Consistency

[Lurker123]

Right. You're assuming he cannot be successful if he has not been after 5 years. Why?

I am generally in favor of cutting bait if the writing is on the wall, which is why I qualified my position by saying if he's winning 2 or 3 games a year, that changes things. But, short of the bottom falling out, I see little to no risk of just letting him have it for a decade. We have always been bad-to-mediocre (with anomalous excursions to pretty good). Like for 130+ years. Giving him until 2031 would be 5 years extra. What is 5 years in the big picture? If it doesn't end up working, we'll hire someone else and probably be right about where we always have been.

Because the 5 years shows you what type of coach he is.

You use terms like "bottom falling out." What does that really mean though? Does a losing season, much less consecutive losing sesons fir that description?

I said this before, people are really talking about different things, imo. 6-8 wins a year was thrown out, and I can see an argument for sticking with that. I don't agree, but I see the merits of the argument.

More than one losing season, and I have to wonder why people would argue to keep that around. Especially if the better years were at the beginning.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Because the 5 years shows you what type of coach he is.

You use terms like "bottom falling out." What does that really mean though? Does a losing season, much less consecutive losing sesons fir that description?

I said this before, people are really talking about different things, imo. 6-8 wins a year was thrown out, and I can see an argument for sticking with that. I don't agree, but I see the merits of the argument.

More than one losing season, and I have to wonder why people would argue to keep that around. Especially if the better years were at the beginning.

I guess I would just ask: has that model/approach worked for us up to this point?

 

[Lurker123]

No. Muschamp was not a Gamecock at heart, lacked energy and personality as a recruiter, never exceeded expectations and gave the impression he really did not want to be here.

This makes me cringe a little. This implies that he was a complete failure, but had he given more of a "gamecock at heart" impression, that would change things? To me, that notion is frivolous.

He was a failure. We could see that, imo. And dint need to give him more time to prove it.

 

[Lurker123]

I guess I would just ask: has that model/approach worked for us up to this point?

We haven't hired a dog to coach the team either. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't make it a good thing to try, imo.

Keeping a guy who's failing, "just to try it out" would be a terrible decision, imo.

Edit: you didn't answer though. Are you talking about keeping a coach winning 6-8 games a year, or keeping a coach with multiple losing seasons? Because that makes a big difference.

 

[Prestonyte]

This makes me cringe a little. This implies that he was a complete failure, but had he given more of a "gamecock at heart" impression, that would change things? To me, that notion is frivolous.

He was a failure. We could see that, imo. And dint need to give him more time to prove it.

You overlooked this part - ''lacked energy and personality as a recruiter, never exceeded expectations''.
His heart was no doubt at Georgia which impacted his performance..

 

[18IsTheMan]

We haven't hired a dog to coach the team either. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't make it a good thing to try, imo.

Keeping a guy who's failing, "just to try it out" would be a terrible decision, imo.

Is there an example of a dog that has successfully coached a college sport?

There are numerous examples of coaches who took longer than 5 years to find success. Success, of course, being defined subjectively based on the program at which they are coaching.

 

[Lurker123]

You overlooked this part - ''lacked energy and personality as a recruiter, never exceeded expectations''.
His heart was no doubt at Georgia which impacted his performance..

I did skip it, but because his recruiting was on par with what we've consistently gotten over decades.

I would also argue that people felt he was exceeding expectations right before things starting falling in year 3.

Basically, I think feelings about him having his heart here are not good enough reasons to keep him.

 

[Lurker123]

Is there an example of a dog that has successfully coached a college sport?

There are numerous examples of coaches who took longer than 5 years to find success. Success, of course, being defined subjectively based on the program at which they are coaching.

And how many examples of guys fired after 4 and 5 years that were truly not up to the job? I think there's a bit more than the ones who found success later.

As I've said before, guys who failed and then found success after 5 years are an outlier.

As for the dog? There is no example. It's never been done before. That was the point. Just because something hasn't been done before doesn't make it a viable option. I don't think that's a good reason to do it.

 

[18IsTheMan]

And how many examples of guys fired after 4 and 5 years that were truly not up to the job? I think there's a bit more than the ones who found success later.

As I've said before, guys who failed and then found success after 5 years are an outlier.

As for the dog? There is no example. It's never been done before. That was the point. Just because something hasn't been done before doesn't make it a viable option. I don't think that's a good reason to do it.

But what I'm suggesting actually has been done before, just not by us.

 

[Lurker123]

But what I'm suggesting actually has been done before, just not by us.

You're right, not by us. You're idea was to try something we haven't done before. I contend that's not reason enough to knowingly stick with a failing coach.

 

[Prestonyte]

You're right, not by us. You're idea was to try something we haven't done before. I contend that's not reason enough to knowingly stick with a failing coach.

What is the reason to stick with a knowingly failing 5 year coaching rotation?

 

[Lurker123]

What is the reason to stick with a knowingly failing 5 year coaching rotation?

Because the rotation gives a chance of finding a better coach. Every good coach out there had a job because teams kept going through other coaches till they got the one they wanted. (I'm sure we can find an exception or two to prove the rule)

Sticking with them gives less of a chance of them suddenly improving, imo.