Good hire - Bad hire - Wait & See

[bobbyake]

I stand by my original opinion in this thread that the Ianello hire was a smart gamble for UA. Doesn't mean he will work out in the long run. He obviously has not worked out in the short run in terms of team record. But any coach UA would have hired would have been a gamble. There are no sure things given UA's position near the bottom of the college football universe and the inability to offer the big bucks that would attract a sure winner head coach.

Of course there are no sure things, but the main dividing point at the time of the hire was whether you were in the "FBS assistant camp" or the "FCS/D2 head coach camp". I still think hiring an FCS/D2 head coach would have been less of a risk.

at least hire an assistant from a winning FBS school. I'd take Boise State's special teams coach before Ianello. We needed someone with winning philosophies to help us learn the way. Instead we're stuck with someone from a losing program that is spreading his losing philosophies on us.

A coach from a winning program would have been a lot less riskier. If you want someone because they can recruit, you don't hire someone that's good at recruiting at a top level program, you take someone that's good at recruiting at the non-bcs level.

[cornbread]

my original opinion in this thread that the Ianello hire was a smart gamble for UA. Doesn't mean he will work out in the long run

I agree. Smart gambles are the best kind. Example: capitalism, stocks, flush draws on the flop, etc. Give him some time

[g-mann17]

I stand by my original opinion in this thread that the Ianello hire was a smart gamble for UA. Doesn't mean he will work out in the long run. He obviously has not worked out in the short run in terms of team record. But any coach UA would have hired would have been a gamble. There are no sure things given UA's position near the bottom of the college football universe and the inability to offer the big bucks that would attract a sure winner head coach.

Of course there are no sure things, but the main dividing point at the time of the hire was whether you were in the "FBS assistant camp" or the "FCS/D2 head coach camp". I still think hiring an FCS/D2 head coach would have been less of a risk.

at least hire an assistant from a winning FBS school. I'd take Boise State's special teams coach before Ianello. We needed someone with winning philosophies to help us learn the way. Instead we're stuck with someone from a losing program that is spreading his losing philosophies on us.

A coach from a winning program would have been a lot less riskier. If you want someone because they can recruit, you don't hire someone that's good at recruiting at a top level program, you take someone that's good at recruiting at the non-bcs level.

That shows your ignorance. Ianello has been associated with nothing but winning programs. In fact that is why Weiss hired him at Notre Dame. Was Notre Dame a failure? From a Notre Dame perspective yes. Would we have wanted seasons like what Notre Dame had while Ianello was involved? Yes.

Weiss was 35-27 his seasons went like this 9-3, 10-2, 3-9, 6-6, 6-6. Notre Dame expects its programs to compete for BCS bowls and National Championships. If we had 5 seasons in a row like that we would be happy.

What happened with Notre Dame is that they couldn't recruit offensive and defensive line players. And before you do the "Ianello was their recruiter". He was in charge of recruiting, he did the coordinating of all the coaches. His specific recruiting positions were the skill positions, and Notre Dame has not lacked skill players.

Was I happy with the hire? No, I sat in Wistrcill's office talking about the need to go after a coach like Charlie Strong, Mike London, or speaking with AD's from ECU and Boise State about their hiring philophies.

The truth is, it didn't matter who we were going to bring in we were going to struggle. Look at how we competed with what we had under Brookhart. He won two seasons in a row with Owens players, then relied too heavily on special case athletes (Harvey etc.) Also the handling of the Getsy replacement was awful, he expected to leave after a third successful season and when the team crapped out on him after the NC State game he was stuck here for the next three seasons with no talent.

Wistrcill's intentions on the hire was to build a solid foundation like what Soccer has or what Dambrot has done with basketball (or what K.E.N.T. has done with their BB program). The goal was the rip everything away and rebuild into a program where it didn't matter who coached it, or what players came and went, it would be consistantly competitive. Why? Because its what the fans want and it is what is best for the program. Will Ianello get us there? I don't know, but his general philosphy is the same that Golden used at Temple.

