Golden Elephant
Maroon & Gold Maven
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2008
- Messages
- 270
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 28
Let's get back to the subject at hand.
I find it interesting that programs, when choosing a new coach, often look first and foremost to overcome the precieved liability of a just departed coach (or coaches). In other words, the new coach is picked in reaction to the previous coach.
For example, Glen Mason was considered a poor recruiter, so Tim Brewster, considered a world class recuiter, was hired.
Then Tim Brewster proved to be a world class bull$hit artist, so Jerry Kill, known for his straighforwardness and basics-driven approach, was hired.
Now Wisconsin has lost two coaches in short order. They seem to be reacting by having "Wisconsin Guy" be the at top of the criteria.
Maybe it will work, but maybe not.
That's a great point. It is funny how ADs always seem to be reacting to the last mistake. Now Wisconsin is trying to hire a guy who won't leave them.
I gotta say, seeing as how I want Wisconsin to fail, that I'd rather take my chances with Chryst than with Andersen. Andersen seemed to have them rolling in the right direction and he sure built Utah State up. He clearly knew how to run a program. Coordinators sometimes work out and sometimes don't. At Pitt, it was very inconclusive how well he was going to do, but he wasn't clearly succeeding or failing.
When BA retired, he chose Bielema over Chryst, even though Chryst had been there longer. That's pretty telling to me. Now obviously, he didn't think that badly of Chryst, because he's willing to hire him now, but also now he needs to hire a "Wisconsin guy", so it puts the thumb on the scale for Chryst. We'll see how it works out. No one knows as of today and anyone who says they do is lying.