Why not Dare to be Great?

[77GTFan]

Prevent, I am not saying "no way" to Hatcher. But, in a thread about "daring to be great" and thinking about a coach the caliber of Spurrier, I wanted to point out that considering Hatcher a more daring move toward greatness than Spurrier can be justifiably questioned.

 

[beej67]

OK, let's put you judgement of coaching talent aside for another post.

That's totally fair.

Whoever the best coach right now is, why not go after him? Why settle for second tier?

Personally, I think the whole idea that a particular high profile coach is some sort of magic bullet to solve all your problems is fanciful, and silly, and proven wrong more often than right. See Notre Dame, Alabama, Nebraska, etceteras.

I think whether or not your coach is truly awesome or not has a lot more to do with circumstances and luck than anything else, and paying a godzillion dollars to lose to Louisanna Monroe isn't my idea of a solid business decision.

Take last year's coaching carousel. Some Bama fan said EXACTLY what you're saying now, and they bought Nick Saban, who at the time was widely regarded to be as good as Spurrier, with a very similar pedigree. They're essentially carbon copies of each other. Look how that turned out.

Tech needs to be in the market for the next big thing, not last year's big thing at ten times the cost.

 

[Essobee]

Tech needs to be in the market for the next big thing, not last year's big thing at ten times the cost.

Sigged!

 

[71YellowJacket]

Personally, I think the whole idea that a particular high profile coach is some sort of magic bullet to solve all your problems is fanciful, and silly, and proven wrong more often than right. See Notre Dame, Alabama, Nebraska, etceteras.

I think whether or not your coach is truly awesome or not has a lot more to do with circumstances and luck than anything else, and paying a godzillion dollars to lose to Louisanna Monroe isn't my idea of a solid business decision.

Take last year's coaching carousel. Some Bama fan said EXACTLY what you're saying now, and they bought Nick Saban, who at the time was widely regarded to be as good as Spurrier, with a very similar pedigree. They're essentially carbon copies of each other. Look how that turned out.

Tech needs to be in the market for the next big thing, not last year's big thing at ten times the cost.

Let's agree that selecting the right coach (i.e. the coach most likely to achieve our hiring goals) is no sure thing and no one here except you said it was the “magic bullet” to solve all our problems. But it would also be wrong to say, the caliber of the coach can't make a tremendous difference to a program’s success.

I totally disagree that we need to not look for the "best" now (whoever that may be) and be satisfied with trying to pick "the next best thing". In fact, I would bet you could make more errors in selecting a coach on the basis of the "next big thing" (future potential?) than picking one based upon past accomplishments. Past accomplishments in coaching are like past accomplishments in investing, no guarantee but it’s where the smart money is invested.

Let’s also not forget the problems that come with the learning curve, the losing seasons and if we finally turn the corner, leaving for greener pastures.

 

[beej67]

I would bet you could make more errors in selecting a coach on the basis of the "next big thing" (future potential?) than picking one based upon past accomplishments.

I'll buy that. Since we're both on the same business wavelength, I'll simply say this:

I don't think the error differential between hiring an unproven coach and a proven one is different enough to justify the mega million dollar difference in cost, particularly for a program that doesn't have mega millions to spend.

I cite the recent "errors" in high profile high dollar hires (Weis, Saban, I'll even say 6-6 Spurrier) as data points, to back my opinion.

Furthermore, I think that the true talent in ADing is a lot like the true talent in investing: it's not in picking the obvious choice, it's in finding the less obvious one. If Dan Radikovich truly is a great AD, he'll find a coach as good as Spurrier for a lot less cost.

 

[Essobee]

I would bet you could make more errors in selecting a coach on the basis of the "next big thing" (future potential?) than picking one based upon past accomplishments.

accomplishment + future potential = Edsall

 

[dodd_54]

beej67, I agree with your last point. We want to get the next big thing.

 

[71YellowJacket]

I'll buy that. Since we're both on the same business wavelength, I'll simply say this:

I don't think the error differential between hiring an unproven coach and a proven one is different enough to justify the mega million dollar difference in cost, particularly for a program that doesn't have mega millions to spend.

I cite the recent "errors" in high profile high dollar hires (Weis, Saban, I'll even say 6-6 Spurrier) as data points, to back my opinion.

Furthermore, I think that the true talent in ADing is a lot like the true talent in investing: it's not in picking the obvious choice, it's in finding the less obvious one. If Dan Radikovich truly is a great AD, he'll find a coach as good as Spurrier for a lot less cost.

How many data points needed to establish a new trend line?

