FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[02 Warhawk]

Raeburn is a big name on that list.

He's the only one. That's a bad list.

What are your credentials to make that assumption?

[02 Warhawk]

If we're going to debate between Bullis and Raeburn, I say why not have both?

Raeburn can bring a wealth of head coaching experience and knowledge to UWW. He ran a very successful program down in Indiana. At the same time Bullis (if he chooses to stay, and if Raeburn keeps him on) will be promoted to DC. I think he'll be an excellent heir to Borland, and the program would still benefit from his recruiting.

This is the best case scenario for me at least.

[dachampishere]

02
I totally agree with you that if Bullis doesn't get the job. He would be an excellent defensive coordinator. I also like Raeburn's track record as a head coach. Not to mention he comes from a good coaching tree as he not only worked for Larry Kehres but he is also his nephew.As getting a call of reference from Lary Kehres probably doesn't hurt his cause. Just like LL had people like Barry Alvarez,Frank Solich and Bill Callahan calling for him. A week from know we will hopefully know who is getting the job and everything can go back to normal in Warhawk country.

[BashDad]

Raeburn is a big name on that list.

He's the only one. That's a bad list.

What are your credentials to make that assumption?

I'm breathing.

[BoBo]

If we're going to debate between Bullis and Raeburn, I say why not have both?

Raeburn can bring a wealth of head coaching experience and knowledge to UWW. He ran a very successful program down in Indiana. At the same time Bullis (if he chooses to stay, and if Raeburn keeps him on) will be promoted to DC. I think he'll be an excellent heir to Borland, and the program would still benefit from his recruiting.

This is the best case scenario for me at least.

Mr. Too Awkward says hello 02 ...

Glad you have nothing to do with the selection process ... Lets just keep Bullis, a major cog in 5 of our national championships, and say thanks for applying to the others, none of whom have ever won anything more than a conference championship (and some haven't even had that experience)!! ... and then keep trucking on like that? Bullis has earned the promotion and the right to captain our ship before we turn it over to any outsider.

[ExTartanPlayer]

If we're going to debate between Bullis and Raeburn, I say why not have both?

Raeburn can bring a wealth of head coaching experience and knowledge to UWW. He ran a very successful program down in Indiana. At the same time Bullis (if he chooses to stay, and if Raeburn keeps him on) will be promoted to DC. I think he'll be an excellent heir to Borland, and the program would still benefit from his recruiting.

This is the best case scenario for me at least.

Mr. Too Awkward says hello 02 ...

Glad you have nothing to do with the selection process ... Lets just keep Bullis, a major cog in 5 of our national championships, and say thanks for applying to the others, none of whom have ever won anything more than a conference championship (and some haven't even had that experience)!! ... and then keep trucking on like that? Bullis has earned the promotion and the right to captain our ship before we turn it over to any outsider.

I think your expectations are seriously inflated.

Which of these makes you more qualified to pilot a high-level football program: being a position coach and recruiter for a national title team at a big-enrollment state school or winning conference titles as a HC at a small male-only private school?

There isn't necessarily one right answer to that question. But acting like "national title winning position coach" > "highly successful non-national-title-winning head coach" is better just because one has a direct claim to a national title is absurd. It's like saying you'd rather have the Seahawks backup QB over, say, Andrew Luck because the Seahawks dude has "won a Super Bowl" and Andrew Luck has never even won a conference championship. You can't be that dense. You just can't.

[02 Warhawk]

If we're going to debate between Bullis and Raeburn, I say why not have both?

Raeburn can bring a wealth of head coaching experience and knowledge to UWW. He ran a very successful program down in Indiana. At the same time Bullis (if he chooses to stay, and if Raeburn keeps him on) will be promoted to DC. I think he'll be an excellent heir to Borland, and the program would still benefit from his recruiting.

This is the best case scenario for me at least.

Mr. Too Awkward says hello 02 ...

Glad you have nothing to do with the selection process ... Lets just keep Bullis, a major cog in 5 of our national championships, and say thanks for applying to the others, none of whom have ever won anything more than a conference championship (and some haven't even had that experience)!! ... and then keep trucking on like that? Bullis has earned the promotion and the right to captain our ship before we turn it over to any outsider.

He will be getting a promotion. Dline coach to DC. I'll be happy with either Raeburn or Bullis getting the job. But I like the sound of both being on staff the best.

Besides, position coach to head coach is a big jump. Not saying it can't be done, but I like the idea of bringing in winning experience in Raeburn.

[badgerwarhawk]

Raeburn is a big name on that list.

He's the only one. That's a bad list.

What are your credentials to make that assumption?

I'm breathing.

That's pretty much the extent of it.

[emma17]

If we're going to debate between Bullis and Raeburn, I say why not have both?

Raeburn can bring a wealth of head coaching experience and knowledge to UWW. He ran a very successful program down in Indiana. At the same time Bullis (if he chooses to stay, and if Raeburn keeps him on) will be promoted to DC. I think he'll be an excellent heir to Borland, and the program would still benefit from his recruiting.

This is the best case scenario for me at least.

Mr. Too Awkward says hello 02 ...

Glad you have nothing to do with the selection process ... Lets just keep Bullis, a major cog in 5 of our national championships, and say thanks for applying to the others, none of whom have ever won anything more than a conference championship (and some haven't even had that experience)!! ... and then keep trucking on like that? Bullis has earned the promotion and the right to captain our ship before we turn it over to any outsider.

