Stepping Stone School

[WoolyBully]

There are instances, in certain professions, where longevity pays dividends. And there are certain professions where five years is considered ‘long term’. Here’s a good article about the trend as is and will probably be for the foreseeable future: https://www.on3.com/news/current-fbs-coaches-have-been-in-their-jobs-for-an-average-of-just-3-7-years/. Given the portal power, why should we think in terms of ‘we have this guy for four years! Just wait until he’s a senior’? We’re going to be looking at a steady migration of movement towards a better situation (however you define that) by both players and coaches. That's football going forward.

The only way to build success (which would probably be defined as anything >= .500) is quickly. A coach would come to USF knowing that there is a three-or-so year window to show progress or get escorted to the elevator. We live in a results-now world, and sports are no different. This is what coaches need: a brand-new formula to get results quickly. As to the details of how that gets built, can’t help you there. That’s the sort of thing aspiring coaches need to ponder in the lab.

So, what if USF is a steppingstone? It doesn’t mean there are no expectations. What if P5 is not in our future? What if we are forever relegated to G5? Do we fold the program, and call it a day? If we do aspire to P5, is there a timeline for that, bearing in mind that success will have to be built in three-to-five-year increments? The ideal situation would be, assuming the projected turnover levels, that each coach builds on the success of the previous coach. Unfortunately, as it is now, what the new coach has to build on is not-a-lot-of-success. The next guy in line has to be thinking about that.

[puc86]

1 hour ago, Ghostbuster said:

We have 1 FBS win in 4 seasons; I'm not worried about consistent success, I'm worried about any success before we're too much of a joke for players and fans to care about.

Now if you want a real answer to the problem of how to handle head coaches leaving and starting over, @puc86 had an idea about ditching the traditional head coach paradigm and making things more interchangeable.  I can't do it justice but he could probably recap.

If his idea is too bold, then find someone not named Michael Kelly to identify prospective coaches.  Other NCAA teams have coaching turnover but they don't end up worst in the nation (both football & basketball)

Synopsis? Have you not read any of my previous writings? Now if you would like me to set out to summarize it but then accidentally make it 10x longer and one paragraph, I’m probably your guy.

[Mango028]

If we can build a team that has depth and more consistent players having success and losing a coach doesn’t mean every player will leave to follow him. If they do the good thing about winning is..ucf was able to replace a top qb with another high level transfer. Ucf is getting quality recruits and transfers because lf tradition built. 

 

1st goal should be to win a conference title. Recruiting comes from winning. We need a coach who can come in and win with scheme first. Recruiting players for the scheme you run and then it becomes higher quality that run the scheme with success. That success makes is a target for another good coach. Its a snowball effect until we get into a big conference. Until the n we have to play the merri go round
 

 

[SilverBull]

Isn't college supposed to be a steppingstone?  And nowadays what jobs aren't as well?  Even priests hope to move up.

[Rocky Style]

8 minutes ago, SilverBull said:

Isn't college supposed to be a steppingstone?  And nowadays what jobs aren't as well?  Even priests hope to move up.

Yeah the goal is for people to succeed and you help them move on and improve.  Then it is on the person hiring to find the next person and keep the mo going.

[sloan1919]

What is the alternative you are suggesting? Get a ****** coach that nobody wants and keep losing? Even if you got a crappy coach, if he ever had success you would have the same exact problem. So what are you suggesting?

[Brad]

I really love the "dialogue" in this thread.  But you can just disregard.

My point, what dawned on me the other morning - was we are entering a phase (although subtle to some here) wherein MK's building of the program will have double edge.  If he hires success (he did not with Scott) like we all want, we could experience a portal emigration as opposed to the immigration we have seen.  So my question is not directed at any candidate, but if you're MK, you have to do more than just hire the next coach, you have to have a plan, an infrastructure and "culture", etc. that supports a greater allegiance to the football program/school than to any one coach.  So if any one coach makes us better, we have a likelihood to stay better.  

Now, if he hires a bum, we'll never have that mass emigration issue and the losers all remain, at least until the next coach.  Just a few years ago there was a deterrent to follow the coach, yet some still did and sat out a year.  There is no deterrent any longer. And we've not yet had a coach to follow to a better program.

If you have to navigate the present while planning for the future, I think you get it.  I'm sure MK gets it and is planning how that unfolds.   You have to do one or the other.  You have to figure out how to keep a coach (increased salary, move to P5, whatever) or you have to figure out how to keep the players (locker room, NIL, hot babes)... or both.  The constant churning is not an advantage.  Don't fool yourself.

It's just simple topic of discussion.  If it riles you up or you feel content in the knowledge of how the changing landscape of CFB will impact a once again growing program, just pass on this topic.

 

[Rocky Style]

5 minutes ago, Brad said:

or you have to figure out how to keep the players (locker room, NIL, hot babes)... or both

Are hot babes grandfathered in under the ambiguity of NIL?

[smazza]

every job except about 10 are stepping stones

[Brad]