ADVERTISEMENT

CBS: ranking coaching hires

Just goes to show how silly conventional wisdom is. Terry Bowden is considered a better hire just b/c he's done it before, even though he was absolutely awful in his most recent stint at Akron.

Shane pulls up the rear for the lone reason that he doesn't have coordinator experience.
 
Just goes to show how silly conventional wisdom is. Terry Bowden is considered a better hire just b/c he's done it before, even though he was absolutely awful in his most recent stint at Akron.

Shane pulls up the rear for the lone reason that he doesn't have coordinator experience.
I don't know how many times I've read about or even said myself that someone was a good hire at a school, only for them to bomb out. It seems it's more likely than not. While a significant amount of success has to do with virtues like work ethic, we all know random things like timing play a big part too. It's similar to recruits. There are a select few recruits that you knew without a doubt they would be successful. The rest (including 5*) are often a mixed bag.
 
I don't know how many times I've read about or even said myself that someone was a good hire at a school, only for them to bomb out. It seems it's more likely than not. While a significant amount of success has to do with virtues like work ethic, we all know random things like timing play a big part too. It's similar to recruits. There are a select few recruits that you knew without a doubt they would be successful. The rest (including 5*) are often a mixed bag.

Right. You can basically sum up their analysis by saying: "We don't know if Shane is going to be a good head coach, so this is a terrible hire."
 
I don't know how many times I've read about or even said myself that someone was a good hire at a school, only for them to bomb out. It seems it's more likely than not. While a significant amount of success has to do with virtues like work ethic, we all know random things like timing play a big part too. It's similar to recruits. There are a select few recruits that you knew without a doubt they would be successful. The rest (including 5*) are often a mixed bag.
Same here ... Glad I'm not an AD
 
"Beamer can't afford any more slippage."
A new coach taking over a 2-8 team? Not much thought went into that comment.
giphy.gif
 
Just goes to show how silly conventional wisdom is. Terry Bowden is considered a better hire just b/c he's done it before, even though he was absolutely awful in his most recent stint at Akron.

Shane pulls up the rear for the lone reason that he doesn't have coordinator experience.
What other criteria would you have him judged by at this point? What great accomplishments would you list that would make this a can't miss hire? On the surface, would you rather have a Coordinator from Notre Dame or a TE coach from Oklahoma?
I hope that Beamer is the greatest coach ever at USC and wins us multiple SEC championships, and he very well may, but there is nothing at this point to suggest that this is the path we are on. Maybe next year this guy changes his mind if Beamer does well. We will see how this unfolds in the future, but there just isn't much to go on today.
 
What other criteria would you have him judged by at this point? What great accomplishments would you list that would make this a can't miss hire? On the surface, would you rather have a Coordinator from Notre Dame or a TE coach from Oklahoma?
I hope that Beamer is the greatest coach ever at USC and wins us multiple SEC championships, and he very well may, but there is nothing at this point to suggest that this is the path we are on. Maybe next year this guy changes his mind if Beamer does well. We will see how this unfolds in the future, but there just isn't much to go on today.
I think you missed the point of OP. The article and ranking method is lazy. When I interview someone or consider someone for hire, I take into account not only what positions they have held but: Have they stayed at a company long or just bounced around from place to place? Are they charismatic and energetic? Firm shake and look you in the eye? Dressed properly? Speak clearly? Do they know what they want to do, or more importantly, why they want the position? Do they have forward looking vision about how they want to handle the position? A lot of that can be done through a phone or video call. All it took to write that article and rank the coaches was a Wikipedia search. Lazy and dumb.
 
