[teejers1]

The way I read it was that the AD’s failed by not firing their coaches in order to hire Golden, and if they didn’t do so because they were worried that Golden would not take the job, then they should be fired for that.



theres a certain logic to that, but the third possibility, that the Stanford and Cal AD’s have a higher view of their coaches and are more optimistic about the future than we are was not contemplated.



More broadly, firing a coach just to bring in a guy you think will be the savior first work as well as you might think.



BC

I get the visceral need to play devil's advocate, but winning college programs do hire coaches to be saviors. And if they don't get the job done, they are fired so another savior can be hired.  Florida is the school we are talking about here. I think that school knows a little something about winning in the major sports. 

Actually, winning college programs don't hire coaches to be saviors. They don't need to. They are already there. Programs that are not winning are the ones that hire coaches. Most of them continue to be not winning. Florida was in the market because their coach went to Georgia. He was good at Florida, but not great, He was not a "savior". It is certainly true that some coaching hires work great. Most don't. That is why there are so many of them.

It's hard to figure out what your (and BC's) point is . . . is it never hire replacement coaches because "ya never know" and they're likely NOT going to be saviors? 

That strikes me as an odd approach.  You keep your coach if you think he's meeting your standard; if not, he goes and you hope the next guy - whom you've done some diligence on - meets program standards.  It shouldn't be that hard conceptually.

P.S.  Is USF a 'winning program?'

[teejers1]

The way I read it was that the AD’s failed by not firing their coaches in order to hire Golden, and if they didn’t do so because they were worried that Golden would not take the job, then they should be fired for that.



theres a certain logic to that, but the third possibility, that the Stanford and Cal AD’s have a higher view of their coaches and are more optimistic about the future than we are was not contemplated.



More broadly, firing a coach just to bring in a guy you think will be the savior first work as well as you might think.



BC

I get the visceral need to play devil's advocate, but winning college programs do hire coaches to be saviors. And if they don't get the job done, they are fired so another savior can be hired.  Florida is the school we are talking about here. I think that school knows a little something about winning in the major sports. 

Actually, winning college programs don't hire coaches to be saviors. They don't need to. They are already there. Programs that are not winning are the ones that hire coaches. Most of them continue to be not winning. Florida was in the market because their coach went to Georgia. He was good at Florida, but not great, He was not a "savior". It is certainly true that some coaching hires work great. Most don't. That is why there are so many of them.

It's hard to figure out what your (and BC's) point is . . . is it never hire replacement coaches because "ya never know" and they're likely NOT going to be saviors? 

That strikes me as an odd approach.  You keep your coach if you think he's meeting your standard; if not, he goes and you hope the next guy - whom you've done some diligence on - meets program standards.  It shouldn't be that hard conceptually.

P.S.  Is USF a 'winning program?'