It's all about the InfrastrUcture: we've got another once in a decade chance

All good points. It is a business and it needs to be built like a business. But whoever is laying out the plan for this business needs to have up to date football knwoledge or should surrounds himself/herself of advisors who know what a successful FOOTBALL operation entails. Details of what this operation entails has been talked about above and maybe more that we don't know about as fans. That's a reason why I'm intrigued by including Alonzo Highsmith in this rebuild in some role. Not because he is alum or ex-player but because he has seen up close how NFL teams operate and he deeply cares about the success of this program.

Yep, that's exactly why having some folks responsible for those individual business units makes a lot of sense. Maybe you don't need someone for baseball, let's say, but you absolutely need one for football. jmo
 
Advertisement
college football GIF by Miami Hurricanes


Marioooooooooooo!
 
Yep, that's exactly why having some folks responsible for those individual business units makes a lot of sense. Maybe you don't need someone for baseball, let's say, but you absolutely need one for football. jmo
Football is the largest and most complex collegial sport and the one that brings most of the money. Success of football will trickle down to other sports and the model of the football operation can be applied to other sports with modifications of course. All athletes will benefit regardless of what sports they play.
 
Football is the largest and most complex collegial sport and the one that brings most of the money. Success of football will trickle down to other sports and the model of the football operation can be applied to other sports with modifications of course. All athletes will benefit regardless of what sports they play.
And good football brings better academics. Alabama is proof of that. Win win for everybody.
 
Advertisement
Unfortunately it is possible, due to lack of strong and cohesive leadership.
With all the people at the table, I just hope Rudy or Echevarria identify who's providing coherent arguments for their "plan." It may be a former player. It may not be. We can really **** this up and then going to Canes games will really just be about the tailgate, the family experience, and perhaps nostalgia.
 
I think the biggest thing left out of the upcoming coaching debate is "does any candidate impact fundamental infrastructure changes."

What do I mean by infrastructure? It's almost another post altogether, but it includes all aspects of administration starting with a true leader at AD and whoever he or she hire as support. This means medical/training staff, a real system of player evaluation (I'm in talent development and can tell you this is wildly overlooked in our AD), investment in talented admin *professionals* to surround whoever is the coach. Infrastructure is a system that will support a coach and realistically outlast any specific coach.

This post is about which coach comes with these more fundamental changes, as the reality is each candidate comes with different warts. That's what happens with coaches who've gone to war already.

I 100% have concerns about Mario's history on offense, the gameday stuff, and the situation with reliance on coordinators. I 100% have concerns with Lane's ability to build a program/foundation and CEO/lead his way to a solid evaluation and selection of coordinators and player talent. I 100% have concerns about Stoops (and I like him!). I 100% have concerns about Aranda's ability to build a program down here (and I really like the dude!). I have 1000% concerns with doing any other experiment with a coordinator or someone from a program with different current and future problems.

But, our question is luckily a simpler business question: is the cost of any coach's risk less than the benefit of what comes with ________ (insert coach's name)? Who has the best cost-benefit for our current and future problems in the current competitive landscape of college football?

That's why we need someone leading these decisions right now who actually knows business and strategy. That's why Blake needed to be let go immediately, if not sooner. That's why anyone who entrusted Blake to make near-unilateral decisions or at least massively influence full-on leadership decisions needs to step aside for this one.

Personally, I despise how we almost always go back to "how things were when we won." Mainly, because the environment changes and therefore problems are not the same. If we're going to look back at any real past successes that match the current problem, then that conversation needs to have the word "Jankovich" in it and how he surrounded himself with really great Associate ADs (ask around, these were great people!) and true leaders (unafraid to hire alpha coaches).

Bottom line? If any of our specific candidates cause a monumental shift in our [entire] program's infrastructure, if that person is the catalyst for that commitment, then you have to mark extra pluses on that column. I'm not sitting in Rudy's or Joe Echevarria's office to have the details of what candidate does that more, so I can't really say much about the details of what boosters will contribute more or less to systemic changes. Maybe it's Mario because of his leverage? Maybe it's Lane or Freeze or Aranda because they have holes in their leadership resume and need this type of system of support?

I really don't know (and don't care) because I only care that we take this opportunity to build a system.

I'll repeat: what ails this program is at its root!
Please stop looking at past, external successes (or failures) for what may solve current and future problems. We have an infrastructure problem that permeates everything from how the program is run to how players are evaluated for recruitment to how coaches and players are evaluated for on-field success. Is this not obvious to everyone who's watched us crash our program into the rocks for 20 years?

For once, let's make this decision based on foundational reasons rather than the bizarre external reasons (player preference for Coker, Randy's perceived local advantage, Golden's "organizational pillars," Richt's "polished" history, Diaz's apparent proximity to the Hecht office) we've used for the last 5 hires. Someone, anyone, make a real business decision here. Please. I don't care who the **** is coach so long as our infrastructure is weak and fake.
Anyone who doesn't read this post nodding their head and saying "exactly man", and "****** a right", needs to keep reading this over and over and over and over again until it sinks into their thick neanderthal ******* skull.

I'm so ******* sick and tired of people thinking that "if only we had this coach or that coach..."