Last edited:
His Cs have a pretty good success record


Cincinnati: C+
Hired -- Luke Fickell | Fired -- Tommy Tuberville: The Bearcats had run out of gas under Tuberville. At age 43, Fickell comes highly recommended as an Ohio native, former Ohio State player and Ohio State coach. Fickell got a brutal introduction to head coaching as interim in 2011 in the wake of the Tatoogate scandal. Urban Meyer thought enough of Fickell to keep him on the staff. Cincinnati will play defense

Hired/Promoted -- Ed Orgeron | Fired -- Les Miles: It's not Coach O's fault that he was a third choice after LSU's flirtations with Jimbo Fisher and Herman fell through. AD Joe Alleva had no other choice than to elevate Orgeron from his interim role after failing to land his top choice for the second straight November. Orgeron can recruit and motivate, but can he run a program after going 11-4 in two separate stints as an interim? We're about to find out in the mixmaster that is the SEC West. To this point, Orgeron is 13-24 in conference play as a head coach and interim at three different stops
 
Indiana: C-
Hired/Promoted -- Tom Allen | Fired -- Kevin Wilson: Indiana's defensive coordinator seems to have made a quick impression on Hoosier administration and players. Indiana's defense rose from 121st to 40th under Allen, but he takes over a program that seemed to be close to turning the corner when scandal hit. Wilson was accused of mistreating players. There is every reason to believe Allen will be a breath of fresh air. But the loss of Wilson has the possibility of interrupting an upward trajectory of the program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jxh107
I think you missed the point of OP. The article and ranking method is lazy. When I interview someone or consider someone for hire, I take into account not only what positions they have held but: Have they stayed at a company long or just bounced around from place to place? Are they charismatic and energetic? Firm shake and look you in the eye? Dressed properly? Speak clearly? Do they know what they want to do, or more importantly, why they want the position? Do they have forward looking vision about how they want to handle the position? A lot of that can be done through a phone or video call. All it took to write that article and rank the coaches was a Wikipedia search. Lazy and dumb.
I didn't miss the point of the OP. The OP made no point. The title of the Thread is "CBS: ranking coaching hires" He just posted an article without commenting on it. He was just providing information. He wasn't making a point one way or the other.
 
The point is these rankings are yearly really bad and have no sort of insight on the coaches actual success
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC31
The point is these rankings are yearly really bad and have no sort of insight on the coaches actual success

You do? Insight? Enlighten us as to why Beamer will have success. Can’t wait to hear the words of wisdom you will bestow upon us. How lucky are we, mere earthlings, to have you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flashman and Brace1
You do? Insight? Enlighten us as to why Beamer will have success. Can’t wait to hear the words of wisdom you will bestow upon us. How lucky are we, mere earthlings, to have you.
I just copy and pasted like 5 coaches he gave a “C” that excelled instead showing how poor he is at evaluating hires, are you okay?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WingchunCock
I have the same ranking as cbs but I will support Shane Beamer and the coaching staff 100 percent. Still doesn’t mean I’m gonna be naive and act like this was a great hire, right now we don’t know how this is gonna ‘turn out, hopefully it’s a A+ hire!
 
That was not his question. Why are you avoiding answering his simple question?
Because I never claimed I had some amazing insight? I am not the one published by a major sports publication making bad predictions?
 
The best thing you can say about Beamer is that he’s an unknown as a head coach.

The worst thing you can say about Beamer is that he’s an unknown as a head coach.
 
“Hey this guy is often wrong”

“OH YEAH WELL MAYBE YOU ARE WRONG”

Uh okay?
 
I just copy and pasted like 5 coaches he gave a “C” that excelled instead showing how poor he is at evaluating hires, are you okay?

You dodge the question. I am very curious as to why the Beamer hire does not deserve a C?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brace1
You dodge the question. I am very curious as to why the Beamer hire does not deserve a C?
Because giving a grade to a coach before he has coached has proven to be inaccurate? Grading means an evaluation and there is nothing to evaluate.

I am not sure why this is a tough concept
 
I personally think beamer will be a good coach, but let me ask this at risk of repeating someone else. Why would beamer have 20 years of coaching experience and not be considered for a coordinator position by another school? Wouldn’t one of his head coaches recognize his potential? I don’t think a coordinator position is a must by any stretch, and that’s not my point, but just curious why someone hasn’t recognized his abilities?
 
ADVERTISEMENT