The lasting effect of hiring a name

[ShushPush]

Hiring the big name will probably fill seats for 2 games. If there are not significant improvements seen by fans in those 2 games, the stadium will empty faster than you can time it on an eggtimer. That begs the question, is it really a necessity to hire an A list coach or is it a necessity to hire the coach that can best fit our situation? Best qualified or best fit?

 

[Duluthguy]

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. First, the guy with a big name might also be the guy who is the right fit. Secondly, with a team that is struggling, I'd rather have a proven name in there who at least brings confidence to the fans that he knows what he is doing - it will just take awhile. With a relative unknown, people could quickly start to form the opinion that he's in over his head or not the right guy.

With that said, there's no guarantee that the big name would be the right guy. But after Brewster, no one is going to put any faith behind anyone who hasn't already proven himself.

 

[Silvio]

To me the affect of hiring a big name coach will not necessarily be "felt by butts int he seats." It will be in the honeymoon period of casual fans and media. Brewster lost his in the first year, and was never able to regain the negative impact of that season even with the strong start to his second year. Brewster started coaching to save his job in year two (JUCO recruits, burn redshirts, etc.) and I think a name coach won't find himself in that position no matter how bad the first year record is.

 

[RodentRampage]

I think people will expect losing in the first year. They just don't expect a team to be as bad as the Gophers were in 2007. If we had won a couple of those close games in 2007, that would have made people a lot more positive going into 2008 and 2009. 7 wins wasn't bad in 2008, but with the collapse and the end of the season, people were thinking "Oh, no not again..."

 

[Silvio]

I think people will expect losing in the first year. They just don't expect a team to be as bad as the Gophers were in 2007. If we had won a couple of those close games in 2007, that would have made people a lot more positive going into 2008 and 2009. 7 wins wasn't bad in 2008, but with the collapse and the end of the season, people were thinking "Oh, no not again..."

I agree with that statement, but I think a lot of people tend to forget that Glen Mason teams laid an egg or two a season. It is just the Brewster teams (08 & 09) had a trend of doing that late in the season and one week after another games.

 

[RodentRampage]

I agree with that statement, but I think a lot of people tend to forget that Glen Mason teams laid an egg or two a season. It is just the Brewster teams (08 & 09) had a trend of doing that late in the season and one week after another games.

Right, but the 07 season really had people losing faith. Most people hadn't given up on him after one year, but the honeymoon was over. The 7-1 start in 08 brought back people's faith, but the finish meant that that faith crashed pretty hard.

 

[ShushPush]

Best qualified often does end in best results on new job. Research has demonstrated that best qualified also can result in early exit for other available positions. Also, compensation at the beginning is usually near the top so there are few built in incentives to motivate the hire to reach stretch goals. This type of candidate must be internally motivated and be rewarded with things like recognition, which usually already exists in the external market. Focus is on game day outcomes. May have factors that preexist and predetermine success that may or may not be distinguishable through individual effort. Harder to verify if candidate effort was the distinguishing factors of success on the job. Posses higher threat to the organization. If the candidate fails, will be more difficult to replace. Usually older candidates or in positions ideally situated for themselves. Harder to attract and hire. Ability to develop staff in abilities and retention.

I personally like the best fit. Can pay him a little less up front but build in incentives for reaching milestones of success. Successive contracts can focus on job stability and rewards will be determined with performance. Best fit also demonstrates the preferred abilities of the coach to make lasting changes at the U. Focuses on improving infrastructure that will translate into better game day outcomes. Posses smaller threat to the organization. More easily replaced. Still a stretch to hire but more easily accessible. May be just as hard to find and hire in terms of total pool of candidates may still be as small as the best qualified pool but have a higher likelihood of making the move for professional reasons. May add long term stability to the coaching situation. Usually in prime work years in terms of output and quality. Uncertainty of developing staff fully and likelihood that developed staff will want to move up quickly to more prominant positions increasing job turnover.

Which focus is better is highly subjective as they both have strengths and weaknesses. Which is really better for the U?