There can be advantages to both. I know when I was in my 30s I had a hell of a lot more fire in the belly than I do now (in my 60s). But, I also know that I know a heck of a lot more now than I did when I was younger.
My opinion is that experience is very valuable. All hires are a gamble. Most new Coaches require a 5 year contract, to give them time to build something. Since it does not look like we will ever have the money to buy out a coach, making a poor pick would be a long term disaster. Personally, I am in favor specifically of someone who has been a Head Coach and has had some success. It could be at a JC, at a lower level D1 school, at a D2 school. But, someone who knows what he wants to do and knows it works because it has. I tend to think we wont get another shot at a Coach like Monson who had experience at a higher level. The game and the money has changed so much that seems they would have to be coming off a disaster.
This model does not always work. Larry Reynolds was from this mold and struggled here. But, one important note about LR is that his first year or two here were horrid, but in every one of his 5 seasons at the helm, the program did better. Unfortunately, things like losing at home to D2 teams and a total lack of communication skills with donors had completely soured the LB community on him by the time he started to win. Therefore, someone who is charismatic and can "sell" is a trait I would look for.
For those who prefer a hot assistant, I recall our last foray in that direction, Wayne Morgan. Wayne really was a good man, but his years at Syracuse left him completely unprepared for a lower budget environment. Additionally, I seem to recall he had a personal situation where there were complications with the birth of his child during his first year. The combo had him at odds with a core of players that Greenburg left him and he never really regained his momentum here.
I would love to hear others views on what we need to look for and why you think so.
Message Thread
« Back to index