That last thread was incredibly long and kind of broken on mobile, so starting another for Coordinators. And let's start this off with a doozy
UNC probably just hired their next head coach
BREAKING: Bobby Petrino has agreed to become the next North Carolina offensive coordinator under Bill Belichick, @clowfb, @PeteNakos & @InsideCarolina report🐏https://t.co/Xj3JfwYAKn pic.twitter.com/jrYnVUI5RZ— On3 (@On3sports) December 22, 2025
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Hide the volleyball team
She said yes, so it was consenting adults.
Oh, snap, now I see what he and Belichick have in common...
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
At least not outside the BigTen
Have you missed the Michigan drama?
you're no fun, let me shitpost
This is absurd.
Only UNC fans don't go to UNC football. Other fanbases go there all the time.
My thinking was that Simba is a recruit/player
Wow, did not have that on my bingo card. UNC just keeps finding ways to become more unlikable.
Can't wait for the fallout between Bobby and Bill once he starts hitting on Jordon.
is...is he even any good as an OC anymore? When was the last time he coached? I honestly lost track of him and kinda thought he was un-hire-able.
November 29, as interim coach of Arkansas. Took a 2-3 team to 2-10.
UNC just embracing the vibe of old guys creeping on college girls, huh?
Is Terry Bowden their next hire?
Have to imagine Ed O is on the short list of the assistant dream team
Starting to become their M.O.
something tells me that its not a new thing at UNC at all
Probably, but now it's undeniable.
All Bill had to do was retire and just walk away and instead hes doing his best to one up each mistake at the moment.
My Grandpa was a stubborn man. It's likely what allowed him to survive WWII, and was also likely a key factor in having a largely good and successful adult life. It also made him kind of awful to deal with at times in his old age.
I feel like the same sort of thing is happening to Bill. That drive that made him so successful when he was younger is now betraying him. Dude needs to retire ASAP.
Interesting choice. If you ignore all of the Bobby Petrino issues, which is very hard to do, He did have Arkansas scoring at a pretty good clip. I think he still has the chops as an OC. Was hoping they would hire a complete disaster. We'll see who they get for actual players. 50 freshman next year seems like a recipe for 3 wins.
Based on the post, is the thought that Petrino will be the OC but then they will fire Belichick relatively soon and make Petrino the HC? If so, man they really are into having old HCs, huh?
Bill won't care. UNC will be paying him $40 million on top of whatever the Jets pay him as HC.
Bill B is like the Adam Sandler of College Football. He's assembling his friends, he's getting paid, and he's making a shitty product unapologetically.
and I've laughed at both of them
He used to be good but now his efforts lack heart and quality?
Because he's overrated and not very funny?
Three notes:
1. Belichick and Petrino have no history.
2. CJMFF is actually the one hiring his friends.
3. Sandler's resume of accomplishments and wealth speak to the success of doing it his way. And Sandler pays for everything himself or with his company.
Making money in the film business and making good movies aren't the same thing.
Most Adam Sandler movies are pretty bad. "Uncut Gems" is a notable exception, though he also did a scene where Bob Barker hit him which was rather funny.
I don't have a problem with a coach hiring their friends if they get good results on the field, so the jury is still out on that one.
I'd argue that making money in the film business means SOMEONE (or a lot of someones) think he's funny. He's just catering to his audience. The fact that Pauley Shore ever starred in a movie is the same phenomenon.
You can argue that, but that doesn't make their movies good. Just means someone is willing to pay to see them. Just not the same thing.
So your argument is that people think the movies are bad, but pay to see them anyway? My point is the people paying to see them most likely think they're good. Similar to whether you like chocolate, vanilla, or strawberry ice cream. Does liking one make the other two bad? It's just a matter of preference. I guess you could make an argument based on if a lot more people like one flavor, but still doesn't make the others bad.
And it's not like there's only like a thousand people who like his movies, there are enough people that like them for him to keep making them. Plus, why is it then that the biggest blockbusters rarely win Oscars? Who defines then if a movie is "good?" I'd argue it's the people who are paying to see it, voting for it with their wallets.
Unless it's Pauley Shore movies, which I firmly believe are only watched by masochists, or maybe his mom.
No, my contention is that making money isn't what makes a movie good, unless you're an investor.
Plenty of exceptional movies don't make a lot of money, and some absolute garbage makes money.
Let's simplify with an analogy: McDonald's is a large, successful corporation, but is it the standard by which you measure excellent food?
Not everyone can form pork gristle into a rib shaped patty.
But only for a limited time...
Are we even sure it's pork gristle? I'm thinking you're being generous
Yet we all know what he means.
Huh? How does that analogy make any sense?