[Dave in Green]

Of course there are no sure things, but the main dividing point at the time of the hire was whether you were in the "FBS assistant camp" or the "FCS/D2 head coach camp". I still think hiring an FCS/D2 head coach would have been less of a risk.

I'm not in either camp because I haven't seen a good, thorough analysis of which strategy has the best success rate. If there was solid data supporting the fact that the success rate of lower level college head coaches moving to a higher level was much higher than higher level assistants moving to head coaching positions, I'd be more inclined to lean that way.

Obviously there are successful and unsuccessful examples of each. Ultimately you have to thoroughly analyze the individual candidates and weigh that along with the factor of which camp tends to have the higher percentage of success.

[MaxZIP]

I stand by my original opinion in this thread that the Ianello hire was a smart gamble for UA. Doesn't mean he will work out in the long run. He obviously has not worked out in the short run in terms of team record. But any coach UA would have hired would have been a gamble. There are no sure things given UA's position near the bottom of the college football universe and the inability to offer the big bucks that would attract a sure winner head coach.

Of course there are no sure things, but the main dividing point at the time of the hire was whether you were in the "FBS assistant camp" or the "FCS/D2 head coach camp". I still think hiring an FCS/D2 head coach would have been less of a risk.

at least hire an assistant from a winning FBS school. I'd take Boise State's special teams coach before Ianello. We needed someone with winning philosophies to help us learn the way. Instead we're stuck with someone from a losing program that is spreading his losing philosophies on us.

A coach from a winning program would have been a lot less riskier. If you want someone because they can recruit, you don't hire someone that's good at recruiting at a top level program, you take someone that's good at recruiting at the non-bcs level.

That shows your ignorance. Ianello has been associated with nothing but winning programs. In fact that is why Weiss hired him at Notre Dame. Was Notre Dame a failure? From a Notre Dame perspective yes. Would we have wanted seasons like what Notre Dame had while Ianello was involved? Yes.

Weiss was 35-27 his seasons went like this 9-3, 10-2, 3-9, 6-6, 6-6. Notre Dame expects its programs to compete for BCS bowls and National Championships. If we had 5 seasons in a row like that we would be happy.

What happened with Notre Dame is that they couldn't recruit offensive and defensive line players. And before you do the "Ianello was their recruiter". He was in charge of recruiting, he did the coordinating of all the coaches. His specific recruiting positions were the skill positions, and Notre Dame has not lacked skill players.

Was I happy with the hire? No, I sat in Wistrcill's office talking about the need to go after a coach like Charlie Strong, Mike London, or speaking with AD's from ECU and Boise State about their hiring philophies.

The truth is, it didn't matter who we were going to bring in we were going to struggle. Look at how we competed with what we had under Brookhart. He won two seasons in a row with Owens players, then relied too heavily on special case athletes (Harvey etc.) Also the handling of the Getsy replacement was awful, he expected to leave after a third successful season and when the team crapped out on him after the NC State game he was stuck here for the next three seasons with no talent.

Wistrcill's intentions on the hire was to build a solid foundation like what Soccer has or what Dambrot has done with basketball (or what K.E.N.T. has done with their BB program). The goal was the rip everything away and rebuild into a program where it didn't matter who coached it, or what players came and went, it would be consistantly competitive. Why? Because its what the fans want and it is what is best for the program. Will Ianello get us there? I don't know, but his general philosphy is the same that Golden used at Temple.

