Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Someone sell me on Strong


Dos Horns
 Share

Recommended Posts

If Saban (current coach of a premier program), Harbaugh (current coach of an NFL team), Briles (current coach of a team that he just built him a stadium) or Fisher (current coach of a team in the NC game) don't want to leave their respective programs, who else is left?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing to sell.

 

It would mean Texas had to settle and was turned down by Saban, Fisher, Meyer and the Harbaugh's. I like Briles over Strong too but I have a feeling Strong will get picked over Art.

 

Strong hasn't been an overwhelming recruiter, didnt win his conference in a weak league with a 1st rounder at QB and doesn't have a real strong track record to go off of as a HC.

 

I would support it but its not a home run nor did they show the Joneses image that is portrayed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing to sell.

 

It would mean Texas had to settle and was turned down by Saban, Fisher, Meyer and the Harbaugh's. I like Briles over Strong too but I have a feeling Strong will get picked over Art.

 

Strong hasn't been an overwhelming recruiter, didnt win his conference in a weak league with a 1st rounder at QB and doesn't have a real strong track record to go off of as a HC.

 

I would support it but its not a home run nor did they show the Joneses image that is portrayed.

 

Basically agree with you, coach. We need a proven coach and we can afford it. This is no time to settle for anything less. And truth be told, we'd be real fortunate to end up with Art if we miss on Saban, John H., or Fisher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strong led Louisville to a victory in the 2013 Sugar Bowl over his former team, the Florida Gators, by a final score of 33-23. It was the biggest upset victory in terms of point spread in any BCS bowl game since the inception of the BCS in 1998, as Florida entered the game favored by almost two touchdowns.

 

He has finished first in conference 2 out of 4 years coaching. His teams have improved every year.

 

I've watched UL play under Strong a few times and he does a really good job. His D is schematically sound, they know how to tackle and are physical. And he has a good eye for QB talent apparently.

 

If Strong gets hired it just means our home run hires didn't pan out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Patterson read this article from January of this year by Dr. Matthew Lynch.

 

Missing Men: The Lack of African-American Head Coaches in College Football

January 31, 2013 | Category: Blogs,News | :

**

inShare

4 *****

 

by Dr. Matthew Lynch

College football is arguably the most popular sport at the nation’s colleges and universities. Bringing in more than $90 million annually in revenue at the highest grossing University of Texas, it is no wonder that school leaders view the football team as less of an extracurricular activity and more of a moneymaker. The revenue that is generated by college football programs only represents a small piece of the overall financial benefits. Schools with strong athletic programs, particularly in the area of football, bring in more prospective students and have larger booster groups in place.

 

Like every area of higher education, finding the right blend of diversity on the football field is a challenge. Take Charlie Strong, for example. The coach of Louisville that led the team to victory in the Sugar Bowl was an assistant for a whopping 27 years before finally being given a head coaching opportunity. In just two seasons, he produced a bowl-worthy squad and began receiving offers from other schools, like Tennessee. Strong insists that he will not leave Louisville because of his loyalty to his superiors but is there more to it than that?

 

The Facts

 

Not many African-American head coaches at the college level have had the same success as Strong—mainly because many have not been given the chance. Of the 124 Division 1-A college football schools, only 15 had African-American coaches in the 2012 season, according to an executive report by the Black Coaches Association. The Big Ten conference has seen zero Black head coaches in the past 10 years.

 

While head coaches are the most visible, support positions are severely underrepresented as well. Only 312 of 1,018 of college football assistant coaches are Black, and only 31 of 255 of offensive and defensive coordinators are African-American. Combined, Black football coaches and support staff represent a measly 5 percent of Football Bowl Subdivision numbers.

 

At Division II and Division III schools, diversity is even worse. The Black Coaches Association reports that, in the 2012 season, only nine schools of 113 in these two categories had head coaches of color. These numbers exclude historically Black universities.

