How long should a coach have to build a program before getting Weised?
Oregon State's HC Mike Riley was on Colin Cowturd's show today and made the case that a college coach should have at least 5 years to mold a program. A coach needs to have at least his first recruiting class to graduate before assessing the program. Weis fit the bill perfectly. 5 season and he wasn't able to get it done. Hopefully RichRod will have all the pieces in place by year 4.
Go Blue.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:26 PM ^
Well some people here seem to think 2yrs is reasonable.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:29 PM ^
They will claim it's not about wins. Saying instead that it's about family values and practice time.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 AM ^
I wouldn't say two years is reasonable, but for a GOOD coach it is sufficient time to turn a program around or take it from decent to great.
Spurrier at Duke and Florida, Caroll at USC, Saban at LSU and Bama, Mack Brown at UNC and Texas, Bob Stoops at Oklahoma, Urban Meyer at Utah and Florida and Tress at OSU . All these coaches took over programs that had fallen from their usual lofty heights (or took unknown schools) and got them back to national prominence in 2 years.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:08 PM ^
How many of those were massive program overhauls with no 5th year seniors on defense? None?
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:10 PM ^
These were programs coming off a decade of mediocrity. They weren't exactly stacked. And that's not counting the never-were's he named like NC and Utah. We at least had momentum and recent success. (And we had a veteran defense when we went 3-9, so it's not all age).
December 1st, 2009 at 11:29 PM ^
I agree with 4-5 years as long as the team is making noticeable strides along the way.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:30 PM ^
5 years minimum. First 3 years are the transition period and aren't heavily evaluated (whether they're good or bad). True evaluation starts after year 3. This allows the coach to get his recruits into the program and establish himself as the head coach. This may seem like too long for some coaches, but I think that the AD should be confident enough in his choice to keep the coach for 5 years.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:31 PM ^
Too long for coaches or fans?
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 AM ^
So long as there is no off the field stuff, I think any coach should have three years minimum. Three years is long enough for a coach to get kids he recruited to a level at which the team should be able to meet a program's minimum rebuilding expectations. Year 4 should be another evaluation year in which the new coach's recruits will definitely see a large majority of the playing time while having the necessary experience, meaning that the team should meet expectations in an average year. Year 5 is warranted if the coach has met expectations. However, it should be another evaluation year if the coach has barely done so and big things should be expected.
Thus far, Rodriguez has met the minimum standard that we set for him. He should make a bowl game next year or he will be in serious jeopardy of losing his job. Year 4 will be very important, with a junior Tate Forcier, an experienced receiving corp, a Rodriguez recruited line, Rodriguez recruited running backs, and a Rodriguez recruited defense (which currently looks disturbing, but there's a long way to go). Rodriguez should, by year 4, be making a January bowl game (i.e. Top 4-5 Big Ten and among the conference elite). Should we suck in year 4, he should be fired. If we're below average (i.e. 7-5) in year 4, he gets one more year. Otherwise, he's here for the long haul.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:54 AM ^
I enclose *should* in asterisks because IMO for the first time there are some records that could get RR fired in 2010 (e.g., Do you keep RR if he goes 3-9 next yr?)
But looking at the personnel it looks as if RR's pieces should be in place 2011 so in the absence of a disaster 2010 we should give ourselves a chance to witness a mature RR Michigan team.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:47 AM ^
so if God forbids.. you get two crappy coaches in a row.. it'll take 13+ years to get back into the spotlight? (the 5 years you gave to each coach+ the 3 years it'll take the good coach to bring the program up..)
December 1st, 2009 at 11:33 PM ^
You make it sound like ND sets the standards in college football by referring to it as "Weised", I didn't know you respected ND that much.
If the coach is not addressing the team's obvious shortcomings by year 3 through recruiting, then the AD has every right to Willinghamify him.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:39 PM ^
This is why we're all pleased to have a Irish native on the board. "Willinghamify", who would have thought?
December 1st, 2009 at 11:45 PM ^
just trying to stay on topic lol
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:36 AM ^
I think we should shorten that to "willhammy". sounds better.
"how's your job going?" "I got Willhammied." "oh, that sucks dude."
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:45 AM ^
Willhammy is an aboverage term, +1
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:30 AM ^
ROFL... That might be the funniest thing I've read all day. It's nice to have a knowledgeable Irish fan with a good sense of humor as a contributor to this blog. Definitely +1.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:23 AM ^
for racism. Funny how their ONLY BLACK COACH IN ANY SPORT EVER (who they hired because they wanted to distract people from O'leary's fictional resume) wasn't given 5 years when weis was with a similar and ultimately worse record.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:50 AM ^
old and overused stereotype man..
accusing a whole athletic department of racism makes you look like a douche
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:27 AM ^
I tend to think having an entire athletic department not having a black head coach for over 100 years in ANY SPORT EVER makes THEM douches. And then not giving the one guy they try out equal treatment makes them even bigger douches.
