27 staffs stay intact: By our research, only 27 of 120 programs have the same 9 assistant coaches today that were in place at the beginning of August practice. UAB, Army, Auburn, Baylor, BC, BYU, Clemson, Fresno State, Iowa, ULL, Missouri, Nebraska, Northwestern, North Carolina, Ohio State, Oregon, Oregon State, Penn State, San Diego State, SMU, TCU, Texas, Tulane, UCLA, VA Tech, Wake Forest, and Washington.
Staff churning is definitely a fact of life for all programs. I'd be surprised if more than a handful of programs hadn't had any changes in the last 3 years. I still find it odd that the Kill bunch has stuck together so long. It's one thing to like working together, and a two-income family can get by fine on 1-A assistant pay, but do they have no ambition? Do they not think working with other staffs would make them better coaches? It's not like they're working for some kind of guru.
I expect to see stability at large programs near the pinnacle of the profession. There isn't much greener grass than working at a winning program in a big conference.
Maybe I'm crazy, and will be put right by others here, but I think churning coaches helps keep programs and staffs fresh.
I think I'm more surprised that it's that many.
Staff stability has been one of the greatest strengths of Kill's tenure at several colleges.
"New blood" occasionally is fine but regular turnover of more than two coaches is not a plus for midmajors who cannot easily hire the cream of the crop each season.
(02-22-2010 04:13 PM)DogTracks Wrote: [ -> ]Staff churning is definitely a fact of life for all programs. I'd be surprised if more than a handful of programs hadn't had any changes in the last 3 years. I still find it odd that the Kill bunch has stuck together so long. It's one thing to like working together, and a two-income family can get by fine on 1-A assistant pay, but do they have no ambition? Do they not think working with other staffs would make them better coaches? It's not like they're working for some kind of guru.
I expect to see stability at large programs near the pinnacle of the profession. There isn't much greener grass than working at a winning program in a big conference.
Maybe I'm crazy, and will be put right by others here, but I think churning coaches helps keep programs and staffs fresh.
When you're able to replace with fine choices, then it can be a strength. When you're filling a position, not so much.
Take a look at that 2007 staff. There was hardly anything left even worth hanging onto.