[Goose]

Chryst: I think there's a through line to some degree between Chryst, Shaw, Mendenhall, Cutcliffe, and others - lots of success but when things faltered very low appetite to change ways. Oftentimes this manifests in a loyalty/refusal to let go of under-performing assistants.

Most (all?) coaches have a low appetite to change ways when things are going well. I think when things are going poorly it is often not that the head coach is adverse to replacing under-performing assistants but rather 1) they are not of the opinion the assistant is "under-performing". They simply don't know what the problem actually is, and 2) their personnel network is not such that they have candidates ready at hand the think would be better. Many times the shuffling of assistant coaches isn't based on a belief that a particular guy is under-performing but rather the fact the results aren't good on the field. Something has to change and often it is the assistants. If you want to look at an example of that not working just look at Cal and Wilcox's offensive coordinators. If you want to look for an example where it did work, look at ND when the HC was forced to fire everybody.

I don't think it is some kind of loyalty or friendship issue that keeps coaches from firing assistants, at least in most cases. Coaches are not sentimental. They replace one athlete with another at the blink of an eye. It is most often (IMO) they resist the idea of replacing somebody when you can't point to exactly how they are deficient other than saying their unit isn't very good. It seems illogical to get rid of somebody when you can't articulate what they are doing "wrong". It often is, but coaching isn't a science, it is an art. Many coaches resist that idea because it reminds them they too are subject to arbitrary dismissal.

[Goose]

Chryst: I think there's a through line to some degree between Chryst, Shaw, Mendenhall, Cutcliffe, and others - lots of success but when things faltered very low appetite to change ways. Oftentimes this manifests in a loyalty/refusal to let go of under-performing assistants.

Most (all?) coaches have a low appetite to change ways when things are going well. I think when things are going poorly it is often not that the head coach is adverse to replacing under-performing assistants but rather 1) they are not of the opinion the assistant is "under-performing". They simply don't know what the problem actually is, and 2) their personnel network is not such that they have candidates ready at hand the think would be better. Many times the shuffling of assistant coaches isn't based on a belief that a particular guy is under-performing but rather the fact the results aren't good on the field. Something has to change and often it is the assistants. If you want to look at an example of that not working just look at Cal and Wilcox's offensive coordinators. If you want to look for an example where it did work, look at ND when the HC was forced to fire everybody.

I don't think it is some kind of loyalty or friendship issue that keeps coaches from firing assistants, at least in most cases. Coaches are not sentimental. They replace one athlete with another at the blink of an eye. It is most often (IMO) they resist the idea of replacing somebody when you can't point to exactly how they are deficient other than saying their unit isn't very good. It seems illogical to get rid of somebody when you can't articulate what they are doing "wrong". It often is, but coaching isn't a science, it is an art. Many coaches resist that idea because it reminds them they too are subject to arbitrary dismissal.