I was being facetious when I said 6 months. He hired the person he wanted to hire..period.
Serious question: What is the reasoning for believing in Ray Tanner as an AD?
- Thread starter Coq_de_Combat
- Start date
The baseball position was going to change regardless. He was only going to coach one more year.
Anyone who thinks Muschamp was out first choice needs their head examined.
I wondered. But I'll admit it's hard to tell when you insist that Ray wanted to hire Muschamp all along. That's just sounds like wishful thinking.
But whatever. I've said my piece on it, and we'll just agree to disagree.
Does that mean we were compelled by gratitude to make him AD for life at a high salary?
The primary problem in that analysis is that he wasn't going to continue in one of those positions.
This is the way I understand it. Ray did like like Muschamp a lot...mostly from their discussions when Ray was trying to get him here as the DC. So he was high on Tanner's list. That part I absolutely do know.
I believe it's obvious by third party reports that he was no higher than third (maybe fourth) on that list. Obviously Herman was number 1 and we waited on him....then when UT showed strong interest that was over. I also believe it is obvious that Smart was number 2 on the list, 3 at worst. Something made UGA act pretty quickly and we were the only game in town at the time. I also believe that Riley was in the mix (not sure if he would have been 2, 3, or 4) but Stoops put an end to that quickly. Muschamp was somewhere in that mix.
Tanner was looking for coaches that had SEC area contacts and those (but for Herman) were the candidates that did. The other was Fuente...but he made it well known he didn't want to have anything to do with the SEC....and VaTech scooped him up pretty quickly....don't think we would have been happy with him at all.
Thus proving my point that Ray had to hire who was left, not the guy he wanted all along.
That's assuming Muschamp was 4th on the list, which is not what I implied. The most I can rationally discern from the information is that he, along with Smart and Riley were anywhere from 2-4 on the list. Smart didn't have the HC experience Tanner wanted and Riley didn't have much of an SEC connection that Tanner wanted, nor did he have the HC experience....Muschamp had both. So, it is reasonable that Muschamp could have easily been number 2 if all factors weighed evenly in Tanner's thought process. What we do know is that Tanner liked all four candidates.
Regardless whether he was 2, 3, 4 or even 5, it's clear he was NOT number one. Which makes it clear that Tanner did not get "his" guy. And if Muschamp was number 2 on the last -- which I highly doubt -- Ray could've signed him the day after Herman re-signed with Houston.
Let's face it: Ray kept Muschamp in his back pocket for a rainy day. And it rained like hell.
Buildings do not win games! Coaches and players win games. We need an athletic director that is not a baseball coach!
I can use Google, thanks in advance for the footnotes.
Is he AD for life? I didn't know that. But gratitude isn't a bad thing. Being thankful isn't terrible. And, again, he's not doing a bad job in my estimation.
Yes, we should be grateful, but no, we should not be eternally grateful. He is being paid a LOT of money. We want and need an AD who is capable of doing, and will do a GREAT job, not someone who is "not doing a bad job".
Why would anyone think a great baseball coach would make a great AD? Totally different skill set.
