Ethnicsands
All-American
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 22,722
There are two often cited theories about what a UM coach should be, both of which have been proven failures.
First is the candidate with a UM connection. This is premised on there being something magical (special) about UM that must be ‘tapped into.’ In the absence of a great coach, this clearly isn’t accurate. Shannon was that theory. Richt was partly that theory. Manny seems to be that theory.
Second is the ‘ceo’ there. This is premised on Miami’s natural conditions being such that a decent manager will ride the tide upwards here. This too is a ‘magical’ theory because it supposes that our natural destiny is success and it will become manifest as long as no one interferes. Golden was a ‘ceo’ theory guy. Some saw Richt as that also. The reality is that the local talent theory has been misunderstood and overplayed for ages around here. We’re coming up on 30 years since the bermuda triangle. One title in the meantime, and it took 19 first round picks to make it happen.
One additional note: being a good coordinator does not mean you will be a good head coach. That should be obvious. They are very different skill sets. We have seen great head coaches who weren't great coordinators and great coordinators who didn’t make great head coaches. The coordinator hire is an excuse to project onto someone. It’s probably less risky in the NFL, where the team has a President, GM, player personnel director etc. And maybe big time state programs that have more support. At a place like UM without the structure and infrastructure, it’s a crap shoot. Shannon, Diaz.
If you have a good coach, the program building is incremental. People too often look at examples of where it happened fast, but ignore the probabilities. Good coaches keep it going in the right direction, sell, upgrade, refine, innovate, etc. Eventually, with time, effort and perhaps good fortune, they get it to a top level.
So what makes for a good coach? Someone who can get a team to mesh, buy in, play together. Someone who can pick a philosophy, form a staff to implement it, and lead the staff. Someone who knows where to intervene and where not to. Someone who can evaluate kids, and sell them on the program. Schematic genius isn’t required. Coordinators don’t have to be good at these things, and we often don’t have a way to know if they are. It may be impossible to know who will be good at this, so many, probably most coaches start out someone out of the way and build their careers towards big time programs.
If this is right, Manny was a risky hire, and hired for the wrong reasons. Let’s hope he beats the odds.
First is the candidate with a UM connection. This is premised on there being something magical (special) about UM that must be ‘tapped into.’ In the absence of a great coach, this clearly isn’t accurate. Shannon was that theory. Richt was partly that theory. Manny seems to be that theory.
Second is the ‘ceo’ there. This is premised on Miami’s natural conditions being such that a decent manager will ride the tide upwards here. This too is a ‘magical’ theory because it supposes that our natural destiny is success and it will become manifest as long as no one interferes. Golden was a ‘ceo’ theory guy. Some saw Richt as that also. The reality is that the local talent theory has been misunderstood and overplayed for ages around here. We’re coming up on 30 years since the bermuda triangle. One title in the meantime, and it took 19 first round picks to make it happen.
One additional note: being a good coordinator does not mean you will be a good head coach. That should be obvious. They are very different skill sets. We have seen great head coaches who weren't great coordinators and great coordinators who didn’t make great head coaches. The coordinator hire is an excuse to project onto someone. It’s probably less risky in the NFL, where the team has a President, GM, player personnel director etc. And maybe big time state programs that have more support. At a place like UM without the structure and infrastructure, it’s a crap shoot. Shannon, Diaz.
If you have a good coach, the program building is incremental. People too often look at examples of where it happened fast, but ignore the probabilities. Good coaches keep it going in the right direction, sell, upgrade, refine, innovate, etc. Eventually, with time, effort and perhaps good fortune, they get it to a top level.
So what makes for a good coach? Someone who can get a team to mesh, buy in, play together. Someone who can pick a philosophy, form a staff to implement it, and lead the staff. Someone who knows where to intervene and where not to. Someone who can evaluate kids, and sell them on the program. Schematic genius isn’t required. Coordinators don’t have to be good at these things, and we often don’t have a way to know if they are. It may be impossible to know who will be good at this, so many, probably most coaches start out someone out of the way and build their careers towards big time programs.
If this is right, Manny was a risky hire, and hired for the wrong reasons. Let’s hope he beats the odds.
