Mathlete help on coaching search comment?
In the meeting yesterday, DB commented that he used data in determining the best fit and said one of the big things he found was that it helped when the person was affiliated with the area/region around the university. In other words, Hoke was a midwest guy and the TCU guy wasn't, so only Hoke was seriously considered.
Has anyone done an analysis on how familiarity with a region correlates to success coaching? I am curious if this is true and what familiar with a region means (does the person need to coach there, work there, grow up there, etc).
Any thoughts?
January 13th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^
DB has no idea what he is doing. I think the only reason he was brought in was to get rid of RR. I am so sick of him talking like he knows anything about how to run a football program, recruiting or anything related to success in this program. He has already screwed this whole thing up as bad as you possibly could and he should be fired.
I am behind Hoke 100 percent, but I will never support DB or the way that he handled the situation and treated RR. It was painful to watch him drug through the mud the way he was. I also believe this contributed to the reason nobody wanted our job. Why would they if they possibly would be treated the same way. DB has no idea what he is doing and I hate hearing him talk.
That idiot couldnt even make a pizza taste good.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
Yea, cause, I mean...no coach from the MAC and Utah burned down the SEC during his tenure. And that same conference didn't have someone with MAC, Sparty and NFL experience doing the same thing at LSU.
And yea, Carroll's roots were in SoCal, but he had barely coached west of the rockies for 26 years before USC hired him (one year at the 49's as a coordinator).
I would hate to be sitting in the position of Florida (2005-2010), LSU (2000-2004) or USC (2000-2009) right now.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^
insufferable