For a different perspective on the coaching search, try this simple test: Imagine that your favorite candidate is hired, but four years from now the program is struggling and it's obvious things aren't going to work out. What weakness or negative did you overlook or rationalize? In four years could you be saying something like:
His inexperience was a huge factor afterall.
Well, I guess his short term success was a fluke.
I worried that his success at that level wouldn't tranfer to the Big Ten.
There was some doubt about his offense working here.
Defense was always his weakness.
He never had proven that he could recuit at this level.
His success appears to have been because he had so-and-so as a coordinator.
That situation impacted recruiting more than I thought. etc...etc...
Does your candidate pose unnecessary risks? Is there another candidate in your top 3-5 that fares much better? I know, every candidate carries risks, but one could argue that the best candidate carries the fewest risks. Who would that be?
His inexperience was a huge factor afterall.
Well, I guess his short term success was a fluke.
I worried that his success at that level wouldn't tranfer to the Big Ten.
There was some doubt about his offense working here.
Defense was always his weakness.
He never had proven that he could recuit at this level.
His success appears to have been because he had so-and-so as a coordinator.
That situation impacted recruiting more than I thought. etc...etc...
Does your candidate pose unnecessary risks? Is there another candidate in your top 3-5 that fares much better? I know, every candidate carries risks, but one could argue that the best candidate carries the fewest risks. Who would that be?