ADC: Update from Football Scoop
FootballScoop.com has an article up about the latest rumblings on the Michigan AD search. Some points, which might help calm people's fears:
- Hackett wants the search done before the OSU game.
- Hackett is willing to fire/hire a coach, but would prefer the new AD does it
- Many current AD's have already expressed interest, including the usual suspects (Manuel, Bates, Castiglione)
- Castiglione would probably take the job if offered
Read the whole article here. Hopefully it helps calm some of the recent panic about this search.
November 4th, 2014 at 12:44 PM ^
Jeff Long would still be my first choice. He's just a solid, heady, "get's it" kind of guy.
November 4th, 2014 at 12:52 PM ^
He hired Bobby Petrino, John L. Smith, and Bret Bielema as football coaches. If he "get's it", I think I'd prefer somebody who doesn't.
He seems like a good guy, but since we are about to hire an AD that is going to need to hire a football coach, how about we don't hire the guy who has a terrible track record of hiring football coaches, amirite?
November 4th, 2014 at 1:01 PM ^
Huh. Bobby Petrino and Bret Bielema are excellent hires. Bielema went to 3 Rose Bowls and Petrino did awesome at Louisville which translated to Arkansas. He also hired Missouri's basketball coach away when Missouri was good. Not sure what more you'd want in an AD.
November 4th, 2014 at 1:34 PM ^
November 4th, 2014 at 1:43 PM ^
But Arkansas isn't exactly getting a Saban or Meyer type guy, so they went after and stole a major college coach who had won the Big Ten multiple times with under-talented teams - something they'd be asking of the coach of Arkansas. Maybe he wasn't the greatest guy off the field, but that was a pretty solid hire for Arkansas. He hasn't had a lot of success at Arkansas, so hindsight and all that, but Urban Meyer's OSU teams of the last 3 years would have trouble in that division.
November 4th, 2014 at 1:51 PM ^
Wisconsin was good before Bielema and they are good after Bielema. His success at Arkansas is TBD. You're talking about a team that is 0-5 in it's conference. "Solid hire" is way premature, especially when they paid a premium to get him and he comes with massive character questions off the field (and on it.)
November 4th, 2014 at 2:07 PM ^
But it's hard to blame the AD for hiring a guy with a great resume if that guy doesn't live up to it. Bielema was as good of a coach as Arkansas was going to get.
And Arkansas is certainly worse since Bielema left than they were with him. They have have 0 impressive wins since he left. Their only win against a ranked opponent was against #19 Northwestern who finished that season 5-7. If NW was a week or two later on the schedule, that number would also be 0.
November 4th, 2014 at 3:10 PM ^
I get what you're saying but you have it backward. It's about getting a good hire, regardless of resume.
I think this is a where you're letting your resume-analysis get the best of you. There's a lot of success by association attributed to coaches. Just because you're hired to coach Peyton Manning doesn't mean you're an offensive wizard. Alvarez built Wisconsin into what it is. Beilema was a steward. I find guys like Kelly and Rodriguez and Meyer and Bo who built up programs more impressive than guys who just keep things going (like Lloyd Carr), though that has it's virtues too.
In other words; correlation doesn't equal causation. It's an AD's job to look through the resume and make a sound decision.
Arkansas could have hired mgolegend Bob Stitt and be undefeated, for all we know. Your asserting the unprovable as fact.
November 4th, 2014 at 3:48 PM ^
No, you have it backward. You have the benefit of hindsight, which Long did not have when he hired Bielema. All he had was what Bielema had done up to that point, which was win a lot. He was a great candidate. Because he hasn't done that (yet) doesn't mean it was a bad decision at the time.
November 4th, 2014 at 7:24 PM ^
You are.
I'm simply saying you can't say it's a good hire when the guy is 0-5, comes at a high cost, and has off-field questions. He may succeed, but just because he won at Wisconsin doesn't mean he was a good hire anymore than Rodriguez or Hoke were good hires for Michigan. It's about what you do, not what you did.
It's the hiring decision-makers job to figure it out. Probably the guy with the Harvard degree is better than than the dropout but it's not 'hindsight' to hire Steve Jobs or Bill Gates instead, it's vision.