And he brought the "pro-style" despite the fact that Akron had o-line issues and poor skill position players (undersized to boot). So we are doomed to fail until the program becomes better so we can get higher quality recruits....doesn't make any sense. You come in and blow up a team for nothing. We get the same recruits now as before. They are undersized and incapable of running the style of offense Ianello runs. Add in his struggles with the basics of game day coaching and you have a recipe for continued disaster. Personal attacks aside he is not a good coach at this point. He lacks the basic skills to be a DIV-1A coach. Doesn't make him a bad person but how many of us would get years to prove ourselves at work? As a manager you play with the hand you are dealt in the short term and build your team over time. Why did we not find a coach with the ability to get the most from any player with the vision to shape long-term improvement?

[Lee Adams]

I stand by my original opinion in this thread that the Ianello hire was a smart gamble for UA. Doesn't mean he will work out in the long run. He obviously has not worked out in the short run in terms of team record. But any coach UA would have hired would have been a gamble. There are no sure things given UA's position near the bottom of the college football universe and the inability to offer the big bucks that would attract a sure winner head coach.

Of course there are no sure things, but the main dividing point at the time of the hire was whether you were in the "FBS assistant camp" or the "FCS/D2 head coach camp". I still think hiring an FCS/D2 head coach would have been less of a risk.

at least hire an assistant from a winning FBS school. I'd take Boise State's special teams coach before Ianello. We needed someone with winning philosophies to help us learn the way. Instead we're stuck with someone from a losing program that is spreading his losing philosophies on us.

A coach from a winning program would have been a lot less riskier. If you want someone because they can recruit, you don't hire someone that's good at recruiting at a top level program, you take someone that's good at recruiting at the non-bcs level.

That shows your ignorance. Ianello has been associated with nothing but winning programs. In fact that is why Weiss hired him at Notre Dame. Was Notre Dame a failure? From a Notre Dame perspective yes. Would we have wanted seasons like what Notre Dame had while Ianello was involved? Yes.

Weiss was 35-27 his seasons went like this 9-3, 10-2, 3-9, 6-6, 6-6. Notre Dame expects its programs to compete for BCS bowls and National Championships. If we had 5 seasons in a row like that we would be happy.

What happened with Notre Dame is that they couldn't recruit offensive and defensive line players. And before you do the "Ianello was their recruiter". He was in charge of recruiting, he did the coordinating of all the coaches. His specific recruiting positions were the skill positions, and Notre Dame has not lacked skill players.

Was I happy with the hire? No, I sat in Wistrcill's office talking about the need to go after a coach like Charlie Strong, Mike London, or speaking with AD's from ECU and Boise State about their hiring philophies.

The truth is, it didn't matter who we were going to bring in we were going to struggle. Look at how we competed with what we had under Brookhart. He won two seasons in a row with Owens players, then relied too heavily on special case athletes (Harvey etc.) Also the handling of the Getsy replacement was awful, he expected to leave after a third successful season and when the team crapped out on him after the NC State game he was stuck here for the next three seasons with no talent.

Wistrcill's intentions on the hire was to build a solid foundation like what Soccer has or what Dambrot has done with basketball (or what K.E.N.T. has done with their BB program). The goal was the rip everything away and rebuild into a program where it didn't matter who coached it, or what players came and went, it would be consistantly competitive. Why? Because its what the fans want and it is what is best for the program. Will Ianello get us there? I don't know, but his general philosphy is the same that Golden used at Temple.

And he brought the "pro-style" despite the fact that Akron had o-line issues and poor skill position players (undersized to boot). So we are doomed to fail until the program becomes better so we can get higher quality recruits....doesn't make any sense. You come in and blow up a team for nothing. We get the same recruits now as before. They are undersized and incapable of running the style of offense Ianello runs. Add in his struggles with the basics of game day coaching and you have a recipe for continued disaster. Personal attacks aside he is not a good coach at this point. He lacks the basic skills to be a DIV-1A coach. Doesn't make him a bad person but how many of us would get years to prove ourselves at work? As a manager you play with the hand you are dealt in the short term and build your team over time. Why did we not find a coach with the ability to get the most from any player with the vision to shape long-term improvement?

