[OutsiderFan]

There is a reason the best coaches are paid $5million+/year these days. Coaching does matter.

Watch Justin Wilcox at Cal.  Yes, they have one of the toughest schedules in the country, but does anyone think Cal wins at UNC with Dykes as coach?  Wilcox has a coaching staff that teaches fundamentals significantly better than Dykes, they look at the game much more holistically than Dykes did, and they put their players in the best position to succeed at all times.  Another thing, and this is important, the players acknowledge they are a tighter, more trusting group than they were under Dykes.

In my time of observing, it seems in general* there are three types of coaches:

1. The kind that doesn't know the questions or the answers - Buddy Teevens and Tom Holmoe (terrible)
2. The kind that know the questions but not the answers - Jeff Tedford and Sonny Dykes (middling)
3. The kind that know the questions and the answers - David Shaw & Chris Peterson (championship level)

* Really tough to judge coaches at USC and UCLA that have massive recruiting advantages, but Pete Carroll was obviously a #3.

The lousy coaches employ poor strategy and don't inspire execution.  The mediocre coaches have either poor strategy with good execution or good strategy with poor execution.  The great coaches use both good strategy and inspire sound execution.

One game does not a program make, but I think both Durkin and Wilcox have demonstrated they have real potential to be championship level.  Maybe they won't quite get there at Maryland and Cal, but they should be watched as up and comers who might do so at a larger program.  Think Mack Brown doing well at North Carolina, and then really becoming a top their coach at Texas, at least for a little while anyway.

[OutsiderFan]

There is a reason the best coaches are paid $5million+/year these days. Coaching does matter.

Watch Justin Wilcox at Cal.  Yes, they have one of the toughest schedules in the country, but does anyone think Cal wins at UNC with Dykes as coach?  Wilcox has a coaching staff that teaches fundamentals significantly better than Dykes, they look at the game much more holistically than Dykes did, and they put their players in the best position to succeed at all times.  Another thing, and this is important, the players acknowledge they are a tighter, more trusting group than they were under Dykes.

In my time of observing, it seems in general* there are three types of coaches:

1. The kind that doesn't know the questions or the answers - Buddy Teevens and Tom Holmoe (terrible)
2. The kind that know the questions but not the answers - Jeff Tedford and Sonny Dykes (middling)
3. The kind that know the questions and the answers - David Shaw & Chris Peterson (championship level)

* Really tough to judge coaches at USC and UCLA that have massive recruiting advantages, but Pete Carroll was obviously a #3.

The lousy coaches employ poor strategy and don't inspire execution.  The mediocre coaches have either poor strategy with good execution or good strategy with poor execution.  The great coaches use both good strategy and inspire sound execution.

One game does not a program make, but I think both Durkin and Wilcox have demonstrated they have real potential to be championship level.  Maybe they won't quite get there at Maryland and Cal, but they should be watched as up and comers who might do so at a larger program.  Think Mack Brown doing well at North Carolina, and then really becoming a top their coach at Texas, at least for a little while anyway.