Mainly stating the obvious, and this will probably be rambling. Apologies in advance.
I was thinking last night about past coaching searches here and at other places, and trying to identify what works and what doesn't. What it boils down to for me is program management. There are a lot of guys out there that are bright schematically that just can't hack it as the head guy at a power school. I remember Rich Rodriguez setting everyone's brains on fire when he figured out how to run successfully out of the spread. Brilliant concepts, but he can't pull it all together to save his life. Hell, look at Sumlin. We can argue to what extent, but he recruits fairly well. He's been able to get his teams to play at high levels at times, but it ultimately falls apart for him. Personally, I think it's because he is unable to successfully manage all of the necessary parts of his program. Look at the Spav disaster. He promotes a talented, but raw guy to offensive coordinator. Fine, but then he fails to mentor him and creates conflict by bringing in Dave Christensen and making him "running game coordinator," whatever in the blue fuck that is. He hangs Spavital out to dry and creates unnecessary friction by failing to define what roles everyone has.
Their are certainly different approaches to the HC position that can be successful. Not many can be the micromanager that Saban is without going insane or becoming a tyrant (See: Franchione, Dennis). However, if you're going to be the CEO type, you have to clearly delineate responsibility and maintain the direction of the program. Sumlin just seems wholly rudderless at times.
So, I've become less and less married to finding a coach that runs a certain sort of scheme or has a specific approach on offense or defense. The college game changes so quickly, you can be an innovator one season and a dinosaur the next (Hal Mumme). Plus, you have to be able to adapt your approach to whatever talent you get on campus.
Things that I'd like to see in our next HC: Proven recruiting. The SEC is no longer the killer it once was, but we still have to recruit at a high level to compete for conference championships. If someone has question marks about pulling in high level talent, that's a big problem. Also, I would like to have a track record as a head coach to rely upon. Like I laid out above, I think juggling those multiple pieces is what makes or breaks most coaches. I knew Charlie Strong was a terrible fit for Texas from Day 1 because he bristled with media and any criticisms they threw at him at Louisville. It was obvious he would melt under more of the same under a bigger spotlight. Venables is an interesting name, but of course he has no history as a HC. Some guys are able to shine in a supporting role, but don't have the demeanor take on the myriad of added responsibilities as the head man. If we were to give Venables a look, I think you have to question him extensively about organization, responsibility delegation, potential coordinators, how he would divvy out his limited time, etc. If he doesn't have a crystal clear vision at the ready, move on.
One of the things that is tough to recognize is how the coaching landscape has changed in the past 15 years or so. Gone are the days when we can poach a HC from Pitt or Michigan. The arms race in coaching salaries changed all that. Even shitty guys are getting a couple million per year. As a result, barring crazy circumstances, coaches aren't jumping from one P5 school to another.
The approach I would like to see us take is to focus mainly on head coaches at smaller schools. Wins and losses are a big factor to look at, but at the same time, focus on the approach they take to program organization. Are they hands on in calling the game? How clearly do they define coordinator and assistant roles? In other words, if they have coaches move on, is their system set up to adequately replace them. Ultimately, you have to look at a ton of these factors and find the guy that has the best approach to move our program forward.
Again, sorry for the rambling.
I was thinking last night about past coaching searches here and at other places, and trying to identify what works and what doesn't. What it boils down to for me is program management. There are a lot of guys out there that are bright schematically that just can't hack it as the head guy at a power school. I remember Rich Rodriguez setting everyone's brains on fire when he figured out how to run successfully out of the spread. Brilliant concepts, but he can't pull it all together to save his life. Hell, look at Sumlin. We can argue to what extent, but he recruits fairly well. He's been able to get his teams to play at high levels at times, but it ultimately falls apart for him. Personally, I think it's because he is unable to successfully manage all of the necessary parts of his program. Look at the Spav disaster. He promotes a talented, but raw guy to offensive coordinator. Fine, but then he fails to mentor him and creates conflict by bringing in Dave Christensen and making him "running game coordinator," whatever in the blue fuck that is. He hangs Spavital out to dry and creates unnecessary friction by failing to define what roles everyone has.
Their are certainly different approaches to the HC position that can be successful. Not many can be the micromanager that Saban is without going insane or becoming a tyrant (See: Franchione, Dennis). However, if you're going to be the CEO type, you have to clearly delineate responsibility and maintain the direction of the program. Sumlin just seems wholly rudderless at times.
So, I've become less and less married to finding a coach that runs a certain sort of scheme or has a specific approach on offense or defense. The college game changes so quickly, you can be an innovator one season and a dinosaur the next (Hal Mumme). Plus, you have to be able to adapt your approach to whatever talent you get on campus.
Things that I'd like to see in our next HC: Proven recruiting. The SEC is no longer the killer it once was, but we still have to recruit at a high level to compete for conference championships. If someone has question marks about pulling in high level talent, that's a big problem. Also, I would like to have a track record as a head coach to rely upon. Like I laid out above, I think juggling those multiple pieces is what makes or breaks most coaches. I knew Charlie Strong was a terrible fit for Texas from Day 1 because he bristled with media and any criticisms they threw at him at Louisville. It was obvious he would melt under more of the same under a bigger spotlight. Venables is an interesting name, but of course he has no history as a HC. Some guys are able to shine in a supporting role, but don't have the demeanor take on the myriad of added responsibilities as the head man. If we were to give Venables a look, I think you have to question him extensively about organization, responsibility delegation, potential coordinators, how he would divvy out his limited time, etc. If he doesn't have a crystal clear vision at the ready, move on.
One of the things that is tough to recognize is how the coaching landscape has changed in the past 15 years or so. Gone are the days when we can poach a HC from Pitt or Michigan. The arms race in coaching salaries changed all that. Even shitty guys are getting a couple million per year. As a result, barring crazy circumstances, coaches aren't jumping from one P5 school to another.
The approach I would like to see us take is to focus mainly on head coaches at smaller schools. Wins and losses are a big factor to look at, but at the same time, focus on the approach they take to program organization. Are they hands on in calling the game? How clearly do they define coordinator and assistant roles? In other words, if they have coaches move on, is their system set up to adequately replace them. Ultimately, you have to look at a ton of these factors and find the guy that has the best approach to move our program forward.
Again, sorry for the rambling.
