The Gap Between USF and the Orlando School

[Triple B]

8 minutes ago, zarnozdabull said:

UCF

Hires Scott Frost - implements incredibly quick and speedy no huddle offense to great success. He leaves, they hire Josh Heupel who runs an incredibly similar system and thus no major change allows for them to maintain their success.

As opposed to USF - hires CWT who EVENTUALLY implements a fast RPO system to success at the end. He leaves and then USF TOTALLY screws up hiring CSS whose first words before coaching his first game are “the offense is too fast.” Totally screws everything up instead of just maintaining what was working for Taggart ala Heupel-Frost and fails miserably. Therefore creating a whole new situation for yet another rebuild to occur when he couldve just kept TJ Weist as OC or something.

I guess I get it, kinda. You don't hire the best coach available, you hire the best coach available that runs the same type offense or defense you currently have ..... and then he's made to hire the opposite coordinator type that runs the same type defense of the coach that left. I'm assuming this philosophy is all on the assumption you're replacing a successful coach and it would change if you have to fire a coach?

[zarnozdabull]

49 minutes ago, Triple B said:

I guess I get it, kinda. You don't hire the best coach available, you hire the best coach available that runs the same type offense or defense you currently have ..... and then he's made to hire the opposite coordinator type that runs the same type defense of the coach that left. I'm assuming this philosophy is all on the assumption you're replacing a successful coach and it would change if you have to fire a coach?

If the system ain't broke...

[puc86]

1 hour ago, brybull1970 said:

Not sure I agree with you. When you hire a coach you are entrusting them to implement whatever system gives the program the best chance to succeed. In USF's case what you are hoping in that the new coach is successful and sticks around for 3-4 years, and that one if his coordinators can take over the reigns and maintain that culture and system moving forward. Boise State and North Dakota State are two pretty good non-P5 examples.

But if you can't pull that off you kind of have to pick the best option available to you and alot of times that means change. Hiring the wrong people and not building a succession plan when you do hire the right person is what leads to the kind of change you are referring to.

Name another industry where you hire people to completely change the core of your business because they were the best available in a different segment? If you are McDonalds and the best CEO available is from Chili’s you don’t become fast casual because that’s what made them successful, if you have a tech company and your assets are your code and they are all C# you don’t hire a Java guy and rewrite everything, if you are a construction company that has built a reputation on small homes you don’t hire a commercial guy and then flip your model losing all of your brand equity. Any successful business knows who they are they have a successful business model, they have a culture, they have fans and they hire to foster what they built with a little tweeting and expansion they don’t simply rebuild because they think a successful CEO is available. If you are the best available in the world but don’t fit into the vision of the company then you aren’t actually the best available candidate at all.

[puc86]

58 minutes ago, Triple B said:

I guess I get it, kinda. You don't hire the best coach available, you hire the best coach available that runs the same type offense or defense you currently have ..... and then he's made to hire the opposite coordinator type that runs the same type defense of the coach that left. I'm assuming this philosophy is all on the assumption you're replacing a successful coach and it would change if you have to fire a coach?

Not exactly you decide based on what you have seen here that has been successful, you make that a core principle and you make your hires based upon how they fit with the program’s vision for what it wants to be. There will be some people that will get hired away, there will be some that won’t be successful but none will be able to come in and say they can’t accomplish anything until they get the guys that fit their system then to just leave and have the next guy come in and say they too have a five year plan that they will only get three years into as well. It is nonsense. 

[puc86]

1 hour ago, zarnozdabull said:

UCF

Hires Scott Frost - implements incredibly quick and speedy no huddle offense to great success. He leaves, they hire Josh Heupel who runs an incredibly similar system and thus no major change allows for them to maintain their success.

As opposed to USF - hires CWT who EVENTUALLY implements a fast RPO system to success at the end. He leaves and then USF TOTALLY screws up hiring CSS whose first words before coaching his first game are “the offense is too fast.” Totally screws everything up instead of just maintaining what was working for Taggart ala Heupel-Frost and fails miserably. Therefore creating a whole new situation for yet another rebuild to occur when he couldve just kept TJ Weist as OC or something.

Exactly 

[puc86]

2 hours ago, George_Bullnard_Shaw said:

Ya, even if CCS had implemented a winning system it did not appeal to the fans. He should have been told that early on.

 

It’s because we don’t know who we are or what we want we wait for the candidates or search firm to decide it for us. If being engaging is a core principle and you do not check that box you are not a viable candidate, you like power I’s, west Coast offense and require a Big Ten line to run your system? Bye Don’t think any of the pieces on the actual team are the ones you can use for the next three years? Cya. You need to come in knowing this is who we are, this is who we have and this is what we do. If you think you can work within that then welcome to the team but if you think it’s going to take you five years and 3 offensive coordinator for the 3 years of the 5 you will actually be here then I am sure you are going to be just fine at another University that works for because it doesn’t work here.

[JLR LegacyConsulting]

2 hours ago, zarnozdabull said:

If the system ain't broke...

The boss (AD)  decides what type of team he wants.   He then selects his coach based on the style of play and culture - he/she the boss wants.

then hiring is based on specific skills and not reputation or the best “name” available

Replacement pool based on same criterion.

 

just a thought 

 

[zarnozdabull]

6 minutes ago, JLR LegacyConsulting said:

The boss (AD)  decides what type of team he wants.   He then selects his coach based on the style of play and culture - he/she the boss wants.

then hiring is based on specific skills and not reputation or the best “name” available

Replacement pool based on same criterion.

 

just a thought 

 

Charlie Strong was hired based on his name alone.

[El_Toro_86]

How about this example.

Look what happened when Michigan hired Rich Rod years ago and went to a spread.  They had built their brand on a typical Midwestern Big 10 power run game and in comes a guy that wants to change everything and how’d that end up?

[Outlaw]

6 hours ago, JLR LegacyConsulting said:

The boss (AD)  decides what type of team he wants.   He then selects his coach based on the style of play and culture - he/she the boss wants.

then hiring is based on specific skills and not reputation or the best “name” available

Replacement pool based on same criterion.

 

just a thought 

 

JLRLegacyConsulting, what a name for this current topic.