Mid-term program expectations, and this coaching search

[hm101]

I don't think we need a home-run hire necessarily.

I think we need a double, or a triple. This is a program at the bottom of a shaky conference that is on a quest to get back up. We need different things than we needed back in 2010.

The next step right now is not NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP, but rather, a CINCY-TYPE level of success that has us competing for a league championship, landing in a bowl game with a BCS-league opponent, and edging the top 25.

Some of these names like Houston Nutt are not home runs. But, I believe he can, in the next 3-4 years, get us over .500, going to bowl games, etc.

I don't think we need a high-risk, high-reward coach. We need someone just to pick us up. When we are standing, then we swing for the home run.

[FatDaddyBull]

Here's the problem. I agree with you on short term goals. But the philosophy overall could be compared to Leavitt standing us up and bRinging in Holtz for the home run... Except he struck out.

My point is, it's no slam dunk our next hire would be the guy to put us over the top. It's risking missing again, because we aren't going to be competing for Urban or Saban. We ferry another boost of relevance followed by another collapse, it'll be bad for the reputation

[asdlfef]

Isn't the point of firing one coach to hire another to get the best candidate available to take over?

[TallyBull]

This doesn't have to be a two-step process. Sometimes circumstances warrant it (e.g. a successful coach moves on), but it would be ideal to find one candidate who could ultimately do both jobs.

[hm101]

Isn't the point of firing one coach to hire another to get the best candidate available to take over?

The best candidate for what? To accomplish what?

Do we really need a risky assistant who could be a knock out, but also could be a flop and exacerbate the woes?

-or-

Are we better served settling for someone who can get us competitive again, so we can regroup?

[Triple B]

Isn't the point of firing one coach to hire another to get the best candidate available to take over?

The best candidate for what? To accomplish what?

Do we really need a risky assistant who could be a knock out, but also could be a flop and exacerbate the woes?

-or-

Are we better served settling for someone who can get us competitive again, so we can regroup?

The best candidate is the best candidate ... Any hire will be a risk.

[FatDaddyBull]

Lol the only safe candidate would be Jimmy, we know he can get us to bowls. No one thought Skip wouldn't be able to at least continue that.