From the most recent post about CJM at Florida or CGM at Auburn or CHF at Ole Miss to the obsession with our DC CJP to the confusion as to why CKS hasn't taken a head coaching job, it is clear that the Vent believes success as a coordinator = success as a head coach.
Looking backward, it is clear that all successful head coaches must make the jump from coordinator at some point in their respective careers. However, the skill set required at the two jobs is distinctly different, and thus success at one does not beget success at the other. The head coach must concern himself with a far bigger picture than a coordinator. At some point in his schedule, he interacts with the AD, the President, the SEC commissioner, "boosters", recruits, families, alumni, other donors, media, sponsors (Nike), coordinators, referees, position coaches, academic advisers, opposing head coaches, and last but not least, each of his players...just to name a few. In meeting with each of these stakeholders, he must remain focused on both their concerns and his broader strategy for the program. A coordinator is primarily concerned with the head coach, his position coaches, recruits, families and his players - this list is significantly shorter, and thus, less complex.
We are fortunate to have one of college football's proven HC's. That doesn't meant that others aren't better (specifically CUM and CNS are more successful), but the thought that any great X's and O's coach can replicate what CMR has done is a gross oversimplification of the job description.
As an example, look at CGM at Auburn. I have been infatuated with CGM's offense since he was a high school coach at Springdale (I was living in Little Rock). I believe that he is the best at building an offense around his weapons, whether though the air or on the ground. However, after his first season at Auburn, I was not ready to annoint him a successful HC. He was able to turn around a team that already had talent and he had not yet faced 90% of the challenges of being a HC. I still believe he will be successful, but the point is made this season that he has not yet proven the ability to manage all stakeholders in a successful program.
Call me a Disney, call me stubborn, call me 100 things worse than that, and I will not change my view that we are lucky to have someone that makes us relevant (whether preseason, mid-season, or post-season) at some point every year. As Ross Perot famously said after making a bad investment that cost Perot Systems $100 million, "Well, it's nice to have $100 million to lose."
GO DAWGS!
Looking backward, it is clear that all successful head coaches must make the jump from coordinator at some point in their respective careers. However, the skill set required at the two jobs is distinctly different, and thus success at one does not beget success at the other. The head coach must concern himself with a far bigger picture than a coordinator. At some point in his schedule, he interacts with the AD, the President, the SEC commissioner, "boosters", recruits, families, alumni, other donors, media, sponsors (Nike), coordinators, referees, position coaches, academic advisers, opposing head coaches, and last but not least, each of his players...just to name a few. In meeting with each of these stakeholders, he must remain focused on both their concerns and his broader strategy for the program. A coordinator is primarily concerned with the head coach, his position coaches, recruits, families and his players - this list is significantly shorter, and thus, less complex.
We are fortunate to have one of college football's proven HC's. That doesn't meant that others aren't better (specifically CUM and CNS are more successful), but the thought that any great X's and O's coach can replicate what CMR has done is a gross oversimplification of the job description.
As an example, look at CGM at Auburn. I have been infatuated with CGM's offense since he was a high school coach at Springdale (I was living in Little Rock). I believe that he is the best at building an offense around his weapons, whether though the air or on the ground. However, after his first season at Auburn, I was not ready to annoint him a successful HC. He was able to turn around a team that already had talent and he had not yet faced 90% of the challenges of being a HC. I still believe he will be successful, but the point is made this season that he has not yet proven the ability to manage all stakeholders in a successful program.
Call me a Disney, call me stubborn, call me 100 things worse than that, and I will not change my view that we are lucky to have someone that makes us relevant (whether preseason, mid-season, or post-season) at some point every year. As Ross Perot famously said after making a bad investment that cost Perot Systems $100 million, "Well, it's nice to have $100 million to lose."
GO DAWGS!