 

The Problem

 

Despite the thousands of Black college football players in recent decades, barely a handful has been trusted with leading teams. These ex-players obviously understand the game and know what college athletes face on the field—so what gives?

 

Part of the problem is that schools are quick to dismiss coaches of all backgrounds when immediate improvement does not take place. The most recent high-profile example was the firing of Jon Embree by the University of Colorado in November. Floyd Keith of the Black Coaches Association called the firing a “disappointment” and wished that the school had given Embree a third season to prove himself. The school pointed to a 4-21 record over the course of two seasons as the reason for the firing, but critics, like Keith, say that just two years is simply not enough time to turn a team around.

 

Many critics are also quick to point out that White coaches with bad numbers are often still considered a hot commodity by other schools when they are on the market, whereas Black coaches have historically been given just one shot to prove their talent.

 

It is also important to note that a college football coach does not have the same responsibilities as an NFL one. Winning is valuable to the university, but so are other aspects like graduation rates of players and team conduct. Both play an indirect role in the revenue the school is able to generate in future years by attracting new students. Yet with turnover rates of all college coaches rising every football season, a shift toward a “winning takes place on the field” mentality is evident.

 

Solutions

 

The statistics are indisputable when it comes to underrepresentation of African-Americans in all levels of college football coaching. With so much being said about this issue, not much in the way of problem solving has arisen.

 

Colleges and universities would do well to take a cue from the NFL when it comes to hiring minority coaches. Established in 2003, the Rooney Rule requires NFL teams to interview at least one minority candidate for all vacant head coaching positions and other executive football operation spots. After just three seasons, the Rooney Rule led to an increase of 22 percent in the number of African-American head coaches in the NFL, and those numbers rise every season. A similar rule only makes sense in a college athletic setting, especially since so many other aspects of higher education use affirmative action programs to bolster diversity and opportunity.

 

Another possible option is for schools to set up coaching mentorship programs for minority players that show leadership potential. An even better approach would be an NCAA-sanctioned program that seeks talented players and gives them some exposure to coaching and maybe even a certificate program. These earmarked players could then begin working their way through the coaching ranks sooner and have a common knowledge base.

 

All changes need to be initiated by the NCAA, college athletics governing body. For a real dynamic shift to be felt across the board, every school needs to have the same diversity opportunities and rules as all the others. It is not enough to wish that more schools took a closer look at African-Americans to fill head football coaching spots; an overarching game plan needs to be in place for true change to occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who say they would be disappointed in strong are basing this off of his previous results.

 

You can't apply static character to Strong (or any coach) when it comes to this hire.

 

Basically--you can't say that X coach did this at his previous university so that means he will give us the same result. We have NO CLUE what Strong or any other coach could do at UT. You can't sit back and give reasons why Strong is a bad hire when we just don't know what his future COULD be here at UT.

 

What happens if Strong came in an won a NC in 3 years? Would you still feel the same about him "not producing in a minor conference" or "he can't win big?"

 

There's no guarantee of anything. Let it all play out. Good Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so you think race should be a consideration. I don't care what color a coach is, nor do I give preference to color when I have equally qualified job candidates. Race is just not an important factor or consideration in my decision-making process.

 

 

Race is a consideration when all of the previous employees were all one race. It's the same as being POTUS. People would always say that race shouldn't matter. Well it does, because past experiences told us that only a white male could be president. So apparently, race did matter. The same can be said for a major university, no matter where they are located or what the sport is.

 

/race rant over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Race is a consideration when all of the previous employees were all one race. It's the same as being POTUS. People would always say that race shouldn't matter. Well it does, because past experiences told us that only a white male could be president. So apparently, race did matter. The same can be said for a major university, no matter where they are located or what the sport is.

 

/race rant over.

 

I'm with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who say they would be disappointed in strong are basing this off of his previous results.

 

You can't apply static character to Strong (or any coach) when it comes to this hire.

 

Basically--you can't say that X coach did this at his previous university so that means he will give us the same result. We have NO CLUE what Strong or any other coach could do at UT. You can't sit back and give reasons why Strong is a bad hire when we just don't know what his future COULD be here at UT.

