[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=18083.msg214116#msg214116 date=1511290434]
[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=18083.msg214095#msg214095 date=1511280982]
He'll never be the sexy pick, though, which probably factors into why he hasn't become a head coach.  You'd need a place that isn't concerned with sexy, doesn't have outsized expectations, and mainly just wants a solid guy that will run a clean and respectable program.  Iowa once Ferentz leaves, perhaps?

Slightly OT, but I love to hire the non-sexy pick, the candidate who is qualified as anyone but for a variety of reasons isn't considered the sexy pick.  They almost always pan out for me.  And candidly...I don't quite trust the sexy pick.  They're often overrated for a variety of other reasons.
[/quote]

While I think I have seen every possible iteration of how a particular kind of coaching hire pans out, I agree that it's fairly often that the non-sexy pick turns out the best.

While there is much denying it now, very few people were excited when Stanford hired Harbaugh (though in his own kind of crazy way he was a sexy pick).
Here is Wilner's famously prescient take:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...idding-me/

Shaw was not a sexy pick, and from day one elicited a fair amount of fan anger that he wasn't Petersen, or Fangio, or Roman, or ...


Sometimes sexy hires work fine.
Petersen may have lost a little luster, but is mostly working out fine at UW.
Meyer was a sexy pick at tOSU.

Sometimes sexy picks work out less-fine.
Walsh-II.
Most U$C hires of recent vintage.
Many others everyone here can list.

And of course tons of non-sexy picks haven't worked out well - really most coaching hires don't work out well long term.

-----
Mostly I take that to mean: a) it is difficult to figure out who will do well at any particular situation, and b) most fans (and some ADs) have very little useful information on the topic.
[/quote]

If ( and I acknowledge I dont have stats) "sexy" and "non-sexy" picks have similar success rates, then as a university I'd go with non-sexy....less expensive. As an AD, my butt might be covered better with sexy....probably can avoid the initial second guessing by Wilner types.

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=18083.msg214116#msg214116 date=1511290434]
[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=18083.msg214095#msg214095 date=1511280982]
He'll never be the sexy pick, though, which probably factors into why he hasn't become a head coach.  You'd need a place that isn't concerned with sexy, doesn't have outsized expectations, and mainly just wants a solid guy that will run a clean and respectable program.  Iowa once Ferentz leaves, perhaps?

Slightly OT, but I love to hire the non-sexy pick, the candidate who is qualified as anyone but for a variety of reasons isn't considered the sexy pick.  They almost always pan out for me.  And candidly...I don't quite trust the sexy pick.  They're often overrated for a variety of other reasons.
[/quote]

While I think I have seen every possible iteration of how a particular kind of coaching hire pans out, I agree that it's fairly often that the non-sexy pick turns out the best.

While there is much denying it now, very few people were excited when Stanford hired Harbaugh (though in his own kind of crazy way he was a sexy pick).
Here is Wilner's famously prescient take:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...idding-me/

Shaw was not a sexy pick, and from day one elicited a fair amount of fan anger that he wasn't Petersen, or Fangio, or Roman, or ...


Sometimes sexy hires work fine.
Petersen may have lost a little luster, but is mostly working out fine at UW.
Meyer was a sexy pick at tOSU.

Sometimes sexy picks work out less-fine.
Walsh-II.
Most U$C hires of recent vintage.
Many others everyone here can list.

And of course tons of non-sexy picks haven't worked out well - really most coaching hires don't work out well long term.

-----
Mostly I take that to mean: a) it is difficult to figure out who will do well at any particular situation, and b) most fans (and some ADs) have very little useful information on the topic.
[/quote]

If ( and I acknowledge I dont have stats) "sexy" and "non-sexy" picks have similar success rates, then as a university I'd go with non-sexy....less expensive. As an AD, my butt might be covered better with sexy....probably can avoid the initial second guessing by Wilner types.