Coaching Hires Are Like...Relationships

Well, Mr. Stewart Mandel has given me a perfect opportunity to introduce my next topic: When and who should you hire as a college head football head coach?

Take a look at Stewart's article which can be found here. He makes many good points about the differences between coaching at the college and NFL level. However, he fails in one specific area in that he doesn't include facts/opinions that do not support his ultimate conclusion: Weis is a terrible college football coach. I have touched on this lack of information inclusion by "sports journalists" before (link here) and this article is no different. I'll break down a few specific points.

1) Mandel writes "Prior to his 2005 arrival in South Bend, the 51-year-old New Jersey native had never played or coached at the collegiate level. His credentials for the job were: a) his reputation as an offensive guru; b) his anticipated recruiting cachet, what with those four Super Bowl rings; and c) the fact that he graduated from Notre Dame." This is a false statement. Weis has had college football coaching experience. He was an assistant at the University of South Carolina from 1985 to 1988. That took me 30 seconds on Google to discover. I guess I'm a super sleuth.

2) Mandel also claims "Tom Brady and Weis' other Patriots protégés arrived as fully developed professionals." He might want to lend his powers of foresight to the other 31 NFL teams that passed on him through six rounds of the NFL draft. If it was such a foregone conclusion that Brady would be a great professional football player why didn't anyone else draft him?

3) Mandel starts the article with "Let's start with a fairly obvious realization: Charlie Weis is a terrible college football coach." but then goes on to say "It seemed clear at the time that Weis was the perfect guy to return the Irish to glory -- and maybe one day he will." The former statement is in direct contradiction with the latter. How can he believe, on the one hand, that Charlie Weis is a terrible college football coach, but, on the other hand, think that he may someday lead Notre Dame (a team he believes to be one of the worst in the country) back to glory? It is a complete dichotomy of ideas and it doesn't exaclty inspire me to believe he has a lot of conviction behind his argument.

4) Mandel also writes "Weis, however, is one of the few vested parties who will not pay a price for this disastrous season. He will still pocket his $3 million-plus for what has essentially been a year of on-the-job training. Meanwhile, the 80,000-plus spectators who pack Notre Dame Stadium every week -- many of them traveling great distances to be there -- have wasted untold dollars and energy supporting a woefully prepared team, not to mention the immeasurable humiliation their university has suffered. Lord only knows how much money NBC has lost on its investment." That may all be true. I doubt Weis isn't paying a price, I'm sure he isn't happy about the way this season has gone, he cares too much. But it isn't Weis' job to make NBC money, it isn't a waste of money to ever attend a Notre Dame football game (the campus alone is worth it, not to mention the Folk Choir Mass at the Basillica) regardless of how bad we are, and the fact that people are still making the pilgrimage to South Bend speaks volumes about the loyalty of the fans and the fact that it's more than just football at Notre Dame. Finally, he fails to mention the fact that while Weis is earning a hefty salary himself, we are still paying Willingham for driving our football program into the ground.

5) Stewart also says "In October 2005, seven games into Weis' tenure, school administrators decided they'd seen enough from the former New England Patriots guru to merit investing an additional 10 years and more than $30 million in him." but he fails to mention that the contract extension was not based solely on his performance. Rather, it was also to guard against many NFL teams expressing interest in his coaching services and to give recruits an assurance he would be the coach both now and into the future.

6) Finally, Mandel points to the inexperience and youth of the team as being possible explanations for our struggles this season but he fails to mention that we faced very good defenses for nearly all of our first eight games and one of the toughest schedules in the country.

There are six reasons that Mandel's article is full of holes, I'm sure there are more. He either states facts that are false or he leaves out opinions, arguments, and/or facts that do not support his argument. These things aside, I think he makes some good points about the differences of coaching in college versus the NFL. He talks about motivating and managing players, teaching players to play instead of simply teaching them a playbook, and dealing with the problems the kids will ultimately face as young adults.

This all got me thinking (although I have been thinking about it quite a bit lately anyway) about when and who should be hired as a college head football coach. First, let's examine the situation surrounding Weis' hiring. To me, the way in which we hired Weis was similar to ending a relationship in pursuit of another potential partner. Bear with me...

When you are with a person in a relationship it can be human nature to recognize and focus on the negative aspects of that person. This can, at times, ultimately lead to finding another person attractive if they have strong traits and characteristics in the weaker areas of the current partner. I think this is what happened when we hired Weis.

Admittedly, I didn't see this at the time. I wasn't sold when we hired Weis. I was impressed by his success in the NFL and partially won over by what he said at his introductory press conference. I was more impressed when he turned our once dormant offense into a scoring machine. I was even more impressed when I read his book "No Excuses" and heard the things he said to the team upon his arrival at Notre Dame. And eventually, I think I moved from skeptic to believer.

