They may not have less risk than Kelly, but I'd argue many
by FL_Irish (2017-07-14 15:47:00)
[ cannot delete ]   [ Edit ]   [ Return to Rock's House ]   [ Show All Thread ]   [ Ignore Poster ]   [ Report Post ]   [ Highlight Poster ]   [ Reply ]

  In reply to: My guess: It just cost too much to buy him out and  posted by SEE

...have far greater potential reward. Kelly's ceiling is known at this point. A whole bunch of 5 loss seasons with a rate 6-8 loss season thrown in for a particularly bad year and a rare 1-3 loss season thrown in for a particularly good (for him) year. Oh plus he's a complete dickhead. In the probably quite likely event that we are not able to poach one of the greats, we should absolutely be willing to accept someone with as much or greater risk than Kelly who has the demonstrated potential to actually achieve success.

In my mind there are very few coaches who would be a clear downgrade from Kelly. Maybe a Ty Willingham-type who decimates the program for years to come through non-recruitment. But otherwise a guy who averages 5 losses a year and a guy who averages 6 losses a year are the same as far as I'm concerned. If we're really holding off on firing Kelly because whoever we get next might be worst, we're even more incompetently led than I thought.


The contents of this post represent the views of the author. is not responsible for its contents.