A stereotype is a preconceived bias that is applied without warrant in an unrelated case. The facts of ND's racism completely warrant the charges. Something being old does not make it untrue.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:26 PM ^
C'mon Man! We all know that Jesus was a blond haired, blue eyed Caucasian.
Resized: 
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:14 PM ^
Uh, who recruited the players that Weis won with the first two years he was at nd?
Oh, yeah!
So, Willinghamify must mean to recruit excellent players but get fired before you have a chance for them to actually mature and play.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:32 PM ^
Especially with the circumstances that RR came into here. 5 is a good # If you can't prove yourself with your players and your system in 5 years then it is time to move on. I for one actually thought that this would be a much better season for Weis and the Irish I just assumed the talent he actually brought in would perform. How wrong I was... He proved he couldn't get it done with his people and if RR proves he can't get it done with his people in 4-5 years then it'll be time for a change...
December 1st, 2009 at 11:33 PM ^
bc it depends on where the program was before the coach took it over. at a program like michigan or nd you better have things damn near running at full speed by year four. however, in general, i do agree that a fifth year is necessary to truly judge whether or not a coach can get it done.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:37 PM ^
I think that it really depends on the program. A small program can afford 4-5 years (or more) because, let's face it....nobody really cares.
Larger, high profile programs need to have noticeable improvement (and sustained results) in 2-3 years. You can't make $2.5MM per year and maintain a losing record. The business world just doesn't work that way.
If football is a "nice to have" program, you have more time. If football underwrites your entire athletic program, you need to win much sooner. It's just reality.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:37 PM ^
I agree, 5 years should be the standard barring an absolute disaster (1-2 wins every year or getting progressively worse, ala decreasing amount of wins every year). Allows a coach to get his first class through 4 years of development and allows time to make transition on offense and defensive side of the ball. But most Michigan fans think that this standard doesn't apply to this program and are ready to get rid of Rod this year or next year.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:41 PM ^
In the past decade, only three Big Ten coaches have strung together three losing seasons (overall) in a row: Ron Turner at Illinois, Gerry DiNardo at Indiana, and John L. Smith at Our Lady Little Sister. All three were fired after the fatal third consecutive losing season. God bless the Wolverines, but if Purdue, Northwestern, and Minnesota--never mind Iowa, Wisconsin, OSU and Penn State--can avoid this failure with their perennial lack of talent and resources for football compared to U-M, our program has no excuse. Three losing seasons in a row at U-M is absurd, and, yes, unacceptable. If RR doesn't get to at least six wins next year, he won't get a fourth year.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:03 AM ^
Next year is put up or shut up time or as Misopogen put it "where the rubber meets the road".
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:10 AM ^
5 year blank check? No way. Do you have to have 4 losing seasons and still grant a 5th? How far does one want their program to fall? And then what is satisfactory at the 5 year mark? Because if a coach loses for 4 years, but goes 7-5 or 8-4 year 5, do you retain him? Shouldn't you expect the program be running to that program's level of excellence at that point?
You need to see progress along the way. If a team wins 9 games, then 5, then 3, do you keep that guy 2 more years?
It's good to be fair, but I think there are less than 5 year turnarounds, and that's a long time to let your program wallow. There's no recruit alive who remembers Notre Dame being really good.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:27 AM ^
I think just about every coach should get five years, barring some obvious disaster that is clearly the fault of the new guy.
That being said, I was just blown away by your last line. I'm always amazed it has been that long since Notre Dame has been relevant on the national scene. Current recruits were two years old the last time ND won a bowl game played in the continental United States (though I always thought that '93 team got jobbed out of the national title). Based on the vocal turnout at the bar I usually watch UM games at, their brand name is still going strong, but it will be interesting to see who they hire, how well he does, and how long the Irish brand can continue to thrive if they don't experience some real success in the near future.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 AM ^
I agree, because as I said, it's been shown that good programs can turnaround pretty fast. But I don't think most teenagers care how many old guys remember great old Irish teams or how much opposing fans still hate them because they used to be good. They want to win now.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:53 AM ^
has a few very recent recruiting classes that would disagree with you.....just sayin', it seems some top notch kids still love ND for whatever reason.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:01 PM ^
And there's a lot of on field records that would disagree with the recruiting rankings...just sayin'
More seriously, ND's recruiting has ALWAYS been overrated. And you could argue they're facing the same defensive concerns we are.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^
Both teams' defense sucked but its not for the same reasons, ND didn't start a walkon in the secondary
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:23 PM ^
Well, I meant the suckatude. Yeah, the reasons for it are different.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:58 AM ^
There are a lot of variables in this. In Michigans case, we went from a pro style offense to a spread. A lot of the good talent left (manningham, henne, hart, long, arrington, et al). And I don't care what anyone says the cupboard was bare. There were a few studs, but a few studs isn't going to make up for everyone.