McDonalds makes a lot of money because of its business model. It's cheap, convenient, and has huge advertising campaigns. Movies that make the most money do so because people want to pay to watch it.
Popularity and success is an industry-reckonized standard of excellence in the arts. It's not the only standard, but it is definitely one of the major metrics to define movie quality . These terms are common in in the industry to describe movie quality: "blockbuster" "box-office hit" "box-office bomb" "top-grossing film" "cult-classic" etc. Look at any Wikipedia page on a year in films, it will describe two metrics: gross sales and awards.
Gross sales isn't what makes a movie good.
And it's likewise not a measure of excellence in food.
Sales is a measure for investors. The internet does a great job of making people think that opening day sales is measure of excellence in film making, when it's actually a measure of film marketing.
I'm not sure what wikipedia is a measure of. It's just what some person wrote on the internet, so to a large degree a lot like twitter.
What is a good movie is subjective. Rotten tomatoes proved this by showing critically acclaimed movies weren't always the movies that audiences liked. So what makes a great movie? the critic liking it or the audience? An example, Waterboy has 33% from critics and 71% from audience. Is it a bad movie? you may think so, but 71% of those that reviewed it say otherwise. It is subjective. You don't like Adam Sandler. got it. Doesn't mean he hasn't put out some good to great movies.
McDonalds (was a bad analogy) is not Michelin star food but it is the pinnacle of excellence in Fast Food. Those are polar opposite sides of food. Doesn't mean its not excellent in its category. Like for example, Virginia Tech the school may be ranked in top 100 but its Engineering school may be ranked in top 10. Excellence in its category.
McDonalds is not the pinnacle of excellence in fast food. McDonald's has better financials, but not better food. I can think of at least five, maybe ten, fast food restaurants that have better food.
That's his point, well half of it anyways. McDonalds is not the pinnacle because it is good food, but because it has good business practices (including finance).
You're talking about subjectivity again which is what's wrong with the Adam Sandler hate above.
McDonald's is the pinnacle. It's food, which is edible and tasty for 100s millions the world over, puts more food in hands than any Fast Food chain hands down. The definition of excellence in that category.
While McDonald's probably compares favorably in the spectrum of FAST FOOD, it can hardly be considered any kind of pinnacle other than profitability, consistency, and ubiquity. Fast Food is a poor standard for all food.
So the analogy is pretty good for an Adam Sandler. He may be the gold standard for a certain demographic (13 year old boys?), much like McDonalds may be a good standard for generic Fast Food available on your drive home, but it fails when compared to just about anything the average person could cook at home, and falls far short of what someone with any means at all could acquire in terms of a pleasant dining experience.
you're still applying subjectivity which means nothing. you like what you like, others like what they like.
And McDonald's doesn't just compare favorably it is number one in fast food. fact > subjectivity. wins every time.
Bro, it's an art. Art is only good if someone thinks it's good. And when it comes to movies, more people will go to a movie if they hear it is good from critics, reviews, friends, etc. So, when a movie is GOOD, more people PAY to go see it. And when some people think a movie is good, they will PAY to see it multiple times. Gross sales is therefore a metric for a good movie (but again, not the only metric).
For movies, marketing helps with gross sales but only to a certain degree. Marketing cannot turn a bad movie into a top grossing film. There are hundreds of examples of huge ad campaigns for movies that fail in the box office. Marketing cannot completely overcome bad reviews and discontent from moviegoers.
A good movie can be undermarketed and thus gross sales are not reflective of the movie quality. But as said, gross sales is only one of the major metrics of movie quality. It is undeniable that high grossing films are in fact popular because masses of people do not pay to watch a bad film, and definitely will not pay to see a movie multiple times. To reach the threshold of top-grossing film, enough people and critics had to have the opinion it was good such that an accumulative mass of the population decide to spend money to watch it and some people decide to spend money to watch it multiple times.
This isn't a hard concept.
TKP in a nutshell.
Come for the coaching news
Stay for the spirited debate on what defines movie quality
If there was more news, I definitely wouldn't be talking about what makes a movie "good."
Exactly. Movies are art.
As such, their quality is not measured by sales. Commercial success is what's measured by sales, which is not the same as quality.
Masses of people absolutely pay to see bad movies. Adam Sandler movies are an excellent example of this.
Then measured by who? you? nope.
American Film Institute ranks Citizen Kane as its best film of all time. That movie is total shit that lives on the mythos around the making of it. But my opinion of it doesn't matter because like your opinion of Adam Sandler, it's just an opinion.
Subjectivity will never win a debate.
Opinions opine the same.
