2nd Degree Gopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
- Messages
- 2,382
- Reaction score
- 1,775
- Points
- 113
Whether this hire ultimately proves to be a good one or a bad one will be determined over a period of years, but like the media and most fans, I will form an initial assessment once the new guy is announced. Too often, teams seem to try to address the shortcomings of the last coach by hiring his mirror image. I believe that Tim Brewster was hired based on the premise that he would recruit better and sell the program more enthusiastically than Glen Mason did and that his skills in those areas would develop a stronger program. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way for reasons that became more and more apparent over time.
Rather than trying to simply correct Brewster’s flaws, I hope the University views this as a second chance to replace Glen Mason. I think that will yield a better end result and, after all, Mason was terminated based on the desire to move beyond what he had achieved. So, when the announcement is made, I am going to make my initial evaluation of this hire based on the following questions:
Would I have thought that this was a good hire if we were replacing Glen Mason rather than Tim Brewster? This obviously encompasses a lot of factors. The new hire needs to offer the promise of better recruiting than Mason and demonstrate a willingness to be the face of the program. I don’t care as much about what type of offense or defense we run as I do about whether the coach has a vision and a track record for successfully implementing one (or more) offensive and defensive philosophies. I’d also like a history of a highly regarded and stable staff.
Does this hire meet Maturi’s stated goal of being a “Tubby Smith-type” hire? Admittedly, I have no idea what Maturi meant when he said it or what his motivation was for throwing it out there. To me, this goal translates to “Is this someone with a reputation for success with integrity?” and “Is this someone I thought was beyond our ability to attract when this process started?” With Tubby, the answer to those questions was a resounding “yes” for me. I hope for the same reaction when the new football coach is unveiled.
Curious to hear the criteria others will use to for their initial opinion of the hire.
Rather than trying to simply correct Brewster’s flaws, I hope the University views this as a second chance to replace Glen Mason. I think that will yield a better end result and, after all, Mason was terminated based on the desire to move beyond what he had achieved. So, when the announcement is made, I am going to make my initial evaluation of this hire based on the following questions:
Would I have thought that this was a good hire if we were replacing Glen Mason rather than Tim Brewster? This obviously encompasses a lot of factors. The new hire needs to offer the promise of better recruiting than Mason and demonstrate a willingness to be the face of the program. I don’t care as much about what type of offense or defense we run as I do about whether the coach has a vision and a track record for successfully implementing one (or more) offensive and defensive philosophies. I’d also like a history of a highly regarded and stable staff.
Does this hire meet Maturi’s stated goal of being a “Tubby Smith-type” hire? Admittedly, I have no idea what Maturi meant when he said it or what his motivation was for throwing it out there. To me, this goal translates to “Is this someone with a reputation for success with integrity?” and “Is this someone I thought was beyond our ability to attract when this process started?” With Tubby, the answer to those questions was a resounding “yes” for me. I hope for the same reaction when the new football coach is unveiled.
Curious to hear the criteria others will use to for their initial opinion of the hire.
