Larry Scott HC?

[GaUSFBull]

Just now, OncomingStorm said:

Any prospective employer who makes a decision based on what other jobs a candidate is looking at, rather than independently judging the candidates credentials, is not the smartest employer.

Just because you are applying for jobs at three different companies doesn’t mean you’re a good fit for all of any of them.

I’m not saying it’s not a factor to consider, but hardly the top factor.

Not only are you getting very off track on this discussion, but you're also putting words in my mouth.  I didn't say it was a top factor.  But even though it is a factor (funny you say it is now, after you said that the point I made was defeated), it still has to be considered.  We're talking millions of dollars at stake here.  We have to get it right.  But you and Mike apparently want MK to put blinders on and only look at Larry Scott, apparently based on his being a former Bull and potentially loyal to the program for decades.  It's probably a safe bet that neither of you have much experience in hiring employees.  

[Grateful Dad]

42 minutes ago, JTrue said:

Past performance is far and away the best indicator of future success. It’s not even a debate.

While that may be true as a "rule of thumb", research has shown that most variables have to be very similar in all of the examined situations.  You just don't get that in real life.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/witness/201301/the-best-predictor-future-behavior-is-past-behavior

"But this is a gross oversimplification. Psychological scientists who study human behavior agree that past behavior is a useful marker for future behavior. But only under certain specific conditions:

1. High-frequency, habitual behaviors are more predictive than infrequent behaviors.
2. Predictions work best over short time intervals.
3. The anticipated situation must be essentially the same as the past situation that activated the behavior.
4. The behavior must not have been extinguished by corrective or negative feedback. 
5. The person must remain essentially unchanged.
6. The person must be fairly consistent in his or her behaviors"

With all of the variables that a HC has to contend with, (current roster, recruiting, administration, facilities, etc.) it would be difficult to make an accurate prediction when placed into a very different set of circumstances.  That could explain why coaches (and players) that leave a team after a bad season do well elsewhere.

[JTrue]

7 minutes ago, MikePhillips said:

And to update everyone's stats on Larry Scott

He currently a Tight End coach at UF... and they are currently ranked 7th in the nation. And the Gators are EASILY the best team in Florida by a lap. 

We need help on Offense. Larry Scott was Offensive Lineman at USF when he played here.

https://floridagators.com/sports/football/roster/coaches/larry-scott/1026

Players love him, he recruits amazingly well... but we don't want him at USF? Well they sure are loving him at University of Florida with their amazing seasons they've had since picking him up in January of 2018

BTW... he was part of our coaching staff during our "#2 Ranking" years. 

To not even give this man a marginal shot at the job just blows my mind. 

How's UF doing this year? How did they do last year? UF went 10-3 last year, so far 10-2 this year.

He is part of that program! Please read this- 

https://floridagators.com/sports/football/roster/coaches/larry-scott/1026

 

You realize your entire argument for Scott is his past performance, right?

[DELdaBull]

Do I have to have the same heart to heart that I had with my wife with @MikePhillips?

[JTrue]

2 minutes ago, Grateful Dad said:

While that may be true as a "rule of thumb", research has shown that most variables have to be very similar in all of the examined situations.  You just don't get that in real life.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/witness/201301/the-best-predictor-future-behavior-is-past-behavior

"But this is a gross oversimplification. Psychological scientists who study human behavior agree that past behavior is a useful marker for future behavior. But only under certain specific conditions:

1. High-frequency, habitual behaviors are more predictive than infrequent behaviors.
2. Predictions work best over short time intervals.
3. The anticipated situation must be essentially the same as the past situation that activated the behavior.
4. The behavior must not have been extinguished by corrective or negative feedback. 
5. The person must remain essentially unchanged.
6. The person must be fairly consistent in his or her behaviors"

With all of the variables that a HC has to contend with, (current roster, recruiting, administration, facilities, etc.) it would be difficult to make an accurate prediction when placed into a very different set of circumstances.  That could explain why coaches (and players) that leave a team after a bad season do well elsewhere.

I don't disagree with any of this, but tell me what factor you'd place above past performance in making your next hire.

[WWMJD]

Just now, JTrue said:

I don't disagree with any of this, but tell me what factor you'd place above past performance in making your next hire.

This is exactly the point. Sure, past performance is not a perfect predictor. But we don't have a crystal ball, so it will have to do...

[GaUSFBull]

Just now, DELdaBull said:

Do I have to have the same heart to heart that I had with my wife with @MikePhillips?

We need a board heart-to-heart on this topic.  Maybe you can create a thread and it can be pinned to the top, and required reading one time next time people log in. 

[NewEnglandBull]

[OncomingStorm]

5 minutes ago, GaUSFBull said:

Not only are you getting very off track on this discussion, but you're also putting words in my mouth.  I didn't say it was a top factor.  But even though it is a factor (funny you say it is now, after you said that the point I made was defeated), it still has to be considered.  We're talking millions of dollars at stake here.  We have to get it right.  But you and Mike apparently want MK to put blinders on and only look at Larry Scott, apparently based on his being a former Bull and potentially loyal to the program for decades.  It's probably a safe bet that neither of you have much experience in hiring employees.  

I never said to only look at Larry Scott, whereas you indicate we shouldn’t look at him because no one else is doing so.

[CousinRicky]

45 minutes ago, GaUSFBull said:

I think you responded before reading more examples @JTrue cited of why past performance is THE best indicator ... not just an indicator.  And you have to look at Skip's job at La. Tech along with USF.  

I'm starting to agree there may have been more behind the scenes stuff here for Skip that prevented him from doing better here.  Time and hindsight have sort of borne that out.   

 

So I just tried to send you a message and got a message saying  you can't receive messages.  Clean out your mailbox!!!