Are we which of the following:
(a) a football team with a university somewhat attached to it, or
(b) a university with a football team?
We know that the powers that be say (b). I say (b). Not all high profile coaches will acknowledge that they really want (a). Many schools operate akin to (a). Ceding total control to the FB coach for the activities of his players is a disaster in the long-run. This is how you get Paterno (not to be confused with Sandusky) and Carroll type problems because no one overrides and provides balance to the coach's decisions. We have nibbled at the edges of what (b) means during the Kelly era but it remains much as it has been.
This does not mean that we shouldn't demand and expect excellence. One of the best developments of the past 8 or so years is the success at Stanford. This shows that it can be done, and i would argue that they had a much higher hill to climb than we do, both in the sense of the requirements and the starting point. (Obviously, much is due to Harbaugh who met none of requirements espoused on this board when he was hired there.)
What I am saying is that there are some parameters that need to be considered and many of the comments over the last month fail to reflect the most basic framework that is non-negotiable. When i apply the basic framework to a potential coaching search, my conclusions are as follows:
1. most, if not all, highly successful college coaches will not accept the framework.
2. money will not overcome #1 but rather drive up the price elsewhere.
3. we will inevitably be gambling in a coaching hire due to #1 and #2 unless all of the stars are totally aligned. I give Michigan credit for not f***ing up the process but, in reality, this fell into their laps in a way that will seldom be duplicated.
Am I wrong in my understanding of the most basic framework and what it means to our coaching searches?
PS as i write this, Stoops is getting his ass kicked.