Someone sell me on Strong

[Pancho Negro]

No disrespect or anything, but I don't see where you're coming from. Just as in any other job, a University wants to hire someone with a successful track record. That's just the nature of the beast. Why would I hire an Accountant who has failed numerous audits at her previous employer just because they might do well in my company when I can hire an applicant with already excellent credentials.
Personally, I like Strong. I don't think his track record is up there yet with others, but he won't be too far off in the near future. I would not be terribly upset with his hiring. Again I apologize, maybe I misinterpreted your statements. If I did please feel free to correct me.

That's not what I'm saying. Moreover, you're equating Strong to the accountant who has failed multiple times. Of course you wouldn't hire that accountant. But in football terms, that would be like UT hiring the HC at Texas Southern or California. Of course you wouldn't do that.

But even you as a hiring manager have heard of situations in which you hire someone that isn't your 1st choice, but they end up exceeding expectations. That's what I'm saying about Strong. Just because of his results at Louisville (which his results are pretty stellar if you look at it with logic and not emotion) doesn't mean he will "suck" here at UT. Going back to your accountant analogy--has Strong really "failed" at Louisville? If not, then why are you equating him to the failure accountant then?

My overall point is this--no one on this message board can't predict the future. Not one person can look at a situation and say Coach X will automatically succeed here and Coach Y will definitely fail. The point is that none of us know exactly what will happen. We can make an inference. But in the end, we don't know. My point was what happens if we hire Strong and he wins right away. How will all of those posters who stated he will automatically fail feel?

 

[Dos Horns]

I have hired people of all races on every continent during my mediocre professional career. Depending on where one is operating or the composition of the applicable team, I've made conscious decisions to utilize ethnicity and background when I believed it provided an advantage under specific circumstances, at least in terms of accomplishing an objective. This is merely taking advantage of situations or environments in which we operate. So I guess my statement above is misleading to some extent. What I should have said is that to me, personally, all things being equal, race or ethnicity is just not a consideration.

My objection to Strong is based upon my preference, under the present circumstances, that our football program be led through this transition by someone that has proven successful in more than one head coaching stint at the D1 or professional level. In other words, the least risky and biggest name out there. We need immediate results and IMO now is not the time to take a chance.

 

[txscallywag]

That's not what I'm saying. Moreover, you're equating Strong to the accountant who has failed multiple times. Of course you wouldn't hire that accountant. But in football terms, that would be like UT hiring the HC at Texas Southern or California. Of course you wouldn't do that.
But even you as a hiring manager have heard of situations in which you hire someone that isn't your 1st choice, but they end up exceeding expectations. That's what I'm saying about Strong. Just because of his results at Louisville (which his results are pretty stellar if you look at it with logic and not emotion) doesn't mean he will "suck" here at UT. Going back to your accountant analogy--has Strong really "failed" at Louisville? If not, then why are you equating him to the failure accountant then?

My overall point is this--no one on this message board can't predict the future. Not one person can look at a situation and say Coach X will automatically succeed here and Coach Y will definitely fail. The point is that none of us know exactly what will happen. We can make an inference. But in the end, we don't know. My point was what happens if we hire Strong and he wins right away. How will all of those posters who stated he will automatically fail feel?

Your are absolutely correct, I should never have put the two in the same category. I do apologize. However, my point is ultimately still the same.

If my first choice is there, and they want the job, than they're going to get the job. That's just how it typically works. Yes I have hired those with good but not great resumes, and I am thankful I did. That's just sort of the luck of the draw though.

Of course we don't know whats going to happen. One person could completely fail, while the other exceeds everyone's expectations. Again though, the fact of the matter is that with any job, no matter what we don't know is going to happen, the more qualified applicant is always looked at first. At the end of the day we can only hope for the best no matter who is hired.

If by chance Strong were to be hired, and does a standup job, than I would hope those posters would stand up and admit they were wrong. At the end of the day we all want the same thing and the only thing that matters is getting a new HC and succeeding.

 

[Pancho Negro]

I have hired people of all races on every continent during my mediocre professional career. Depending on where one is operating or the composition of the applicable team, I've made conscious decisions to utilize ethnicity and background when I believed it provided an advantage under specific circumstances, at least in terms of accomplishing an objective. This is merely taking advantage of situations or environments in which we operate. So I guess my statement above is misleading to some extent. What I should have said is that to me, personally, all things being equal, race or ethnicity is just not a consideration.
My objection to Strong is based upon my preference, under the present circumstances, that our football program be led through this transition by someone that has proven successful in more than one head coaching stint at the D1 or professional level. In other words, the least risky and biggest name out there. We need immediate results and IMO now is not the time to take a chance.

Your are absolutely correct, I should never have put the two in the same category. I do apologize. However, my point is ultimately still the same.
If my first choice is there, and they want the job, than they're going to get the job. That's just how it typically works. Yes I have hired those with good but not great resumes, and I am thankful I did. That's just sort of the luck of the draw though.

Of course we don't know whats going to happen. One person could completely fail, while the other exceeds everyone's expectations. Again though, the fact of the matter is that with any job, no matter what we don't know is going to happen, the more qualified applicant is always looked at first. At the end of the day we can only hope for the best no matter who is hired.