And thats why I use the Brit's list because it has Vertigo which is actually a good movie.
agreed
You guys do know that Braveheart is the greatest movie of all time, right? That is also a fact not open to subjectivity.
FREEDOM!!!!
There is also the massive shift in ticket sales from movies vs. PPV/rentals/on demand.
Star wars-1977 was in (first run) theaters for 9 straight months-sold out on weekend nights 6 months in. People paid to see it dozens of times(12 yr old me saw it 9 times or so. Basically a cowboy movie set in space with (at the time
) amazing graphics.One review at the time said
" "There's something depressing about seeing all these impressive cinematic gifts and all this extraordinary technological skill lavished on such puerile materials. Perhaps more important is what this seems to accomplish: the canonization of comic book culture which in turn becomes the triumph of the standardized, the simplistic, mass-produced commercial artifacts of our time. It's the triumph of camp — that sentiment which takes delight in the awful simply because it's awful. We enjoyed such stuff as children, but one would think there would come a time when we might put away childish things." https://ew.com/movies/2019/11/29/reviews-every-star-wars-movie/ see other mixed bag reviews here https://www.mentalfloss.com/entertainment/star-wars/original-reviews-sta...
Princess Bride- ultimately a great movie(both in sales-albeit video-AND critics EVENTUALLY loved it) but very 'middling in sales/audience reviews.
'The Princess Bride was not a major box office hit upon its 1987 release, only earning about $30 million against a $15 million budget, making it a modest success. However, its slow initial performance was redeemed by massive popularity through home video, cable TV, and DVD, turning it into a beloved cult classic and enduring cultural phenomenon. ' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ-UGEIdhSM&t=779s
Some movies have great sales numbers in theaters; others have great critical acclaim from the beginning; still others do well at home/on demand ; the best do well in all three arenas but very few do.
As many note, quality is in eye of the beholder!
Did you even read my second paragraph? I pointed out that people who go see a movie are voting with their wallets, which means that people thought "I like Adam Sandler, I'm going to go watch his new movie."
You also seem to fail to grasp my main point, what people like is subjective, so let's do something that may help, let's actually define what makes a movie "good" - I'm going to say it's that people enjoy watching it. Again, subjective, which is my MAIN POINT. There are a lot of people who like him and his movies to go keep watching them. You keep focusing on it making money as a measure of whether it is "good." If enough people do not like an actor or his/her movies, they don't go and watch it, so it doesn't make any money, then no more movies are made by that person. Making money is a proxy for measuring how many people like a certain film (and thereby think it is "good.")
And you also moved the goal post. You initially said "good," but now you're saying "excellent." I doubt even Adam Sandler fans (and there are a LOT of them) would describe his movies as "excellent." Again, go back to my definition of good. Or, if you don't like it, offer up your own. But I don't know how you argue about whether someone liking a movie, and thereby considering it "good" isn't subjective. Comedy is even more personal taste than other genres. Some people don't like certain comedies. I don't like most of Will Ferrell's stuff, but I can't deny there are a lot of people that do. You clearly don't like Adam Sandler, but apparently fail to recognize that there are a lot of people that do.
Again, it's a matter of taste. Which flavor of ice cream is your favorite? Do you automatically say that other flavors are bad, especially the others that are very popular?
I'm pretty sure someone ELSE brought up sales as a measure of quality. I've made several posts arguing that sales are NOT a valid measure of quality.
It's as valid as any other method of determining something so subjective.
Could be a shakeup for the ACC and the portal.
He just got paid based on PSU being open. Can't imagine Louisville says anything other than "you have your money, kick rocks if you expect more"
I think this is less about money and more about Michigan being a far better job than Louisville
It is, but the Brohm family roots are intertwined with the city. Will be interesting to see how it shakes out
at UM, they are usually called a "person of interest"
Seriously how many staff from last 15 years at Michigan have been arrested?
Yes
Are we limiting to just football, or is there a Larry Nasser sized shadow included?
He was Michigan State, though.
Big Ten really has a bad... something... going on up there.
it was a joke...with Harbaugh, Stalions, and Moore, they are on a bit of a heater
PSU DL coach headed to USCjr
I mean this makes sense, IDK what else Michigan is supposed to do at this point other than extend Poggi's interim tag.
Whittingham is also a guy that is about as clean as you can be for a D1 coach that wins. Probably a smart hire for Michigan now
Will he be able to function somewhere as corrupt as Michigan or will they corrupt him? Also I thought he was retiring?
He said he was retiring from Utah not football. Its pretty bad when one of the best coaches younger ever had is basically being driven away
As an NC State grad, I hope they take Dave Doeren
The only things left after nuclear winter are going to be the roaches and NC State Football Coach Dave Doeren
Big upgrade IMO
Did Manny Diaz cash in this cycle? I saw his name rumored a lot but never saw that Duke gave him a raise, though I could see that not being published.