RR needs time to get the ball rolling guys. It doesn't matter if RR makes a bowl next year or not, he needs at least 4 years, maybe even the fifth. If he's fired next year we'll have a bunch of spread players and whos to say we'll get another spread coach. It'll be transition all over again. Yea its probably easier going from spread to pro style, but its not guaranteed that these spread players will stay.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:49 AM ^
Just coaches in general. But if we're bowl-less 3 years in a row, we are no longer on our way to irrelevance, but we are irrelevant. And that's just talking MAKING A BOWL! It's not that hard. We did it for over 30 years. And the Big Ten blows. Can't go 3 years with no progress.
And I think all this rebuilding time we'd be facing is no worse than continual descention, and letting the program continue to flounder. If...we...make...no...progress.
Now I don't know that we're on the path to greatness, but I find it hard to believe that someone who has shown such success before can't get to that mediocre level in 3 years, so I don't expect it. But if we can't get even there, something is seriously wrong.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:58 AM ^
I think a coach should get 5 years contingent on the fact that each years show steady (not great, but steady) progress. If by year three no progress is evident, than I think the axe should fall.
Thus far he has shown steady (not great, but steady) progress. He went from 3-9 to 5-7. If next year he goes 7-5 and we get a bowl game, I say he sticks around. If he doesn't perhaps it is time to cut bait.
If he gets to a bowl in year 3 and regresses year four, I say again, the axe should fall. He needs to be steadily improving every year to the point where UM is back in the national picture again.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:01 PM ^
Probably stated it better than I did.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:42 AM ^
4 to 5 years should be the standard. There are variables, and in RR case the cupboard was definitely bare, and 2 to 3 studs cannot make up for the lack of experience or talent at key positions.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:23 AM ^
5 years.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 AM ^
I would say at least 4 years, and if there is still well below average performance, then done. If year four is 7-5 or better, and the team looks competitive(at an elite program) then at least 5. At 6-6 I would say that it would be up to the AD, and whether he thinks that the coach has recruited good talent, and that success is just around the corner. However, without any improvement over the first 3 years, with high levels of questionable recruits or poor character judgement(i.e. Winston) or serious violations then I think the coach should be done at that point.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:57 AM ^
I can't believe that there are multiple posters who think 7-5 in year FOUR would be cause for there to be a year 5. That'd be a one game a year improvement. Which is great if in year 10 you're winning the National Title, but not so hot waiting 8 years for a B10 Championship. The Year of Infinite Pain with his Seniors and Juniors.
I'm just at a loss for words how fast our standards have fallen.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:55 AM ^
3 years minimum. Louisville or ND (with Willingham) are perfect examples of how it's fair to fire a coach after three years; if your team drops off a cliff from a successful season with the same starters, or if your recruiting dies, you need to kick the coach to the curb. (Incidentally, I think Kragthorpe ought to do fine in one of the weaker mid-majors, but he was terrible for Louisville).
4th year is for some sign of improvement or being not too far below the standards of the program (i.e. make a damn bowl game in year 3 or earlier). You might toss a barely acceptable coach if a really good option appears to be up for hire, but that shouldn't be the norm.
5th year is for coaches that don't look like they'll be a major disappointment; a minor disappointment is acceptable at this point. After year five, you consider the coach's body of work with emphasis on the later seasons, compare them to realistic candidates out there, and make your decision.
Obvious exceptions are for crimes or major NCAA violations; then the coach goes away quickly.
Edit: Oops, I forgot to include my "older but not any Weiser" pun. Ah well.
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:44 AM ^
With all of his idiot comments, and not killing the clock, &c., Weis Weised himself. Whether or not he got Willinghamified, I don't know.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:03 AM ^
at the facts. Bo inherited 16 All-Americans from the previous coach. Mo inherited 13 All-Americans from Bo. Lloyd inherited 11 All-Americans from Mo. How many All-Americnas did RR inherit from Lloyd, that's correct, zero, unless Mesko or Graham somehow make it. With that being said, this is still Michigan where losing is unacceptable. I firmly believe that if we don't see major improvements in year 3, especially with a new AD coming in, RR will be replaced.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:04 AM ^
I'm with the above posters, a coach needs at least 4-5 years before they should be fired. An entire recruiting cycle needs to have passed, because as we've seen with Michigan, there isn't always a whole ton of depth or skill to work with.
If a coach is still not producing after getting an entire class of his players through, then he should probably be let go.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:06 AM ^
What's the criteria for having the program "built"? A National Championship? Making it to the BCS title game? A Big 10 Conference title? 10 win season?
I'm prepared to stand by Coach Rodriguez for at least 4 seasons and right now I'm more disappointed than concerned with how things have gone so far. But if we finish in the bottom half of the conference again next season and miss a bowl game aren't we all going to become concerned?