November 5th, 2014 at 3:40 AM ^
so if we hire Jim Harbaugh and he flames out in three years, were we stupid to hire him?
You're being obtuse
November 4th, 2014 at 4:29 PM ^
It seems like you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
November 4th, 2014 at 8:11 PM ^
Because I think the CC discussion on this board are often very miguided. Not only in who is reasonably available, but also in the relative attractiveness of different jobs, and the relative attractiveness of various coaches.
I think we can all dispute these points rationally. However, arguing someone is a "good hire" when they are 0-5 and somebody who has built a program into a top 5 team over several years is "lucky" crosses a line of being unreasonable to me.
I wouldn't be happy if Bielema was hired at my school. That goes if my school is Michigan, Arkansas, or EMU.
November 5th, 2014 at 3:15 AM ^
So are you saying you knew Bielema was a bad hire? If so, please provide proof.
November 4th, 2014 at 4:36 PM ^
You make it sound like Beilema did nothing. He was there 7 years. Now if he had only been there 3 years then yeah, you might be able to question how integral he was to keeping the program at a high level. However, after 7 years the last Alavarez recruit has long left campus. 7 years is plenty of time to fail if you aren't a good coach.
Being a steward is easy right? Just ask Ron Zook who took over for Spurrier, Larry Coker who took over for Butch Davis, Will Muschamp who took over for Urban Meyer,
November 4th, 2014 at 7:25 PM ^
He did not turn that program around or build it into a power. He maintained, and maybe enhanced it.
As I said in my previous comment, being a steward is comendable and can be difficult. Turning around/building a program is much harder though.
November 4th, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^
is in terms of what they've done before they got hired at the school. Yes, Wisconsin was a solid football program when Bielema was promoted to head coach. However, under Alavarez Wisky had a few good years mixed in with a lot of average or slightly above average years. For Wisky, that was a massive improvement on what they did year in and year for the 30 or so years before Alavarez. Bielema had 2 average years mixed in with really good years.
Arkansas, while winless in conference play this year, is a much improved team over where they were last year (something UM can't say). Agree, the jury is still out on Bielema's tenure at Arkansas but if you think hiring a coach from a power 5 conference after that coach had won 3 straight league titles isn't a solid hire, you're almost guaranteed to be disappointed with whoever is hired to be the next coach at UM.
November 4th, 2014 at 3:15 PM ^
I'm not going to sit around and assume every coach involved with a successful team would make a good hire.
Mike DeBord was on the '97 UM team staff - doesn't make him a great coach.
In other words, a "power 5 coach" isn't a prerequisite for success. It certainly helps make the case, but there's a lot more to consider than team success.
Alvarez turned Wisconsin completely around. They were a perennial doormat until he came over. It's true that Bielema took them up a notch, but a large part of that was his ability to provide consistency with what they had built up there and build on it.
November 4th, 2014 at 2:07 PM ^
November 4th, 2014 at 2:17 PM ^
Fine, but Arkansas isn't getting the total package. And part of your job as AD isn't to necessary get the guy you want the most, but to get the guy your constituents want the most. If you think the Arkansas fanbase as a whole would prefer a guy who wins football games but also likes to toss 'em back over a guy who wins less but has a clean record, you might hire the former. It doesn't mean he would make the same position when hiring for a different school. Especially when his prospect pool is much deeper.
November 4th, 2014 at 2:23 PM ^
"It doesn't mean he would make the same position when hiring for a different school."
I think this is especially true if the next AD has had some ties to UM in the past. They are going to know what is expected and what is frowned upon.
November 4th, 2014 at 3:16 PM ^
why can't Arkansas?
November 4th, 2014 at 3:47 PM ^
You are using way too much hindsight here. Ole Miss and Mississippi State are good this year. But both Freeze and Mullen were total unknowns when they were hired. Ole Miss has hired a handful of total unknowns and finally got one that worked. That doesn't mean that they Hugh Freeze was a slam dunk hire at the time, same with Mullen. And neither Mullen nor Freeze were doing this in the first couple years there.
Lesser schools hire good coaches sometimes. The take fliers on guys that bigger schools aren't willing to and sometimes those guys turn out to be really good. And that's why Mullen will likely not be at Miss St next year.