If by chance Strong were to be hired, and does a standup job, than I would hope those posters would stand up and admit they were wrong. At the end of the day we all want the same thing and the only thing that matters is getting a new HC and succeeding.

Great replies. I think we are all just ready to know who the damn hire is. We are all strung out thanks to nerves and impatience!

 

[CanadianHorn]

Obviously if you get a guy who has a little more track record as a HC like Saban, Fisher or Briles you can, but if we miss on all three (still a possibility) than Strong would be potentially a great conselation prize.

1. He's a great recruiter, see his time as DC at Florida and all the NFL guys they put in the league. He would actually give us a chance to land some kids from the best recruiting state in the country in Florida.

2. His time at Louisville has shown he can idenitfy talent and still get results with 3* kids instead of 4 and 5* star recruits. He's black which right or wrong also helps.

3. He's a great defensive coach, his improvements to Louisville and his production at Florida clearly show this.

4. His evaluation of QB's is not as extensive as Fisher or Briles but Teddy Bridgewater is a heck of a start. Give him a chance to recruit the best state for QB's in the country in Texas and he could continue his success.

5. He would give this program a much needed culture change. You want tough, physical football? Charlie Strong will give it to you.

 

[zzzizzzy]

The college game is too fast for Strong. If you doubt it, then re-watch some of this season's games. Watch for critical junctures when game decisions must be made. He is slow and sometimes even looks lost. There likely are fifteen other coaches who would be better head coaches at UT.

There is the other issue of the circus side-show left in the football program by Mack Brown. Charlie Strong is known for being a disorganized procrastinator. He could not be trusted with UT if things were pristine, much less the current quagmire.

Finally, the UT HC is a multi-faceted position. A guy who can't keep-up with the college game who is known for disorganization is the antithesis of the candidate we need.

Patterson knows this. Agents know this. Strong will not be coaching at UT next year or ever.

 

[echeese]

The college game is too fast for Strong. If you doubt it, then re-watch some of this season's games. Watch for critical junctures when game decisions must be made. He is slow and sometimes even looks lost. There likely are fifteen other coaches who would be better head coaches at UT.
There is the other issue of the circus side-show left in the football program by Mack Brown. Charlie Strong is known for being a disorganized procrastinator. He could not be trusted with UT if things were pristine, much less the current quagmire.

Finally, the UT HC is a multi-faceted position. A guy who can't keep-up with the college game who is known for disorganization is the antithesis of the candidate we need.

Patterson knows this. Agents know this. Strong will not be coaching at UT next year or ever.

1st I've heard of disorganization . .. if true. . .a concern. . .perhaps his name is being floated as a smoke screen. .

But for his on field work. ..performance speaks for itself. . .he has dramatically improved UL from what he inherited. . he has recruited well . .and more importantly. . .developed those recruits . ..

I'm surprised but only mildly he doesn't get more play for the TEXAS job. . .

 

[RoyalCrowns]

Dos Horns wrote: Ok, so you think race should be a consideration. I don't care what color a coach is, nor do I give preference to color when I have equally qualified job candidates. Race is just not an important factor or consideration in my decision-making process.

My response below:

Quite the contrary, I simply posted this as an effort to stimulate the conversation on how race and the diversity police pressure hiring practices. I'll go on record right now and say if David Shaw was interested, the Longhorns should make him a primary target. That being said, I think Charlie Strong would be a total disaster of a selection. It's been 16 long years since Texas entered this arena to select a head football coach. In that time, the Black Coaches Association has grown in strength and numbers. They've also got the bully pulpit to shine the light on programs when a minority isn't hired to an open position. If a said school, or any business doesn't follow the socially correct guidelines in its hiring practices, there's a good chance of condemnation from various precincts. It was bound to happen eventually that Texas would find itself under the spotlight to fill a prime position. It'll happen again when Barnes leaves his post and the basketball job opens up. I think Texas should go for the very best of the best. Doesn't really matter if they are white, black, green or purple. I just think sometimes the political pressures can force a school into making the "right" hire, even if it's not the correct hire. I can't see Strong as a top 5 candidate for the job - just can't see it. All I'm saying is the diversity police and political correctness could apply pressure to the next hire. A&M has done well with Kevin Sumlin, not so well when they hired Melvin Watkins as the basketball coach a few years back. Texas simply needs to step up and hire the best person for the job and not feel unnecessary pressure from any outside group or groups with hidden agendas. FWIW

 

[Baron Von Tejas]

OK people I don't think Strong is anybody's first choice, but in-spite of all UT's money we cannot get just anyone to come (a home run hire);-0 I have faith we will get the best possible coach who will accept the position.

IF the Harbaughs, Saban, Briles, Fisher, Mora Jr., all say no. Who are the next group of candidates?

How many coaches have only 3 losses in the last 2 years, it's a short list, and are available. His results and track record are solid.

I guess we should discount Saban for losing to UA, Briles for getting clocked by OSU, etc. The only coach we should hire is Fisher, until he (if) loses the MNC game!

I guess Stoops is a crappy coach too because I've seen him with the deer in the head lights look, did you notice Saban when the kick was getting run back on his team this year?

 

[Topstarr]

Whoever Steve wants is who I wants.