Wittingham official: 5 year deal at UM
What kind of initiation did he have to go through? Smuggle drugs from Mexico? Sell Fentenyl to kids? I mean he just doesn't fit the mold of a Michigan Man so I assume he had to do something to join the club.
drank a fully caffeinated cup of coffee?
well done 👏 🤣
Official as of now! 450 pm
https://x.com/petethamel/status/2005473983693746189?s=61&t=Q_LiV9Kp7sK05...
Dyrell Roberts headed to WAke Forest from ECU.
Roberts has done an excellent job at ECU with their WRs. Anthony Smith revived his career the last two years and might be a draft flier if he gets invited to the combine.
Congrats to Dyrell. Good to see his career progressing.
Pete Kwiatkowski to Penn State as their new DC.
Now, I'm curious...where does this leave Poindexter? Is he going to go back to Uva eventually or does he continue on as co-dc? Honestly, I've kind of always wondered about the co-dc thing. I don't really get it.
Oh? I saw it was D'Anton Lynn from USC headed to PSU
Damn, there must've been a quick change. Because I swear I was reading a tweet on cfb saying it was basically done with Pete.
Lynn news came out yesterday at least.
Zenitz saying it's done
He's headed to Tennessee.
Coach Todd Grantham on the Big Dawg Sports Talk announced that he will return to coaching in 2026, announcement coming in the next 2 days
Listen to the last 20 mins. Link
Please, not here.
Good to see you back around
Fingers crossed the Pulaski High job happens to be open...
I still can't stand pate not sure why exactly something just puts me off
Ethical qualms over duck liver?
It's so good in bánh mì tho
Big facts
I don't find him unbearable, but (from what I've seen, which isn't much) I don't think he has much to share that's much different from run-of-the-mill fan.
He does do this kinda annoying thing where he hints at something being sourced, but really it's just a rumor that fits his narrative. "I'm hearing X could happen. If it does happen, then you know Y is true. If it doesn't then it's because of Z." And then when it does, it's a lot of told-ya-so, but when it doesn't, he finds a way to explain it away.
But I suppose I should just be grateful that there are (relatively) mainstream college football personalities who aren't just barstool/barstool adjacent.
BINGO, the whole source or lack of them and he likes to make it seem like hes super connected when its obvious hes throwing crap at the wall and hoping it sticks to make him look super smart.
Yeap - totally get it. I personally prefer Pate to McAfee or Portnoy or those guys - the latter of which just feels unavoidable if you're on any CFB social media.
But I love Dan/Ty on The Solid Verbal, Richard & Alex from Split Zone, Golic Jr, Nicole Auerbach, Lucy Rohden, Michael Felder, Godfrey, and the reset of the extended EDSBS/Fullcast universe.
I, for one, would NOT prefer Lane Kiffen to James Franklin.
Clemson just canned their OC, Garrett Riley
Saw smoke they are looking at chandler morris's dad for the OC position maybe he can get some more of those eligibility bucks and go play one last season with his dad
Not sure if this is a joke, but you know that chandler Morris's dad used to be the OC at Clemson under dabo lol
How hilarious would it be for UVA to expend any amount of resources to get Chandler an extra year and then portals to Clemson to play under his dad.
Looks like I fell victim to a fake titter account so I'll go to the corner of ai shame now for a day
I only like real titters
https://x.com/i/status/2007547303532601381
It appears dabo actually is bringing him back what a weird hire
Absolutely wild.
I always loved watching Chad Morris's offenses at Clemson. The wide receiver screens were so cool.
But that scheme isn't as unique as it was 15 years ago. And the wide receiver talent at Clemson also isn't what it was last decade.
Certainly a choice
Brett McMurphy reporting Greg Nosal has been promoted to OC at Bowling Green, and will continue to coach the OL. He had been co-OC. And staff adviser for gruesome finger injuries.
Just staff advisor?? damn, I'd hate to see the mangled meat club of the Coordinator of gruesome finger injuries
Starts and ends with Torry Holt and Insay that with admiration as my former boss
Ronnie Lott puts his name in that hat
Shawn Quinn lands at Liberty as DC/OLB coach
Seemed like a good guy that represented VT well. Happy he found a landing spot
I won't miss him, but he didn't do anything so bad as to have to coach at Liberty. Poor guy.
Glad he's getting an opportunity, sucks to have your name tainted by being associated with Liberty though
Gus Malzahn retired. FSU named Tim Harris as the new OC.
Norvell taking back offensive play calling again, does FSU go back to 3-9?