Our problem goes WAY ******* beyond coaching. We've got one shot at this, and if it's not done right, I'm not sure this program can ever truly recover. We need to clean house and bring in the best operators and visionaries at every level of the Athletic Department. We need to build a system. That's how Ohio State, and Alabama, etc work. There's a reason some programs can go from coach to coach to coach and just keep on rolling. While others do the same and suck no matter what. It's the system, the mentality, the organizational philosophy.

No cutting corners this time. Get it right.
 
Advertisement
With all the people at the table, I just hope Rudy or Echevarria identify who's providing coherent arguments for their "plan." It may be a former player. It may not be. We can really **** this up and then going to Canes games will really just be about the tailgate, the family experience, and perhaps nostalgia.

Great post Lu. Agree completely that the issues around this program are at the core. College football IS a business, and the schools that have embraced it as such and invested commensurately are the ones that are winning. We need to stop pretending this is about student athletes etc etc....that's great, but we need to go beyond that and run this like the billion dollar business it is. This is also one of the reasons I am not a huge fan of that talk of Gino, or old time canes who know what it takes to be a winner....This is a completely different game than it was 20 years ago. It's why we've been left in the dust. It's why Saban has succeeded, he was probably one of the first ones to embrace the NFL infrastructure model for a college team.
 
When the champagne hangover from firing Blake wears off, we will need to contend with the fact that they are essentially repeating the same mistakes. There is likely going to be no search for an AD or a coach. This was all orchestrated to put Gino and Highsmith in charge of the program, and to get Mario. It may ultimately work out because those guys are more competent than the combo of Manny and Blake, but it seems like they've learned nothing.
Hope you are wrong. Doubt you are.
 
So Hugh Freeze? I’m down with that. I mean look what he is doing at Liberty.
The SEC would not allow Saban/Alabama to hire Freeze due to his previous personal conduct. UM will not hire him for the same reasons, regardless of his coaching ability. Cross that name off your list.
 
Advertisement
Anyone who doesn't read this post nodding their head and saying "exactly man", and "****** a right", needs to keep reading this over and over and over and over again until it sinks into their thick neanderthal ******* skull.

I'm so ******* sick and tired of people thinking that "if only we had this coach or that coach..."

Our problem goes WAY ******* beyond coaching. We've got one shot at this, and if it's not done right, I'm not sure this program can ever truly recover. We need to clean house and bring in the best operators and visionaries at every level of the Athletic Department. We need to build a system. That's how Ohio State, and Alabama, etc work. There's a reason some programs can go from coach to coach to coach and just keep on rolling. While others do the same and suck no matter what. It's the system, the mentality, the organizational philosophy.

No cutting corners this time. Get it right.
"There's a reason some programs can go from coach to coach to coach and just keep on rolling"

So true.
It's not about Urban, Lane or Mario. It's about how overall sound and strong the program is.
 
The SEC would not allow Saban/Alabama to hire Freeze due to his previous personal conduct. UM will not hire him for the same reasons, regardless of his coaching ability. Cross that name off your list.
Only thing he did different than Coach O was get caught
 
Advertisement
Anyone who doesn't read this post nodding their head and saying "exactly man", and "****** a right", needs to keep reading this over and over and over and over again until it sinks into their thick neanderthal ******* skull.

I'm so ******* sick and tired of people thinking that "if only we had this coach or that coach..."

Our problem goes WAY ******* beyond coaching. We've got one shot at this, and if it's not done right, I'm not sure this program can ever truly recover. We need to clean house and bring in the best operators and visionaries at every level of the Athletic Department. We need to build a system. That's how Ohio State, and Alabama, etc work. There's a reason some programs can go from coach to coach to coach and just keep on rolling. While others do the same and suck no matter what. It's the system, the mentality, the organizational philosophy.

No cutting corners this time. Get it right.

Alabama didn't have anything like that until Saban got there. They were a wasteland of failed coaches under the same people in their AD. Its Saban's vision that runs every single detail of their football program. Its up to the AD to make sure that the funds and support are there to meet his demands. There's NO system at Alabama except Nick's system.
 
Alabama didn't have anything like that until Saban got there. They were a wasteland of failed coaches under the same people in their AD. Its Saban's vision that runs every single detail of their football program. Its up to the AD to make sure that the funds and support are there to meet his demands. There's NO system at Alabama except Nick's system.
What about Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, etc. who don't have Saban but they are strong organizations who's football teams are ranked in the top 10 year after year regardless of who the coach is?

We don't need to be Alabama. Just one of the structurally sound athletic departments who perform well across the board especially in football and who are a desirable destinations for coaches and athletes.
 
Last edited:
What about Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, etc. who don't have Saban but they are strong organizations who's football teams are ranked in the top 10 year after year regardless of who the coach is?

We don't need to be Alabama. Just one of the structurally sound athletic departments who perform well across the board especially in football and who are a desirable destination for coaches and athletes.

none of those schools have been ranked in the top 10 year after year "regardless of who the coach is"

Richt couldn't sniff the top 10 his last years at UGA and then Kirby showed up with Nick's program playbook and look where they are now.

Was it Urban or Ohio St's "organization" that brought them their last Natty?

I'm not arguing that a structurally sound athletic department shouldn't be a goal, its just that having one does not automatically translate into a successful football program that wins a lot of games. Michigan and Penn St have just as solid ADs as Ohio St but they can't catch the buckeyes because they keep losing the coaching hire battle.

Who is leading the football program as HC is more important at the end of the day.

You have to get BOTH right
 
Advertisement
Back
Top