November 4th, 2014 at 5:48 PM ^
Hugh Freeze had 6 SEC wins through his first 2 years at Ole Miss. Dan Mullen had 7 his first 2 years at Miss St. Bret Bielema has 0, 0 SEC wins. I'll concede that he is coaching in the toughest division in college football, but so are Freeze and Mullen. Bielema plays Ole Miss, LSU, and Mizzou his last 3 games. It's extremely likely he will have 0 conference wins through 2 full seasons in the SEC. Arkansas was bad before he got there, but they did in fact have 2 SEC wins the season prior to his arrival.
November 4th, 2014 at 5:57 PM ^
I'm not saying Beilema's first two years are as good as either of those two guys. I'm saying that even coaches who ultimately look great don't necessarily do so right away, but more about what they looked like before they got there, and what the guys who were there before them looked like. Both schools have gone through many coaches who have all dont next to nothing. So you can't now say "Look at the MS schools, they can hire great coaches why can't Arkansas" because they really can't, they just got lucky (essentially).
You can't hire 5 bad coaches in a row, then when the 6th is really good, say "See look how good we are at finding great coaches because our current coach is good."
November 4th, 2014 at 7:43 PM ^
I'm pretty sure the ADs who hired those guys deserve a little credit. Calling it luck is a discredit to those guys. There were good reasons to hire Mullen and Freeze, and I think those reasons were a lot better than hiring Bielema.
Luck plays into it, sure. Muschamp looked like a great hire at Florida in many respects. But to sit here and call Bielema a success and those guys luck is just warped.
November 5th, 2014 at 3:47 AM ^
hiring a coordinator and the Southern equivalent of a MACtion coach was, in your mind, better than hiring a three time Big Ten winning coach? You think, from an objective non-hindsight tinted perspective, that hiring a former Big Ten Coach of the Year who had 4 ten win seasons in his pocket was a stupidier decision than hiring an offensive coordinator who had never held an FBS position under a coach not named Urban Meyer?
You're intentionally confusing the issue. Nobody called Bielema a success. Only that he was a great hire AT THE TIME. With the information available to Long in 2012, it was a good hire. I mean you yourself JUST SAID WILL MUSCHAMP LOOKED LIKE A GOOD HIRE JFC. Why are you arguing?
November 4th, 2014 at 7:31 PM ^
Whoever hired them didn't have the benefit of hindsight either, but they had vision.
You're acting like it's impossible for Arkansas to hire a great coach. It's not. Oregon and Miami started with FAR less 30 years ago than what Arkansas has now. There are fliers and there are smart hires.
Of course Freeze and Mullen weren't slam dunks. The point is there is no such thing as a "slam dunk". Les Miles and Bert Bielema are not slam dunks. The point is you can make a good hire without going for a BIG NAME PROVEN COMMODITY. Those guys fail all the time. You're acting like there are sure things, but there aren't. Bielema is far from it.
BTW- I think there's a very good chance Mullen is back at MSU next year.
November 4th, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^
you know a lot of people feel this way about Jim Harbaugh, right?
November 4th, 2014 at 5:10 PM ^
November 4th, 2014 at 3:13 PM ^
But the reasons are vastly different. Harbaugh is known as being a dick, but he doesn't have the major "bad person" character issues that Burt does. Not even close.
November 4th, 2014 at 2:00 PM ^
November 4th, 2014 at 2:09 PM ^
The way he left wasn't part of his resume. Presumably they were in favor of his leaving early so he could get started recruiting.
November 4th, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^
A big part of the AD job is to find a coach who will be successful. Finding a coach with a track record of success is only half of the job. The other half is to make sure that coach doesn't have any character flaws that will result in an embarrassment to the school and that the coach's track record of success is based on his own merits and not that of his predecessor.
The bottom line is that Petrino had a character flaw that got him fired and Bielema hasn't proven that his track record didn't consist of anything more than being a "caretaker" for the work of Barry Alvarez. Also, while rumors of Bielema's character flaws aren't verified, there are too many of them from too many different sources for them to not have at least some validity.
Jeff Long does everything right except hiring football coaches. I am not sure he is what the program needs right now.
November 4th, 2014 at 1:02 PM ^
I think that's a bit harsh. His track record is not one that shows three hires that all were terrible head football coaches.
