twk said:
Quote:
See, why is the latter even an option? This is what I don't understand. Why does A&M have to EVERY TIME let the incumbent coach burn the thing all the way to the ground before replacing him? We have plenty of data to know that option is going to lead to failure, and then you've more more assistant money to pay out after termination. If RC is going to be retained, it should really be almost entirely out of his hands to go find another hitting coach. He absolutely should not be doing that on his own, or it's going to be the same thing. He should also be told to allocate more scholarships to hitters. I don't even know what assistant coach would be willing to come here on what's likely a one year deal anyway.
Burn it down? Do you ever not engage in hyperbole?
The valid charge against Rob is that the program has plateaued.
How many times do you know of an AD making an assistant hire and imposing it on a head coach? That is what you are suggesting, isn't it (hard to tell). I also don't know who would decide the scholarship allocation, other than the head coach.
If Woodward were still here, Rob would be in danger, but with the transition, it's just not real likely. Most new AD's would come in, see where we are, and tell Rob that another year of pathetic offensive production like the last is liable to result in his dismissal. That's just the way the world works, most of the time.
I agree with most of what you said here, however, I don't see anything wrong with a new AD (or any manager) coming in and insisting on RC presenting a plan going forward to improve the results that the team is getting. That isn't dictating him hire or fire any particular assistant or make any specific change the AD wants, but it is a sound management technique in getting someone to realize that doing the same things in the same way may not lead to better results. If RC is unwilling to do that, then the AD should be free to move on if that's what he chooses to do.
I don't understand the idea that a new AD can tell a coach he's a year away from dismissal unless things change but can't dismiss him now. Absent something structural, like a contract or money issue, OR a situation where someone has earned the benefit of the doubt (e.g. Gary Blair's national championship if he were in a similar situation), really, what's the difference?
With that said, I greatly hope Nebraska makes him an offer and he accepts it. I think it will benefit everyone, including Childress.
