(12-05-2019 02:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 02:22 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 02:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 03:12 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  I think you are missing my larger issue. It's not anger at the 6-7 win seasons. I understand the larger realities of CFB. It's just that under SA, BC could NEVER get above 7 wins. If he was able to manage a few 8+ seasons in that mix, we would not be having this discussion, IMO. Other programs - that have historically been lesser programs than BC performance wise - have managed to do it. For what BC was paying SA, it was not an unreasonable ask, IMO

When BC fires a guy who consistently wins 7 games a year over the difference between 7 wins a year and 8, they damn well better have a replacement lined up who is a very good bet to average at least 8 wins a year at BC. Otherwise it's merely a change for the sake of making a change.

Dan Wolken (USA Today) had tweeted yesterday that he had spoken to some ADs and ADs of the vacant schools are finding their candidate pools are not quite what they had hoped they would be. In other words, the schools are finding the guys they hope would have been attracted to their job are not interested.

Makes me kind of wonder a few things:

1. The dream candidates of Urban Meyer, Bob Stoops, etc. are not interested in coaching at those schools (if at all).
2. Head Coaches of upper level G5 schools are becoming more selective in leaving for P5 jobs. What's the point of going to a school that will compete for a NY6 Bowl at the G5 versus going to a school that has traditionally been mid to bottom tier in their P5 conference and never making that type of bowl.
3. On a related note, the upper level G5, particularly most of the schools in the AAC aren't paying peanuts (Houston is paying $4M, Cincinnati, UCF, and a few others around the $2.5M mark).
4. The coordinators at some of these P5 programs are being paid lucratively, in some cases over 7-figures. See #2. It will take a certain job to that they know they can be successful at to get them to move.

BC best be weary that can't find a replacement better than Addazio.

Re (2) and (4): Coaches in those categories have always been selective, except when a coordinator thinks he's been an assistant for "too long", or a head coach thinks he's reached the point where he needs to move on for whatever reason. The difference today is that media, particularly social media, amplifies the wishful thinking of fans/ADs who think their team's job is 5x more attractive than it really is. And there's a difference between P5 teams "in the middle" versus those closer to the bottom. If the opening is, say, Tennessee, a good coach with a healthy ego will think, They've been down, but I can win there. If the opening is Vanderbilt, everyone knows that's either a very long term project or a job where the goal is to reach for 6-6.

Of course money can still come in to play, eg if a struggling SEC team offers $20 million guaranteed over 5 years to a coach who currently makes about $2 million but has a contract where it would only cost the school $2 million to fire him.

With respect to middle vs. bottom, I think there are a slew of schools/ADs/fans on or near the bottom who think they are in the middle. Likewise, there are a few in the middle who think they are top tier.

(12-05-2019 03:06 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 02:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 02:22 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 02:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 03:12 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  I think you are missing my larger issue. It's not anger at the 6-7 win seasons. I understand the larger realities of CFB. It's just that under SA, BC could NEVER get above 7 wins. If he was able to manage a few 8+ seasons in that mix, we would not be having this discussion, IMO. Other programs - that have historically been lesser programs than BC performance wise - have managed to do it. For what BC was paying SA, it was not an unreasonable ask, IMO

When BC fires a guy who consistently wins 7 games a year over the difference between 7 wins a year and 8, they damn well better have a replacement lined up who is a very good bet to average at least 8 wins a year at BC. Otherwise it's merely a change for the sake of making a change.

Dan Wolken (USA Today) had tweeted yesterday that he had spoken to some ADs and ADs of the vacant schools are finding their candidate pools are not quite what they had hoped they would be. In other words, the schools are finding the guys they hope would have been attracted to their job are not interested.

Makes me kind of wonder a few things:

1. The dream candidates of Urban Meyer, Bob Stoops, etc. are not interested in coaching at those schools (if at all).
2. Head Coaches of upper level G5 schools are becoming more selective in leaving for P5 jobs. What's the point of going to a school that will compete for a NY6 Bowl at the G5 versus going to a school that has traditionally been mid to bottom tier in their P5 conference and never making that type of bowl.
3. On a related note, the upper level G5, particularly most of the schools in the AAC aren't paying peanuts (Houston is paying $4M, Cincinnati, UCF, and a few others around the $2.5M mark).
4. The coordinators at some of these P5 programs are being paid lucratively, in some cases over 7-figures. See #2. It will take a certain job to that they know they can be successful at to get them to move.

BC best be weary that can't find a replacement better than Addazio.

Re (2) and (4): Coaches in those categories have always been selective, except when a coordinator thinks he's been an assistant for "too long", or a head coach thinks he's reached the point where he needs to move on for whatever reason. The difference today is that media, particularly social media, amplifies the wishful thinking of fans/ADs who think their team's job is 5x more attractive than it really is. And there's a difference between P5 teams "in the middle" versus those closer to the bottom. If the opening is, say, Tennessee, a good coach with a healthy ego will think, They've been down, but I can win there. If the opening is Vanderbilt, everyone knows that's either a very long term project or a job where the goal is to reach for 6-6.

Of course money can still come in to play, eg if a struggling SEC team offers $20 million guaranteed over 5 years to a coach who currently makes about $2 million but has a contract where it would only cost the school $2 million to fire him.

With respect to middle vs. bottom, I think there are a slew of schools/ADs/fans on or near the bottom who think they are in the middle. Likewise, there are a few in the middle who think they are top tier.

Every team in this sport has fans who think "their" team is much more attractive to a coach than it really is. Look on Twitter or message boards right now; the fans of almost every team with a coaching vacancy are talking about getting coaches they probably can't get and/or arguing that their just-fired coach should have been winning 9 or 10 games a year.

I think it is more enlightening to break BC down like this:

1991-2003 (entire Big East tenure pre-Matt Ryan): 85-68-2 (6-5 average)
2004-2007 (Matt Ryan era): 39-12 (10-3 average)
2008-present (post-Matt Ryan ACC era): 74-78 (6-6 average)

Seems like BC is a 6 win program that had a generational college quarterback for four years. To me.

(12-05-2019 04:13 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  I think it is more enlightening to break BC down like this:

1991-2003 (entire Big East tenure pre-Matt Ryan): 85-68-2 (6-5 average)
2004-2007 (Matt Ryan era): 39-12 (10-3 average)
2008-present (post-Matt Ryan ACC era): 74-78 (6-6 average)

Seems like BC is a 6 win program that had a generational college quarterback for four years. To me.

Good analysis, but BC has had a history of finding great quarterbacks (starting with Flutie).

What this has taught me is, if you are a head coach, it's better to have some variation in your record. Better to go 6-6, 5-7, 8-3, then 7-5, instead of always 6-6 or 7-5.

(12-05-2019 05:27 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 04:13 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  I think it is more enlightening to break BC down like this:

1991-2003 (entire Big East tenure pre-Matt Ryan): 85-68-2 (6-5 average)
2004-2007 (Matt Ryan era): 39-12 (10-3 average)
2008-present (post-Matt Ryan ACC era): 74-78 (6-6 average)

Seems like BC is a 6 win program that had a generational college quarterback for four years. To me.

Good analysis, but BC has had a history of finding great quarterbacks (starting with Flutie).

What this has taught me is, if you are a head coach, it's better to have some variation in your record. Better to go 6-6, 5-7, 8-3, then 7-5, instead of always 6-6 or 7-5.

One great quarterback every twenty years isn't a great business plan.