1. Petrino - off field issues are what did him in. He was doing pretty excellent as a football coach.
2. John L. - was never a long term hire. It was pretty apparent this was simply so they could do more research on a potential long term guy.
3. Bielma - he's completely overhauling the system down there so the jury is still out. He was a proven winner in Wisconsin, and they need to let him adjust down their, have his team adapt his system, and give him some time (we all know this way too well).
I'm not saying that I would ever want Petrino or Bielma as our coach (see my post below) as they seem like not so great guys, but to say that his track record is terrible, in my opinion, is not the case.
November 4th, 2014 at 1:02 PM ^
November 4th, 2014 at 1:44 PM ^
I would not say he is competitve yet. He still has yet to win a conference game
November 4th, 2014 at 1:02 PM ^
November 4th, 2014 at 1:17 PM ^
Petrino was known to have character issues well before taking the Arkansas job. Bielema has Arkansas competitive, but certainly has not proven to be a good hire. John L. Smith I'll excuse as a desperation hire I suppose. I just don't see how that hiring resume is impressive. Bielema was an uninspired hire and Petrino was a hire we all would have freaked out about had it happened here. Long is WAY overrated because somehow he got credit for firing Petrino after his motorcycle debacle, even though every AD in the country would have done the same thing.
EDIT: Anderson was a good hire as the basketball coach, although with his 17 year track record as an Arkansas assistant under Nolan Richardson, the argument that he pulled off some great hire by pulling him from Missouri is a bit disingenuous.
November 4th, 2014 at 1:21 PM ^
Petrino never had any NCAA violations and had two one loss seasons at Louisville. It was a good hire and Log fired him when the motorcycle incident occured. Bielema never committed NCAA violations and went to three Rose Bowls prior to coaching there. Maybe they're unlikable but they win. Right now we have a likable football coach who doesn't win.
November 4th, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^
I did not accuse either Petrino or Bielema of commiting NCAA violations, nor is their lack of NCAA violations a criteria for hiring them. NCAA violations would simply be a reason NOT to hire a coach.
November 4th, 2014 at 1:31 PM ^
Then why not hire them if they do nothing wrong but are unlikable. Jim Harbaugh's unlikable.
November 4th, 2014 at 1:43 PM ^
The information in the links I posted below are reason enough not to have hired Petrino. Bielema is a bad hire so far because of what he has done there, which is not win a conference game in a season and a half. I understand Bielema had success at Wisconsin, but I lived in Wisconsin for most of Bielema's tenure there and he was hated/disliked by a majority of Wisconsin fans. He was seen as underachieving, unlikable, a bad recruiter, and simply a steward of what Barry Alvarez had built. The popular sentiment was that his records were the low end of what the teams should have been achieving if they had a better coach.
November 4th, 2014 at 1:49 PM ^
That's ridiculous. Wisconsin fans had about as good of a situation as they were going to get and were unhappy with it compared to Alvaraz. They haven't exactly been lighting the world on fire since Beilema left, nor have they been recruiting any better.
My point is just that Wisconsin fans didn't like him, doesn't make him a bad hire for a program like Arkansas.
November 4th, 2014 at 2:32 PM ^
Wisconsin fans complaining about Bielema reminds of when Minnesota fans ran Glenn Mason out of town.
November 4th, 2014 at 2:44 PM ^
Except for that part where he was just an absolute dick and people just couldn't stand the guy.
You seen his new trophy wife? Met her in Vegas. He's SEC all the way.
November 4th, 2014 at 1:34 PM ^
A few links to backup my assertion that Petrino should be proof that Long made a bad hire by bringing him in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/sports/ncaafootball/bobby-petrino-sca…;
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1174873.html
November 4th, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^
The same Sennaca HS coach, Dover, that told this horrible story about practice and funerals also said that if Petrino came knocking on his door he'd open it and encourage his boys to talk to him.
Seriously, at that time Petrino was an easy target and everybody with a pen was piling on.
November 4th, 2014 at 1:22 PM ^
Lots of coaches have "character" issues. Jim Harbaugh being one of them. No one predicted that Petrino would be that stupid. It's revisionist to say that was a bad hire.