replies, and while I totally understand where they are coming from, unlevel playing field, small school, ect., I still think that a good coach is still a good coach.
We need a coach that has a passion for winning, and if he is willing to push the rules to the boundry, without cheating, in order to get an edge to win, then that is the mark of a winner. In the movie Hoosiers, the coach had his players measure the basketball court and the height of the rim to show them that the game is the same at every level, and if you do the right things on the court, you can win against anyone.
If I was the A.D. I would at least check this guy out, and perhaps even attend one of his practices, and see if his success is due to talent differential, or great coaching. Are his players disciplined and well-coached ? Does he make moves and adjustments that out-fox other coaches and win ballgames? How does he relate to his players and coaches? People who cannot see out of the box never accomplish anything of value, but those who do can do anything.
February 18th, 2015 at 12:14 AM ^
EIIGY POCR OFF Ohio State !!!