I would not look at Weis as a proven track record as one of the best albeit "a high profile high $ hire". I could also say the same about Saban.

If you don't like Spurrier, and I'm not willing to wait for an unproven investment to pan out (Gailey definitely fits into that category), who are the past proven + future potential candidates you would consider we both might agree on, other than BOR?

Edsall? Mora?

 

[beej67]

who are the past proven + future potential candidates you would consider we both might agree on, other than BOR?

So now we're on to the "your judgement of coaching talent" part of the conversation?

First off, I hope and pray DRad is better qualified to judge coaching talent than you or I am. Second, I think the best thing you and I have to go on is on-the-field results, since we aren't privy to the interview process. Third, I think it's important to compare apples to apples when gaging results. Fourth, I think looking at our existing player talent and matching a coaching style to that talent will yield better short term results, and better short term results are a factor in yielding better long term results.


That leads me to think Hatcher, Edsall, or Tenuta over 6 and 6 Spurrier even if the cost was even.

Chan Gailey had a better year this year than Spurrier did.

Hell, Cutcliffe would be a better candidate than Spurrier, based on the second half of Tennessee's season.

 

[JTS]

I think Spurrier is only making $1.75M and that he is donating a substantial chunk back to the school every year. At the price, he is a freakin' bargain and should not be lumped into the Saban $4.0M or Weis $3.5M. Heck, Spurrier makes less than Al Groh.

 

[texstinger]

Spurrier could have been the HC at GT, but some brilliant "Tech Men" decided we HAD to hire a "Tech Man."

Probably WAY to late now.

 

[JTS]

Spurrier's winning % at USC is higher than any HC they have ever had that coached more than 2 seasons. Despite the wonderful fan support at USC, USC has not been as strong a program as GT in general.

USC also played a much more difficult schedule than we did this year.

 

[71YellowJacket]

So now we're on to the "your judgement of coaching talent" part of the conversation?

First off, I hope and pray DRad is better qualified to judge coaching talent than you or I am. Second, I think the best thing you and I have to go on is on-the-field results, since we aren't privy to the interview process. Third, I think it's important to compare apples to apples when gaging results. Fourth, I think looking at our existing player talent and matching a coaching style to that talent will yield better short term results, and better short term results are a factor in yielding better long term results.


That leads me to think Hatcher, Edsall, or Tenuta over 6 and 6 Spurrier even if the cost was even.

Chan Gailey had a better year this year than Spurrier did.

Hell, Cutcliffe would be a better candidate than Spurrier, based on the second half of Tennessee's season.

I’m very comfortable in both of us being excluded from the hiring decision for inferior judgement. My core point isn’t the “who” (great band as they were) but in the philosophical argument about what level of talent we should go after.

I believe we deserve no less than the best now, not who is forecasted to be great in the future. I also believe any increase in expenses resulting from such a hire would be more than offset by the growth in the fan base and the increase in ticket sales.

Not saying you fall into this camp, but many posting here firmly believe we are a second tier program and not attractive to “the best” and even if we are, we couldn’t afford them.

My image of Georgia Tech’s football program is much higher..

 

[beej67]

I’m very comfortable in both of us being excluded from the hiring decision for inferior judgement

Always a good place to start.

My core point isn’t the “who” (great band as they were) but in the philosophical argument about what level of talent we should go after.

I believe we deserve no less than the best now, not who is forecasted to be great in the future.

I believe much like my own personal life, Tech's bank account balance may not mirror "what we deserve." I believe that given the choice, you hire for tomorrow, not yesterday. I believe that the best hire would be one who turns into the New Spurrier, right here on the flats, not one who is obviously the Old Spurrier by very definition. I believe the connection between head coaching talent and program success is more tenuous than most fans believe. Especially college FB fans, who refuse to blame players by their very nature, but feel a need to blame someone.

Not saying you fall into this camp, but many posting here firmly believe we are a second tier program and not attractive to “the best” and even if we are, we couldn’t afford them.

Define "second tier."

I believe if you gathered up the 100 "best" college football coaches and told them they could work at any school in the country other than their alma matter (to reduce personal bias) and polled them, GT would not be a top ten choice.

Do you agree or not?

Where is your cutoff for "second tier?"

And most importantly, why do you believe we must pay an exorbitant amount of money for a rehashed coach if we are to be a "first tier" program?

 

[JTS]

In order to be a 1st Tier Program, you have to be able to pay 1st Tier Money for a HC and his staff. That means you need to be able to pay you HC $2.75-4.0M and still have another $1.0M to $1.50 for assistant coaches. Can we afford that?

