...to do their due diligence in assessing the candidates and don't hire Mario or Dud. In doing their due diligence, look behind the win-loss record into things like who the coaches beat, and how they beat them, and what kind of schemes they run.
Actually, that is the last thing to do when evaluating coaches.
A lot of people on here are concern with records but Win/loss record should be the last thing you look at. Larry Coker had a good record yet we all know different.
There are a dozen more important things to running a program. No one should not be worried about whether Herman or Fuente wins their next game. A good coach is a good coach and records could reflect a lot that do not actually represent the talent of the coach. Do we want a guy with an undefeated record but played all cream puffs or do we want a guy with a decent record but played a ton of top teams. Would Herman be less of a coach if his current team lost the next three games to Bama, OSU and Baylor?
What did a coach do with the program? How did he manage the staff? What policies and procedures did he implement that helped make it a winning and/or stable program? And on and on.
Yeah, I know boring stuff for fans but as an AD or President these are the types of stuff you look at. Of course you want a coach that you think can win games but his record is not the end all to be all. This is especially important if you are reviewing a coordinator or NFL guys.
I know it is difficult for some fans to see beyond the record but it is not the true measure of a coach. Golden appeared to look good on paper but if we all looked deeper like a few warned when he was hired we would have seen the apparent improvement at Temple was a mirage.
Just be careful going after the guy you think has the best record.
