Okay, we are 2-7 and 0-5 in the ACC.
Our remaining games are @UNC, @ Miami, vs. Tech. Do you see another win in there? And could one win (specifically the Tech game) make a difference in Mike London's job status?
Paul Wiley: 1) No. UNCCH is playing mediocre football, which is good enough to beat us. Miami may go into a tailspin after the FSU loss (close wins two weeks in a row, disappointing loss to huge rival, RIP Duke Johnson's ankle), but will still be good enough to beat us. Lololol Tech lost to Duke oh wait a minute. Some of those games might get close, but that only gives London more chances to brainfart away a win.
2) It shouldn't.
3) Fire John Oliver first. He built the clown car (hired the coaches), he aimed it at the brick wall (built the schedule), he's responsible for the resulting fiery crash.
Tiki Guttman: If UNC was a home game, I think we'd have a chance to win. In Chapel Hill, no. Miami is too good for us. Tech isn't really any good, but at this point I'm convinced that if we exchanged uniforms with the Hokies, the guys in orange and blue would still lose.
London's job in not in jeopardy this year. How many times does this have to be pointed out? Right or wrong, he will be here next year.
Matt Trogdon: 1) I have trouble seeing a win out of these last three games.
2) The main person I want gone is Oliver. I don't want that man making another decision having anything to do with our football program. He's a micromanager, and a clueless one at that. I don't care who the coach is. If Oliver is the "GM," the program will continue to flounder.
Caroline Darney: 1. I'm going to say yes. I can't say why, maybe it's blind optimism, but...ok it's blind optimism. I just can't handle the idea of finishing 0-8 in the ACC. It's so sad now that I don't even get mad when I show up at work on Monday and my coworkers try and get me riled up by saying "man, you guys blew it this weekend." It takes me a minute to realize what they're talking about, then it's, "oh, yeah. Of course."
2. No, he's not going to get fired. He's got next year for sure.
3. The basketball game against VCU sold out!! Basketball!
Will Campbell: No, they aren't going to win another game the rest of the season. I haven't seen any reason to think they could beat any FBS team, and I am not sure how they beat BYU to open the season. I want to clarify that that isn't even an attack on the players, but an attack on the coaches. The coaching staff isn't putting the team in a position to win before or during the game.
Similar to what Tiki said, London isn't going to be fired this year even if they lose every game the rest of the way out by 25+. The bad thing about that is they aren't going to win six games next year. Home games against UCLA, Louisville, and Miami coupled with trips to BYU, FSU, and VPISU would all indicate at least six losses right there. So, it boils down to the fact that the program/athletic department is likely going to sacrifice next year's football team as well. Why not make the move now since it will probably happen next year anyways? (Yes, I know buyout money, blah, blah, blah)
Tim Mulholland: Yes, I think we'll win one game. It'll probably be Miami, just because that would be the most #goacc result. But I'm not willing to bet on which one.
Mike London's job is safe. He doesn't need one win to save it. Right or wrong, he's got next year.
Tiki: We did the same thing with Groh. Groh was given one last year to save his job. He failed miserably, and set the program back even further than it was. Getting rid of London might save us from that same mistake. But, and I've said this before, I don't want to be a school that bails on a coach after less than 5 years. Five years is a minimum to assess a coach and a program.
That is my official position and I stand by it. And yet, I'm pretty sure I'm wrong. It's not the losses. It's not the lack of player development. It's not even the complete inability to put his players in a position to succeed. It's the fact that week in and week out, London (and his staff) come up with new and exciting ways to make me shake my head in utter confusion. Coaching a college football program is very difficult. Recruiting is hard work. Gameplanning is a lot of work. But choosing when to go and when to kick, or whether or not to accept a penalty, or whatever other in-game decision that London continually gets wrong...this stuff is child's-play. It's basically just math.
Brian Schwartz: That's a good explanation of what's so frustrating. Recruiting is probably the hardest part of coaching a college team (in the sense that it's the aspect that most requires "special talent,") and London clearly excels at it. I wouldn't say that Coach London is any good at player development or X's and O's...but at the very least he is non-disastrous. He is just terrible at the actual business of managing a football game. Like you said: math.
For the record, I am going to say that it's more likely than not that we win one of these final 3 - most likely the Tech game at home, and a decent shot at UNC. And, if that happens, London probably saves his job, sad as it seems. Unlike you guys, I am not convinced that we retain a head coach after a winless ACC season. There may not be a material difference between 1-7 and 0-8...but it just raises the pressure to make a move. Hopefully we don't have to see ourselves.