Made the comment elsewhere that you may not be able to consistently get enough of the type of recruits to run this type of offense. It asumes a QB suited to that and an O-line that has to be on par or better physically than the opponents. OSU and the big boys can get enough of those kind to be able to slug it out with each other. But even many of the highly regarde teams are using more of the 'spread' these days.

[Blue & Gold]

The idea that haunts/scares me is that when TW hired RI, both said that this was not a rebuilding job; that the cupboard was not bare.

[g-mann17]

And he brought the "pro-style" despite the fact that Akron had o-line issues and poor skill position players (undersized to boot). So we are doomed to fail until the program becomes better so we can get higher quality recruits....doesn't make any sense. You come in and blow up a team for nothing. We get the same recruits now as before. They are undersized and incapable of running the style of offense Ianello runs. Add in his struggles with the basics of game day coaching and you have a recipe for continued disaster. Personal attacks aside he is not a good coach at this point. He lacks the basic skills to be a DIV-1A coach. Doesn't make him a bad person but how many of us would get years to prove ourselves at work? As a manager you play with the hand you are dealt in the short term and build your team over time. Why did we not find a coach with the ability to get the most from any player with the vision to shape long-term improvement?

Get over the "style of offense" for a moment. My point was the players Brookhart recruited were not very athletic. In fact other than Wagner name one Brookhart recruit that you are ven excited about right now?

Pro style isn't about size, and if you people would read up on the "style" of offense you will see that we run a multiple pro style. What that means is that the team learns 5-6 key formations for the various situation they face. So yes we can run I, but we can also run, Pro, Shotgun, Spread, One Back, and pretty much anything else.

My point was it doesn't matter what coach came in, or what style of offense we ran, we were going to have to blow this thing up. Our APR sucks, our talent was not up to par with the rest of the MAC. Change hurts, but no matter who we hired the change had to occur. Its very similar to Temple. And for the record it took 4 seasons for Golden to see results

1-11, 4-8, 5-7, 9-4 (9-3 regular season), 8-4. You guys are giving up before we even know what this staff is capable of accomplishing. Maybe Ianello wasn't right, but the staff he brought in has a lot of knowledge and coached up a lot of great players. To me, that shows he isn't "conceded" as a lot of people say. It shows great humility to find people you feel are far better than you and learn from them.

And there is no "style" that works by the way. Alabama pro, Oregon spread, OSU multiple (like us), LSU multiple, Texas Tech spread, Texas multiple (spread). The idea of our offense is you recruit the best talent and mold the plays to the talent. And what did you expect from a team that is mostly freshmen and sophomores. What I expect is wins starting in Week 4.

[MaxZIP]

And he brought the "pro-style" despite the fact that Akron had o-line issues and poor skill position players (undersized to boot). So we are doomed to fail until the program becomes better so we can get higher quality recruits....doesn't make any sense. You come in and blow up a team for nothing. We get the same recruits now as before. They are undersized and incapable of running the style of offense Ianello runs. Add in his struggles with the basics of game day coaching and you have a recipe for continued disaster. Personal attacks aside he is not a good coach at this point. He lacks the basic skills to be a DIV-1A coach. Doesn't make him a bad person but how many of us would get years to prove ourselves at work? As a manager you play with the hand you are dealt in the short term and build your team over time. Why did we not find a coach with the ability to get the most from any player with the vision to shape long-term improvement?

Get over the "style of offense" for a moment. My point was the players Brookhart recruited were not very athletic. In fact other than Wagner name one Brookhart recruit that you are ven excited about right now?

Pro style isn't about size, and if you people would read up on the "style" of offense you will see that we run a multiple pro style. What that means is that the team learns 5-6 key formations for the various situation they face. So yes we can run I, but we can also run, Pro, Shotgun, Spread, One Back, and pretty much anything else.