 

What happens if Strong came in an won a NC in 3 years? Would you still feel the same about him "not producing in a minor conference" or "he can't win big?"

 

There's no guarantee of anything. Let it all play out. Good Lord.

 

No disrespect or anything, but I don't see where you're coming from. Just as in any other job, a University wants to hire someone with a successful track record. That's just the nature of the beast. Why would I hire an Accountant who has failed numerous audits at her previous employer just because they might do well in my company when I can hire an applicant with already excellent credentials.

 

Personally, I like Strong. I don't think his track record is up there yet with others, but he won't be too far off in the near future. I would not be terribly upset with his hiring. Again I apologize, maybe I misinterpreted your statements. If I did please feel free to correct me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No disrespect or anything, but I don't see where you're coming from. Just as in any other job, a University wants to hire someone with a successful track record. That's just the nature of the beast. Why would I hire an Accountant who has failed numerous audits at her previous employer just because they might do well in my company when I can hire an applicant with already excellent credentials.

 

Personally, I like Strong. I don't think his track record is up there yet with others, but he won't be too far off in the near future. I would not be terribly upset with his hiring. Again I apologize, maybe I misinterpreted your statements. If I did please feel free to correct me.

 

That's not what I'm saying. Moreover, you're equating Strong to the accountant who has failed multiple times. Of course you wouldn't hire that accountant. But in football terms, that would be like UT hiring the HC at Texas Southern or California. Of course you wouldn't do that.

 

But even you as a hiring manager have heard of situations in which you hire someone that isn't your 1st choice, but they end up exceeding expectations. That's what I'm saying about Strong. Just because of his results at Louisville (which his results are pretty stellar if you look at it with logic and not emotion) doesn't mean he will "suck" here at UT. Going back to your accountant analogy--has Strong really "failed" at Louisville? If not, then why are you equating him to the failure accountant then?

 

My overall point is this--no one on this message board can't predict the future. Not one person can look at a situation and say Coach X will automatically succeed here and Coach Y will definitely fail. The point is that none of us know exactly what will happen. We can make an inference. But in the end, we don't know. My point was what happens if we hire Strong and he wins right away. How will all of those posters who stated he will automatically fail feel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have hired people of all races on every continent during my mediocre professional career. Depending on where one is operating or the composition of the applicable team, I've made conscious decisions to utilize ethnicity and background when I believed it provided an advantage under specific circumstances, at least in terms of accomplishing an objective. This is merely taking advantage of situations or environments in which we operate. So I guess my statement above is misleading to some extent. What I should have said is that to me, personally, all things being equal, race or ethnicity is just not a consideration.

 

My objection to Strong is based upon my preference, under the present circumstances, that our football program be led through this transition by someone that has proven successful in more than one head coaching stint at the D1 or professional level. In other words, the least risky and biggest name out there. We need immediate results and IMO now is not the time to take a chance.

Edited by Dos Horns
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what I'm saying. Moreover, you're equating Strong to the accountant who has failed multiple times. Of course you wouldn't hire that accountant. But in football terms, that would be like UT hiring the HC at Texas Southern or California. Of course you wouldn't do that.

 

But even you as a hiring manager have heard of situations in which you hire someone that isn't your 1st choice, but they end up exceeding expectations. That's what I'm saying about Strong. Just because of his results at Louisville (which his results are pretty stellar if you look at it with logic and not emotion) doesn't mean he will "suck" here at UT. Going back to your accountant analogy--has Strong really "failed" at Louisville? If not, then why are you equating him to the failure accountant then?

 

My overall point is this--no one on this message board can't predict the future. Not one person can look at a situation and say Coach X will automatically succeed here and Coach Y will definitely fail. The point is that none of us know exactly what will happen. We can make an inference. But in the end, we don't know. My point was what happens if we hire Strong and he wins right away. How will all of those posters who stated he will automatically fail feel?

