Jeff82 said:
Trying to decide what the moral of this is. From the description, DeBoer seems very similar to Wilcox, in that he's loyal to long-time colleagues. He can/does pay them a lot more than Wilcox does. Maybe that means they are more loyal to him, or that Wilcox ends up with less-effective people who are willing to work for less because he's a friend. Or is this all irrelevant, and the basic difference is that it's easier to recruit to Washington than to Cal.
calumnus said:Jeff82 said:
Trying to decide what the moral of this is. From the description, DeBoer seems very similar to Wilcox, in that he's loyal to long-time colleagues. He can/does pay them a lot more than Wilcox does. Maybe that means they are more loyal to him, or that Wilcox ends up with less-effective people who are willing to work for less because he's a friend. Or is this all irrelevant, and the basic difference is that it's easier to recruit to Washington than to Cal.
For college:
1. Hire HC's that have been successful HC's at a lower level and can bring their guys with them.
2. Hire HCs that are offensive geniuses so you never lose your offense by your OC getting promoted to HC elsewhere.
3. Offensive HC's most important hire is their DC who they should delegate to and compensate extremely well.
4. Smart head coaches realize they are the CEO, they do not try to do it all and do not try to make all the money. They spend the money to hire and retain the best employees even if it means they make less. They delegate and share the wealth, knowing it will bring greater success. This not only brings success, it builds loyalty and motivation.
5. Hire HC's with outgoing, engaging personalities. They will be the best recruiters, the best motivators, the best marketers for your program both among fans and the media, generating income for your program and votes in polls.
I'm not sure this is the recipe for success in 2023 and beyond.BearSD said:calumnus said:Jeff82 said:
Trying to decide what the moral of this is. From the description, DeBoer seems very similar to Wilcox, in that he's loyal to long-time colleagues. He can/does pay them a lot more than Wilcox does. Maybe that means they are more loyal to him, or that Wilcox ends up with less-effective people who are willing to work for less because he's a friend. Or is this all irrelevant, and the basic difference is that it's easier to recruit to Washington than to Cal.
For college:
1. Hire HC's that have been successful HC's at a lower level and can bring their guys with them.
2. Hire HCs that are offensive geniuses so you never lose your offense by your OC getting promoted to HC elsewhere.
3. Offensive HC's most important hire is their DC who they should delegate to and compensate extremely well.
4. Smart head coaches realize they are the CEO, they do not try to do it all and do not try to make all the money. They spend the money to hire and retain the best employees even if it means they make less. They delegate and share the wealth, knowing it will bring greater success. This not only brings success, it builds loyalty and motivation.
5. Hire HC's with outgoing, engaging personalities. They will be the best recruiters, the best motivators, the best marketers for your program both among fans and the media, generating income for your program and votes in polls.
Hiring and firing head coaches sometimes seems like switching mobile phone carriers. You get sick and tired of the one you have and you switch, and then you get sick and tired of the one you switched to.
IMO, there are many factors for sure, but the top three things I would prioritize in hiring a college football head coach are: Recruiting, recruiting, and recruiting.
Recruiting doesn't mean recruiting like it was 40 years ago. A coach who is a great recruiter now lands top-notch transfers as well as freshmen, and keeps the best players recruited as freshmen happy enough to not want to transfer out.Unit2Sucks said:I'm not sure this is the recipe for success in 2023 and beyond.BearSD said:calumnus said:Jeff82 said:
Trying to decide what the moral of this is. From the description, DeBoer seems very similar to Wilcox, in that he's loyal to long-time colleagues. He can/does pay them a lot more than Wilcox does. Maybe that means they are more loyal to him, or that Wilcox ends up with less-effective people who are willing to work for less because he's a friend. Or is this all irrelevant, and the basic difference is that it's easier to recruit to Washington than to Cal.
For college:
1. Hire HC's that have been successful HC's at a lower level and can bring their guys with them.
2. Hire HCs that are offensive geniuses so you never lose your offense by your OC getting promoted to HC elsewhere.
3. Offensive HC's most important hire is their DC who they should delegate to and compensate extremely well.
4. Smart head coaches realize they are the CEO, they do not try to do it all and do not try to make all the money. They spend the money to hire and retain the best employees even if it means they make less. They delegate and share the wealth, knowing it will bring greater success. This not only brings success, it builds loyalty and motivation.
5. Hire HC's with outgoing, engaging personalities. They will be the best recruiters, the best motivators, the best marketers for your program both among fans and the media, generating income for your program and votes in polls.
Hiring and firing head coaches sometimes seems like switching mobile phone carriers. You get sick and tired of the one you have and you switch, and then you get sick and tired of the one you switched to.
IMO, there are many factors for sure, but the top three things I would prioritize in hiring a college football head coach are: Recruiting, recruiting, and recruiting.
Football players have relatively short careers and those careers now start the day you finish high school, when the NIL money rolls in. Maybe it starts on signing day for seniors, I am not too sure actually.
Given the impact of NIL, I don't think players are really making 40-year decisions, they are making 1-year decisions. You maximize your first year NIL payout. If you aren't happy with your decision, you can transfer and maximize your year two payout.
So where does this leave the traditional model of recruiting? Not too clear for me. Who would you rather play for - a great coach who you really like at a school where you will collect $50k or [insert coach here] at a school which will pay you $200k?
Money talks and BS walks and I'm not sure people have really fully adjusted to the new reality. But don't worry fellas, with Knowlton manning the torpedoes from his home in Colorado, I'm sure we'll have the best thinking.
BearSD said:
IMO, there are many factors for sure, but the top three things I would prioritize in hiring a college football head coach are: Recruiting, recruiting, and recruiting.