My point was it doesn't matter what coach came in, or what style of offense we ran, we were going to have to blow this thing up. Our APR sucks, our talent was not up to par with the rest of the MAC. Change hurts, but no matter who we hired the change had to occur. Its very similar to Temple. And for the record it took 4 seasons for Golden to see results

1-11, 4-8, 5-7, 9-4 (9-3 regular season), 8-4. You guys are giving up before we even know what this staff is capable of accomplishing. Maybe Ianello wasn't right, but the staff he brought in has a lot of knowledge and coached up a lot of great players. To me, that shows he isn't "conceded" as a lot of people say. It shows great humility to find people you feel are far better than you and learn from them.

And there is no "style" that works by the way. Alabama pro, Oregon spread, OSU multiple (like us), LSU multiple, Texas Tech spread, Texas multiple (spread). The idea of our offense is you recruit the best talent and mold the plays to the talent. And what did you expect from a team that is mostly freshmen and sophomores. What I expect is wins starting in Week 4.

I think style matters. Akron currently sends 1-3 pass routes and the receivers are not able to get open due to matching up with the other teams #1-3 DB's. Our line is overwhelmed/overpowered and the running game is stifled by lack of balance. Basically no mismatches are created. A "spread" offense would help to create favorable matchups. Am I way off base?

[Dr Z]

I think style matters. Akron currently sends 1-3 pass routes and the receivers are not able to get open due to matching up with the other teams #1-3 DB's. Our line is overwhelmed/overpowered and the running game is stifled by lack of balance. Basically no mismatches are created. A "spread" offense would help to create favorable matchups. Am I way off base?

If OSU runs the same offense as us (according to an above post), can we run the underneath crossing pass routes that they run? They were very successful underneath. I don't remember us running any of that. Maybe the QB never took that option. I actually think our secondary looked good at times on the down field coverage stuff.

[g-mann17]

I think style matters. Akron currently sends 1-3 pass routes and the receivers are not able to get open due to matching up with the other teams #1-3 DB's. Our line is overwhelmed/overpowered and the running game is stifled by lack of balance. Basically no mismatches are created. A "spread" offense would help to create favorable matchups. Am I way off base?

The last time we played OSU, with a Spread, we also were shut out on offense. Should have been plenty of mismatches right?

Also there are never less than 3 receivers running a route on a pass play. You would have to watch game film to see that, but I guarantee you no school has a 1 receiver play that isn't a trick play.

You create mismatches when a player on your team is faster or stronger than the player on the opposing team. OSU's linebackers are fast enough to cover every receiver we have. Their DB's are stronger or as strong as any of our TE's. So you see the problem. Style doesn't change that. Spreading out OSU when you aren't faster than them, makes it even more difficult to block a D-Line that is likely more athletic than your O-Line.

I'm not opposed to the spread, it has its merits, but it is a not a cure all, and there are as many losing teams using it as winning teams.

As to Dr. Z yes, they could run crossing routes, and at times they did, but if you are getting pushed out of the pocket your read moves to the sideline receiver and the outlet receiver. A crossing route takes more time to get into open space unless the safeties are in a cover two or the Mike LB is blitzing.

[MaxZIP]

I think style matters. Akron currently sends 1-3 pass routes and the receivers are not able to get open due to matching up with the other teams #1-3 DB's. Our line is overwhelmed/overpowered and the running game is stifled by lack of balance. Basically no mismatches are created. A "spread" offense would help to create favorable matchups. Am I way off base?

The last time we played OSU, with a Spread, we also were shut out on offense. Should have been plenty of mismatches right?

Also there are never less than 3 receivers running a route on a pass play. You would have to watch game film to see that, but I guarantee you no school has a 1 receiver play that isn't a trick play.

You create mismatches when a player on your team is faster or stronger than the player on the opposing team. OSU's linebackers are fast enough to cover every receiver we have. Their DB's are stronger or as strong as any of our TE's. So you see the problem. Style doesn't change that. Spreading out OSU when you aren't faster than them, makes it even more difficult to block a D-Line that is likely more athletic than your O-Line.

