[ColoradoTree]

[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]

I think both Meyer and Petersen are tough cases if we're trying to place each of them in a sexy/non-sexy dichotomy.  When I think of a "sexy" hire, I think of an up-and-coming coach, either a coordinator at a big program, a rising head coach at a mid-major, or a head coach at a lesser Power 5 program that is upwardly mobile.  There's often a novelty element to it, a "hot new coach of the moment" factor, but sometimes with a greater risk profile, either because the coach is unproven at that level, they may not be around long, or they have a non-traditional path to that job, which could suggest concerns about program fit.  Think of James Franklin when he moved from Vanderbilt to Penn State, or P.J. Fleck at undefeated (in the regular season, at least) Western Michigan last year, now of Minnesota.  When thinking about non-sexy hires, by contrast, I think of stability and consistency over a period of several years.  You know, the longtime assistant finally inheriting the top job, or the mid-major coach who never quite broke through but always had a decent team.  Ideally, not as much risk as the sexy pick, but perhaps not the same level of reward, either.  (Of course, there are plenty of non-sexy picks that have tanked programs for various reasons.  This is not a perfect definition I'm floating here, but just to explain the lens through which I view this stuff.)

But Chris Petersen was Boise State's head coach for 8 years before he finally agreed to come to Washington, and he'd been a popular name for vacancy after vacancy at bigger programs for years.  He'd been seasoned.  He embodied elements of both a sexy and a non-sexy hire.  Same with Urban Meyer.  While he was clearly a sexy hire when he went from Utah to Florida, by the team he came out of retirement and joined Ohio State, he had demonstrated that same kind of stability and consistency.  Both were home run hires, to be sure, but precisely because they gave you the best of both worlds, I find it difficult to definitively declare either to fit in one category or the other. 

Equally valid, of course, is the viewpoint that a coach's notoriety, either for good or for ill, makes them fall into the "sexy" camp by default, and that Petersen and Meyer therefore are merely on the far end of the "proven track record of success" spectrum within that camp. 

[ColoradoTree]

[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]

I think both Meyer and Petersen are tough cases if we're trying to place each of them in a sexy/non-sexy dichotomy.  When I think of a "sexy" hire, I think of an up-and-coming coach, either a coordinator at a big program, a rising head coach at a mid-major, or a head coach at a lesser Power 5 program that is upwardly mobile.  There's often a novelty element to it, a "hot new coach of the moment" factor, but sometimes with a greater risk profile, either because the coach is unproven at that level, they may not be around long, or they have a non-traditional path to that job, which could suggest concerns about program fit.  Think of James Franklin when he moved from Vanderbilt to Penn State, or P.J. Fleck at undefeated (in the regular season, at least) Western Michigan last year, now of Minnesota.  When thinking about non-sexy hires, by contrast, I think of stability and consistency over a period of several years.  You know, the longtime assistant finally inheriting the top job, or the mid-major coach who never quite broke through but always had a decent team.  Ideally, not as much risk as the sexy pick, but perhaps not the same level of reward, either.  (Of course, there are plenty of non-sexy picks that have tanked programs for various reasons.  This is not a perfect definition I'm floating here, but just to explain the lens through which I view this stuff.)

But Chris Petersen was Boise State's head coach for 8 years before he finally agreed to come to Washington, and he'd been a popular name for vacancy after vacancy at bigger programs for years.  He'd been seasoned.  He embodied elements of both a sexy and a non-sexy hire.  Same with Urban Meyer.  While he was clearly a sexy hire when he went from Utah to Florida, by the team he came out of retirement and joined Ohio State, he had demonstrated that same kind of stability and consistency.  Both were home run hires, to be sure, but precisely because they gave you the best of both worlds, I find it difficult to definitively declare either to fit in one category or the other. 

Equally valid, of course, is the viewpoint that a coach's notoriety, either for good or for ill, makes them fall into the "sexy" camp by default, and that Petersen and Meyer therefore are merely on the far end of the "proven track record of success" spectrum within that camp.