 

Your are absolutely correct, I should never have put the two in the same category. I do apologize. However, my point is ultimately still the same.

 

If my first choice is there, and they want the job, than they're going to get the job. That's just how it typically works. Yes I have hired those with good but not great resumes, and I am thankful I did. That's just sort of the luck of the draw though.

 

Of course we don't know whats going to happen. One person could completely fail, while the other exceeds everyone's expectations. Again though, the fact of the matter is that with any job, no matter what we don't know is going to happen, the more qualified applicant is always looked at first. At the end of the day we can only hope for the best no matter who is hired.

 

If by chance Strong were to be hired, and does a standup job, than I would hope those posters would stand up and admit they were wrong. At the end of the day we all want the same thing and the only thing that matters is getting a new HC and succeeding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have hired people of all races on every continent during my mediocre professional career. Depending on where one is operating or the composition of the applicable team, I've made conscious decisions to utilize ethnicity and background when I believed it provided an advantage under specific circumstances, at least in terms of accomplishing an objective. This is merely taking advantage of situations or environments in which we operate. So I guess my statement above is misleading to some extent. What I should have said is that to me, personally, all things being equal, race or ethnicity is just not a consideration.

 

My objection to Strong is based upon my preference, under the present circumstances, that our football program be led through this transition by someone that has proven successful in more than one head coaching stint at the D1 or professional level. In other words, the least risky and biggest name out there. We need immediate results and IMO now is not the time to take a chance.

 

Your are absolutely correct, I should never have put the two in the same category. I do apologize. However, my point is ultimately still the same.

 

If my first choice is there, and they want the job, than they're going to get the job. That's just how it typically works. Yes I have hired those with good but not great resumes, and I am thankful I did. That's just sort of the luck of the draw though.

 

Of course we don't know whats going to happen. One person could completely fail, while the other exceeds everyone's expectations. Again though, the fact of the matter is that with any job, no matter what we don't know is going to happen, the more qualified applicant is always looked at first. At the end of the day we can only hope for the best no matter who is hired.

 

If by chance Strong were to be hired, and does a standup job, than I would hope those posters would stand up and admit they were wrong. At the end of the day we all want the same thing and the only thing that matters is getting a new HC and succeeding.

 

 

Great replies. I think we are all just ready to know who the damn hire is. We are all strung out thanks to nerves and impatience!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously if you get a guy who has a little more track record as a HC like Saban, Fisher or Briles you can, but if we miss on all three (still a possibility) than Strong would be potentially a great conselation prize.

 

1. He's a great recruiter, see his time as DC at Florida and all the NFL guys they put in the league. He would actually give us a chance to land some kids from the best recruiting state in the country in Florida.

 

2. His time at Louisville has shown he can idenitfy talent and still get results with 3* kids instead of 4 and 5* star recruits. He's black which right or wrong also helps.

 

3. He's a great defensive coach, his improvements to Louisville and his production at Florida clearly show this.

 

4. His evaluation of QB's is not as extensive as Fisher or Briles but Teddy Bridgewater is a heck of a start. Give him a chance to recruit the best state for QB's in the country in Texas and he could continue his success.

 

5. He would give this program a much needed culture change. You want tough, physical football? Charlie Strong will give it to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The college game is too fast for Strong. If you doubt it, then re-watch some of this season's games. Watch for critical junctures when game decisions must be made. He is slow and sometimes even looks lost. There likely are fifteen other coaches who would be better head coaches at UT.

 

There is the other issue of the circus side-show left in the football program by Mack Brown. Charlie Strong is known for being a disorganized procrastinator. He could not be trusted with UT if things were pristine, much less the current quagmire.

 

Finally, the UT HC is a multi-faceted position. A guy who can't keep-up with the college game who is known for disorganization is the antithesis of the candidate we need.

 

Patterson knows this. Agents know this. Strong will not be coaching at UT next year or ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

Our Affiliation

USATDP_Logo.png

Quick Links

×
×
  • Create New...