I'm not opposed to the spread, it has its merits, but it is a not a cure all, and there are as many losing teams using it as winning teams.

As to Dr. Z yes, they could run crossing routes, and at times they did, but if you are getting pushed out of the pocket your read moves to the sideline receiver and the outlet receiver. A crossing route takes more time to get into open space unless the safeties are in a cover two or the Mike LB is blitzing.

Mismatches are there to be had in MAC games. We lose to osu 999 out of 1000 times. Forget about OSU.

[K92]

I think that perhaps too much is being made out of the style of offense. To me, it is much more important to have a coaching staff that TOTALLY understands the theory and intricacies of the system and then can IMPLEMENT the system, tailoring it to the roster to maximize the efficiency. I don't think there is anything wrong with the "Charlie Weis" offense. We just don't have anyone who understands it like Charlie running it. We only have the playbook and I think it's a partial playbook.

[g-mann17]

I think style matters. Akron currently sends 1-3 pass routes and the receivers are not able to get open due to matching up with the other teams #1-3 DB's. Our line is overwhelmed/overpowered and the running game is stifled by lack of balance. Basically no mismatches are created. A "spread" offense would help to create favorable matchups. Am I way off base?

The last time we played OSU, with a Spread, we also were shut out on offense. Should have been plenty of mismatches right?

Also there are never less than 3 receivers running a route on a pass play. You would have to watch game film to see that, but I guarantee you no school has a 1 receiver play that isn't a trick play.

You create mismatches when a player on your team is faster or stronger than the player on the opposing team. OSU's linebackers are fast enough to cover every receiver we have. Their DB's are stronger or as strong as any of our TE's. So you see the problem. Style doesn't change that. Spreading out OSU when you aren't faster than them, makes it even more difficult to block a D-Line that is likely more athletic than your O-Line.

I'm not opposed to the spread, it has its merits, but it is a not a cure all, and there are as many losing teams using it as winning teams.

As to Dr. Z yes, they could run crossing routes, and at times they did, but if you are getting pushed out of the pocket your read moves to the sideline receiver and the outlet receiver. A crossing route takes more time to get into open space unless the safeties are in a cover two or the Mike LB is blitzing.

Mismatches are there to be had in MAC games. We lose to osu 999 out of 1000 times. Forget about OSU.

Yes they are there to be had. I fully believe we will compete in the MAC just fine. That includes the Temple game. If we have 3 or more losses to MAC schools that are as big as the loss to OSU (point spread). Then we have a serious problem.

[Blue & Gold]

...I actually think our secondary looked good at times on the down field coverage stuff.

+1

L.T. Smith was absolutely ALL OVER the Columbus WR Devin Smith when he caught his TD from Braxton Miller. I watched the replay of that reception about 5 times and can't believe it squeeked past L.T.

Also, Columbus' longest passing play of the day wasn't due to poor man-coverage abilities or a breakdown in coverage scheme, but was simply due to that absoutely amazing one-handed catch by the Columbus WR. Nothing you can do about that, other than say, "Wow, good for you."

Stoneburner was the Zips killer last week. We had no answer for him. On two of this three TD catches, our defenders were in the correct position. But on the first (IIRC) Stoneburner shoved Emmanuel Lartey out of the way like a rag doll and on the third (IIRC) Stoneburner out-athleted our SAM LB Troy Gilmer. Again, what are you gonna do? Too big for our DB's & too athletic for our LB's. He's got to be one of the best TE's in the nation this season.

[Doug Snyder]

I think style matters. Akron currently sends 1-3 pass routes and the receivers are not able to get open due to matching up with the other teams #1-3 DB's. Our line is overwhelmed/overpowered and the running game is stifled by lack of balance. Basically no mismatches are created. A "spread" offense would help to create favorable matchups. Am I way off base?

