What do you think of the new trend of HCiW?

[hifigator]

The so-called "head coach in waiting?"

What was once totally unheard of now seems to be en vogue so to speak. Jimbo Fisher is FSU's HCiW. There are two more that I hadn't heard about, one at Purdue and one at Kentucky. Then just yesterday, Texas made the annoncement of Will Muschamp being their HCiW. I can see the benefit to the institution for sure. There is presumed stability when recruiting comes around. In the case of a fosil like Bowden, there is something to be said for having confidence in who the coach will be should Bobby retire or die. But in the case of Coach Mack at Texas, there isn't any indication that he will be stepping down in the near future. Barring illness or other family emergency, he will likely be their coach for another decade. I think he just turned 58. I just don't know what to think in a case like that. I know that Texas is trying to make some sort of commitment to Muschamp that will keep him around and dissuade any decision to leave for another program. But are you really doing anything by designating someone as your HCiW? If things turn unexpectedly sour and the Head coach gets run out of town, I wonder how much confidence the administration would then have in one of his assistants. I just think it's kind of a smoke and mirror approach in most cases. Thoughts?

[jgalt]

I think that it is going to produce some pretty awkward situations where a few years down the line that coach you promised is not the one you want. but i think it is going to get more popular as it helps to retain good coaches and gives the fans something to be excited about.

[hifigator]

Buff, I pretty much agree with you across the board. I just think people are delusional if they think that rewording the job description is accomplishing much of anything as far as the coaches are concerned. I do see the benefit that could come in recruiting, and I guess that is probably the real motivation. If the goal was simply to retain your coaching staff because you really liked them and didn't want them to move on to somewhere else, then simply give them more money and more perks. But this whole "head coach in waiting" thing seems a bit silly to me, with the possible exception of a Bowden/Paterno situation, simply because of their age. That is still somewhat tenuous, but at least in that situation, I can see a bit of the logic. Aside from that though ...


As Buff said, how in the hell are we supposed to know that in 5, 10 or 15 years, when Mack Brown steps down/is fired, that Will Muschamp will be "our choice" for the job? The obvious inconsistencies abound ...

[HeartAttackHoya]

I personally love it, specially with the situation in Austin. Boom!

as for the awkwardness, we'll have to ask Dan Snyder and Greg Williams

[hifigator]

Nov 20, 2008 12:57:44 GMT -5 HeartAttackHoya said:

I personally love it, specially with the situation in Austin. Boom!

as for the awkwardness, we'll have to ask Dan Snyder and Greg Williams

Don't get me wrong. I don't blame Texas a bit for wanting to keep Muschamp in good spirits. I think he is one of the future stars in the coaching industry. I just don't see any real significance in his being the official unofficial next head coach at some unknown and inspecific point in the future.

I understand that behind closed doors, many assistant coaches have been told that they are next after the current coach leaves, for whatever reason. But I just don't see what this public disclosure accomplishes, aside from the potential benefit in recruiting. I would think that from the coaches' standpoint, a nice raise, additional company car and maybe an extra 2 week complimentary vacation for the family would accomplish just as much.

I wonder if they really think that such a public announcement will actually dissuade other institutions from coming after their coaches? I guess that's possible.

[AustinHoya03]

Nov 20, 2008 9:16:40 GMT -5 buffalohoya said:

Ridiculously dumb. I wouldn't mind if it were similar to the situation in Seattle where they say "after the year, Coach A is stepping down and Coach B is taking over," even though I think that's a bit stupid, too. But the indefiniteness of this practice baffles me.

To use the example of one of the two or three college programs I follow closely, there is no way in hell anyone can tell me or any fan of Texas football that THEY KNOW FOR SURE when Brown steps down in X years that Muschamp will be the best candidate for the job. He MAY be, but there's no way you can guarantee me he WILL be.

Not that it is likely to ever happen, but what if Bill Cowher gets sick of the studio in X years and wants to be the next Texas coach? Or [insert name of "hot" coordinator here] wants to coach the 'horns? Or Mike Leach? Or Bill Belicheck? Or the next Greg Schiano or Urban Meyer? You get the point.

Point being, there's far too much time between now and then. Anything can happen, circumstances can drastically change, Texas could go X years playing terrible defense. Why make a decision now when you don't have to?

Tangential question - does the NCAA have their own version of the Rooney Rule?

Buff, I'd agree with you completely if I thought this was DeLoss Dodds' actual goal, or that Muschamp will actually be the next head coach at Texas. Muschamp got a pay raise to $900,00 with his new title. That's close to what Gene Chizik (Texas' last D-Coordinator) makes as the HFC at Iowa State. The pay raise/promotion probably wouldn't prevent Muschamp from leaving to accept the HFC position at, say, Georgia, where his salary would double and he'd be coaching a good football program with a great tradition. It probably will prevent him from leaving to coach a school like Iowa State or Syracuse. IMO, Texas thinks Muschamp is going to be a great head coach at a major program someday. That major program may be Texas (unlikely), or it may be another school. What the pay raise/promotion does is ensure that Muschamp will jump to a major HFC position from his D-Coordinator position at Texas, and not from Washington State.

[hifigator]

Excellent point Austin, but that is essentially what I was saying. It's really the money and not the "title" that gets the job done.