I think your expectations are seriously inflated.

Which of these makes you more qualified to pilot a high-level football program: being a position coach and recruiter for a national title team at a big-enrollment state school or winning conference titles as a HC at a small male-only private school?

There isn't necessarily one right answer to that question. But acting like "national title winning position coach" > "highly successful non-national-title-winning head coach" is better just because one has a direct claim to a national title is absurd. It's like saying you'd rather have the Seahawks backup QB over, say, Andrew Luck because the Seahawks dude has "won a Super Bowl" and Andrew Luck has never even won a conference championship. You can't be that dense. You just can't.

Ex-I don't think it's quite so simple. Bullis was a coordinator previously and I'm sure the only reason he wasn't a coordinator at UWW was that Borland was here so long. But he had many responsibilities that a back up QB wouldn't have. Bullis ran the special teams two years ago as well as D line. He's been an instrumental part of coaching philosophy and decesion making- which played a major role in national championship football.
From the perspective of knowing what it takes for a staff to get there and stay there, I think Bullis has the advantage.

[Dr. Acula]

Glad you have nothing to do with the selection process ... Lets just keep Bullis, a major cog in 5 of our national championships, and say thanks for applying to the others, none of whom have ever won anything more than a conference championship (and some haven't even had that experience)!! ... and then keep trucking on like that? Bullis has earned the promotion and the right to captain our ship before we turn it over to any outsider.

To be fair here if you're crediting Bullis for national championships won when he was an assistant you should probably credit Raeburn for the 3 titles he won as an assistant at Mount as well.

Raeburn has a proven track record as a HC.  Bullis was a DC in the WIAC for 14 years prior to UWW so he has clearly paid his dues.  I don't see how either one is a bad choice.  To me it comes down to how the committee weights continuity versus HC experience.   

[emma17]

Glad you have nothing to do with the selection process ... Lets just keep Bullis, a major cog in 5 of our national championships, and say thanks for applying to the others, none of whom have ever won anything more than a conference championship (and some haven't even had that experience)!! ... and then keep trucking on like that? Bullis has earned the promotion and the right to captain our ship before we turn it over to any outsider.

To be fair here if you're crediting Bullis for national championships won when he was an assistant you should probably credit Raeburn for the 3 titles he won as an assistant at Mount as well.

Raeburn has a proven track record as a HC.  Bullis was a DC in the WIAC for 14 years prior to UWW so he has clearly paid his dues.  I don't see how either one is a bad choice.  To me it comes down to how the committee weights continuity versus HC experience.   

That's absolutely fair- I will credit Raeburn for his time on the Mt championship teams. No doubt he learned a lot about running a high level program.

My preference between the two is Bullis based on the advantage I think continuity would bring.  UWW has done it differently than Mt and Wabash- and it's worked. I want that same approach to continue.

Although we don't know what Bullis would do as HC, we saw some of what Raeburn is willing to do.
I'm not a fan of running a two platoon QB system as he did this past season nor am I fan of the amount of read option they ran. I'll try to find other examples.

[Bishopleftiesdad]

I think Raeburn ran the QB platoon, because the talent he had dictated it. Same with the run option. Recruiting to a program like Wabash is different than a big state school. I would be very surprised to see much of a philosophical change at UWW if Raeburn gets the job. The NC pretty much prove you win in the trenches. Why change a good thing.
Its not like Raeburn will suddenly say, "to heck with these big linemen, I am going to recruit small and fast."

[emma17]

I think Raeburn ran the QB platoon, because the talent he had dictated it. Same with the run option. Recruiting to a program like Wabash is different than a big state school. I would be very surprised to see much of a philosophical change at UWW if Raeburn gets the job. The NC pretty much prove you win in the trenches. Why change a good thing.
Its not like Raeburn will suddenly say, "to heck with these big linemen, I am going to recruit small and fast."

I'll buy part of that but not all. Something went wrong somewhere along the lines of the QB development for them to end up w 2 platoon.  Spread offense wasn't the only option for Wabash.
Another coaching decision I didn't care for is the "radar" defense where all or most d linemen are standing up. I know it's run more frequently of late but I still see that as a scheme w too many moving parts, just like the read option.
Those are 3 coaching moves I see coming from the Mt Union tree that I feel are part of the reason UWW has had their number.

[Pat Coleman]

Lets just keep Bullis, a major cog in 5 of our national championships, and say thanks for applying to the others, none of whom have ever won anything more than a conference championship (and some haven't even had that experience)!!

This is funny. As if there have been any national championships available for these guys to win?

[Pat Coleman]

I think Raeburn ran the QB platoon, because the talent he had dictated it. Same with the run option. Recruiting to a program like Wabash is different than a big state school. I would be very surprised to see much of a philosophical change at UWW if Raeburn gets the job. The NC pretty much prove you win in the trenches. Why change a good thing.
Its not like Raeburn will suddenly say, "to heck with these big linemen, I am going to recruit small and fast."

I'll buy part of that but not all. Something went wrong somewhere along the lines of the QB development for them to end up w 2 platoon.  Spread offense wasn't the only option for Wabash.

Even Leipold couldn't come up with a quality quarterback every year he was at Whitewater, emma.