The last time we played OSU, with a Spread, we also were shut out on offense. Should have been plenty of mismatches right?

Also there are never less than 3 receivers running a route on a pass play. You would have to watch game film to see that, but I guarantee you no school has a 1 receiver play that isn't a trick play.

You create mismatches when a player on your team is faster or stronger than the player on the opposing team. OSU's linebackers are fast enough to cover every receiver we have. Their DB's are stronger or as strong as any of our TE's. So you see the problem. Style doesn't change that. Spreading out OSU when you aren't faster than them, makes it even more difficult to block a D-Line that is likely more athletic than your O-Line.

I'm not opposed to the spread, it has its merits, but it is a not a cure all, and there are as many losing teams using it as winning teams.

As to Dr. Z yes, they could run crossing routes, and at times they did, but if you are getting pushed out of the pocket your read moves to the sideline receiver and the outlet receiver. A crossing route takes more time to get into open space unless the safeties are in a cover two or the Mike LB is blitzing.

Mismatches are there to be had in MAC games. We lose to osu 999 out of 1000 times. Forget about OSU.

I wish we could

[Dr Z]

Most enjoyable page I have read about the game yet.

[johnnyzip84]

Of course there are no sure things, but the main dividing point at the time of the hire was whether you were in the "FBS assistant camp" or the "FCS/D2 head coach camp". I still think hiring an FCS/D2 head coach would have been less of a risk.

I'm not in either camp because I haven't seen a good, thorough analysis of which strategy has the best success rate. If there was solid data supporting the fact that the success rate of lower level college head coaches moving to a higher level was much higher than higher level assistants moving to head coaching positions, I'd be more inclined to lean that way.Obviously there are successful and unsuccessful examples of each. Ultimately you have to thoroughly analyze the individual candidates and weigh that along with the factor of which camp tends to have the higher percentage of success.

That would be an enormous undertaking to say the least. If you're volunteering, here's a data point to follow Of course either approach is a crap shoot. I like the idea that a head coach in a lower division at least was forced at one time to make all of the key decisions for a (presumably) successful program. I'm also more prone to consider the guy who doesn't merely take the reigns for a team that has already established a consistent level of success. The coach who takes nothing (or very little) and makes something out of it (Leavitt, Golden, Winters, Cristobal, Edsell, etc.) are the ones who impress me the most. But it's only my opinion. I wish there was a study out there on this subject. With all of the money riding on these hires, you sure think there would be.

[Doug Snyder]

Of course there are no sure things, but the main dividing point at the time of the hire was whether you were in the "FBS assistant camp" or the "FCS/D2 head coach camp". I still think hiring an FCS/D2 head coach would have been less of a risk.

I'm not in either camp because I haven't seen a good, thorough analysis of which strategy has the best success rate. If there was solid data supporting the fact that the success rate of lower level college head coaches moving to a higher level was much higher than higher level assistants moving to head coaching positions, I'd be more inclined to lean that way.Obviously there are successful and unsuccessful examples of each. Ultimately you have to thoroughly analyze the individual candidates and weigh that along with the factor of which camp tends to have the higher percentage of success.

That would be an enormous undertaking to say the least. If you're volunteering, here's a data point to follow Of course either approach is a crap shoot. I like the idea that a head coach in a lower division at least was forced at one time to make all of the key decisions for a (presumably) successful program. I'm also more prone to consider the guy who doesn't merely take the reigns for a team that has already established a consistent level of success. The coach who takes nothing (or very little) and makes something out of it (Leavitt, Golden, Winters, Cristobal, Edsell, etc.) are the ones who impress me the most. But it's only my opinion. I wish there was a study out there on this subject. With all of the money riding on these hires, you sure think there would be.

I think we are following the Golden "play book" to success.

[Big Zip]

Goldens resume was far and away more impressive...Ianello is nothing close to Golden. Look at his record as a Def Coord at Virginia then look at Ianellos job history.