Blue Noise

December 17th, 2014 at 10:56 PM ^

Gotta love how NFL partisans constantly talk about what a heroically impossible fucking task it is to succeed as a coach in the MEN EFF EL and then go on to list a bunch of reasons why coaching in college is really hard and annoying and it's way more convenient to coach in the pros.

SysMark

December 17th, 2014 at 11:08 PM ^

That's a really lame, superficial, poorly thought out and poorly written "article".  Pretty much a waste of space and whatever he was paid to write it.

AMazinBlue

December 17th, 2014 at 11:10 PM ^

they don't really "recruit" in college.  It's an opinion piece and that's fine, it leans toward the NFL and that's fine as well. 

What is leaves out is validity related to a coach that may enjoy the challenge of rebuilding his alma mater and a roster that turns over 15-20% every year and prima donna millionaires are not there to tune out your message as coach.

Simply myopic

 

SFBlue

December 18th, 2014 at 1:16 AM ^

Surely, even an economics professor at Webster University should know that you do not factor in variables such as JH's brother winning the Super Bowl into an economic analysis. Plus, JH would have staff to help him with recruiting and compliance; the costs case is overblown. The primary tasks he ascribes to NFL head coaches (reviewing tape) are actually done by assistants.

Any true economic analysis would have to consider that NFL coaches have a longer season. Essentially, you work more.

Its me Dave

December 18th, 2014 at 8:14 AM ^

Looks like I could write for Forbes:

$8M is a lot of money. College football coaches must recruit players while NFL coaches have GM's to manage the very simple salary cap issues.  In conclusion, football is a land of contrasts.

JohnCorbin

December 18th, 2014 at 9:40 AM ^

I think he's all about the page clicks.  He wrote an article why Adrian Peterson's switch incident was worse for the NFL's image than Ray Rice's fist.

I don't know if I can take anything he says seriously after that.

Eric Heath

December 18th, 2014 at 10:08 AM ^

Okay, let's say they're right and the NFL is "easier". We're looking for a competitor, right? A person who'll take a great challenge head-on and throw it out of the ring. If this is someones reasoning that Harbaugh wont come, it tells you what they really think of him. Doesn't it?

bronxblue

December 18th, 2014 at 10:15 AM ^

I used to work for an advertising company that had a CMO with a connection with Forbes.  They will literally post anything you give them if it can be stretched out to 500+ words and get them links.  I'm sure there are good reporters working there, but I'm not surprised stuff likes this gets published online.

name redacted

December 18th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^

Similar story line here, have been on both sides of it. Worked in an industry that had a few industry specific magazines and if you bought advertising packages from them you could get just about anything you want to put in their magazine... editorials, product reviews, stories, other content. Fast forward a decade... worked within a division of a publishing group (not publisher of Forbes, but one the bigger publishers) but same story the major advertisers were also a major source of content outside of advertising.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

laus102

December 18th, 2014 at 11:22 AM ^

If an Economics professor at the University of Michigan posted some nonsensical gibberish like this online, I doubt he'd be on staff for very long afterwards.   

I've taken but very basic Economic classes (read: intro) and I could have written a better article than this thrown-together shamble of highly opinionated non sequiturs.  Embarassing to the Economic community, really.  

bjk

December 18th, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^

According to reports Wednesday from the NFL Network and Yahoo Sports, the University of Michigan are offering Jim Harbaugh . . .
NFL Network -- is that the first he heard about this? Ignorant slut. "University of Michigan are" -- is he a Brit? I could see reading this subject/verb formation in the Telegraph, but Forbes? 'Murica.