 

[YodaBee]

we'll get what we pay for

Last year, there were 50 coaches that made more than Gailey. Despite Gailey having a winning record each year, a bowl game each year and an ACC Divisional Title.

We aren't attracting big name candidates because they don't think we'll pay. That's why the search list is Amateur Hour full of assistants, has beens and unproven small division coaches.

It would take $3 million a year plus buyout to get Steve Spurrier to take a job here given the additional obstacles to success that he would face compared to his position in Columbia. Plus, we might have to outbid LSU.

We want Caviar Results on Tuna Casserole Budget.

 

[71YellowJacket]

Always a good place to start.

I believe much like my own personal life, Tech's bank account balance may not mirror "what we deserve." I believe that given the choice, you hire for tomorrow, not yesterday. I believe that the best hire would be one who turns into the New Spurrier, right here on the flats, not one who is obviously the Old Spurrier by very definition. I believe the connection between head coaching talent and program success is more tenuous than most fans believe. Especially college FB fans, who refuse to blame players by their very nature, but feel a need to blame someone.

Define "second tier."

I believe if you gathered up the 100 "best" college football coaches and told them they could work at any school in the country other than their alma matter (to reduce personal bias) and polled them, GT would not be a top ten choice.

Do you agree or not?

Where is your cutoff for "second tier?"

And most importantly, why do you believe we must pay an exorbitant amount of money for a rehashed coach if we are to be a "first tier" program?

As President Regan once said, there you go again….and again…..

I never said “I believe we must pay an exorbitant amount of money for a rehashed coach if we are to be a “first tier” program”.

And, I never said our choice in selecting a head coach was “between tomorrow and yesterday” or “between an old Spurrier and a new Spurrier”.

Your argument is bogus, completely so. We are not limited to selecting between the future and the past. The correct hire could well bring both an outstanding track record and a long future of record breaking successes.

As someone who has been responsible for executive compensation consulting for most of my working life, I do know something about the relationship of talent to pay. Yes, if we hire higher level talent we will pay more for it; the law of supply and demand. Your analogy based on your check book balance is also skewed wrong. The salary of a CEO or head coach is correctly viewed not as an expense but as an investment which if made correctly will return a profit. Exorbitant? Only if we pay more than the talent is worth. And as to the cost, the right talent will bring in additional revenues far beyond the added cost of compensation.

Finally, why in the world would anyone define what level program we have by asking “up to 100 best coaches to rank us”? You have it all backwards; we rank ourselves that’s what matters. We do so by how we view our place in the market. IF we view ourselves as a school whose program should be second to none then we seek a coach that is second to none now and in the future. We then pay what the market will bear. And IF we were correct in our hiring decision everyone else will agree with us that we are one of the best.

We will live up or down to our own expectations. Hiring Gailey and some before him are classic examples of expecting less than the best for our program.

 

[dodd_54]

I would also add that a first tier program has a stadium holding more than 70,000 folks and can put 40,000 folks in the stadium for the spring game. Turning to the money, a first tier program can pay a coach on the way out, pay the buyout of the new coach, pay the salary of the new coach along with the salaries of the new assistant coaches. I firmly believe we can be a first tier program, but we're not there yet.

 

[YodaBee]

what school have you been following?

" The salary of a CEO or head coach is correctly viewed not as an expense but as an investment which if made correctly will return a profit."


We are a laggard in pay.
We have been a laggard in pay.
We show no signs of stopping this trend based on the names being bantered about.


If we were serious about hiring a proven winner and we were serious about paying for performance today and tomorrow, you wouldn't see a list that looked anything like what was published in the AJC.

None of those names would be on the list.

 

[71YellowJacket]

I would also add that a first tier program has a stadium holding more than 70,000 folks and can put 40,000 folks in the stadium for the spring game. Turning to the money, a first tier program can pay a coach on the way out, pay the buyout of the new coach, pay the salary of the new coach along with the salaries of the new assistant coaches. I firmly believe we can be a first tier program, but we're not there yet.

Dodd54, you have convinced me. We are not now a first tier program. But the stadium is only a reflection of our self-image as not a first-tier program, not what makes it so. I want us to become a first-tier program.

IF AND WHEN the majority of our fans decide we want to be a first tier program we will begin to act like one. We will then hire a first-tier coach who brings real excitement to our program, who schedules teams people will flock in to see us play and beat more than our share of time. The right hire will grow our fan base, increase the demand for tickets, and that is what will lead us to a bigger stadium, and pay the bills for getting us there.

I’m beginning to think we don’t want to get there……