And I think I did this because Weis' strengths were the weaknesses of our past two coaches. Think about it. Weis is brash, confident (almost to a fault), and direct. Willingham was timid, guarded, and lacked transparency (also almost to a fault). Davie seemed to always have a canned response. Davie and Willingham fielded offenses that lacked explosion, consistency, and production. Weis' offenses set record after record. Neither Davie nor Willingham "got" Notre Dame and what it stood for. Weis not only gets it, he embraces it, and is one of our own. Willingham was lazy, Weis never stops working. Willingham couldn't recruit, Weis has hauled in three (God willing) straight top classes. Davie and Willingham couldn't win the games they were supposed to, Weis, for the most part, has.

So I think Notre Dame Nation, including myself, was enthralled by his strengths, by what he brought that the previous two coaches lacked, and by his affinity towards and inclusion to the Notre Dame family. But does that mean that Willingham and Davie didn't do good things as college football head coaches? No. Furthermore, does it mean that Weis is infallible? Obviously not. I didn't have the foresight to see it then, but this season has certainly proved it. I have said before, this season may have been necessary to really pound the differences between the NFL and college game into Weis' stubborn head (link here). But that doesn't mean it can't also enlighten us to his shortcomings as a coach. But the future can always hold change. What were his weaknesses can be turned into strengths.

So this then begs the question: When and who should you hire as a college head football coach? (At the onset of this discussion I am not trying to portray a Weis versus Willingham argument. It may seem like that at times but there are just many convenient examples between the two that illustrate my points.) I'll dissect them one at a time. First the when.

There are obvious situations when a coaching change must be made. If the program isn't consistently performing up to expectations, a change should be made. A change should also be made if there is relatively no change in the structure of the program, i.e. the coaching staff, athletic director, facilities, etc., but a negative trend in performance on the field. A change is necessary if all the pieces of the puzzle are there but the performance isn't. If Urban Meyer and Les Miles hadn't averaged about ten wins through their first few seasons I would say changes are needed. Both schools have talented athletes, facilities, and a strong support base. And finally, if there are numerous problems with the student-athletes off the field such that the coach has lost control of the team, a coaching change is definitely needed. There are probably more than what I have listed but those are the ones that occur to me off the top of my head.

What is less obvious, perhaps, is when a coaching change must not be made. A coaching change should not be made if the future repercussions for the program outweigh the immediate ramifications of retaining the coach. For example, the public relations hit that Notre Dame took by firing Tyrone Willingham did not out-weigh the future potential for Willingham to do irreparable damage to the football program with another few terrible recruiting classes. On the flip side, it would not be prudent to fire Weis on the conclusion of this season for three primary reasons. One, barring any dramatic change(s), there aren't any exceptional candidates out there. Second, this season, at least to date, is an anomaly in Weis' career. Additionally, despite poor performances on the field, he has recruited exceptionally well. And third, firing Weis would virtually eliminate the possibility that another coach would want to come to Notre Dame. Would you want only three years to prove you could do your job well in a business where it takes (arguably) four years for your product to be produced? Unfortunately for Willingham, we suffered through five plus years of mediocre football with Davie. He didn't have the luxury of time. Weis has earned some leniency with good recruiting and two trips to the BCS. So for these reasons, it isn't really possible to fire Weis.

The question of who to hire is much more difficult to address. At a minimum, I would say the following criteria must be met:

1) The head coach must have experience as an assistant (preferably offensive or defensive coordinator) in a football program (college of professional) that has had consistent success. Too many times coaching hires are made based on the performance of one or a few seasons. A coach must be proven, and in college football the only way that occurs is if there is consistent success.

2) The head coach must have offensive or defensive coordinator experience. This doesn't mean he has to have it at a high profile college program or NFL team. He just needs to understand what it takes to gameplan and prepare for a game week in and week out.

3) The head coach must be able to relate to younger players. He must understand young adults, the challenges and problems college students face, how to effectively motivate and lead, and how to connect with his players. His personality must be one that relates to young people and the constant changes they undergo in their journey through life.

4) The head coach must be able to recruit well. There are a ton of things that go into this, proven success, being able to relate to the high school kids, forming relationships with high school head coaches, working tirelessly, and hiring a staff who can also recruit.

5) The head coach must be able to recognize and hire excellent and talented assistant coaches who can develop the talent he recruits.

6) The head coach must be disciplined, well organized, and consistent, and he must maintain a team with those same qualities.

7) The head coach must have goals that are aligned with the athletic department and University for which he is employed.

I am sure there are more things that make an excellent college head football coach than what I have listed above. But at a minimum, I believe he must have these qualities. And at a quick glance, Weis has them all save, perhaps, number three. For this reason, I would say a coaching change isn't necessary. Right now there are no other viable coaching options available. Right now, due to the mound of things working against this team I've listed a dozen times (youth, inexperience, lack of leadership, tough schedule etc.) it's tough to argue for or against Weis' ability as a coach. Right now the statement it would make to fire another coach after three years outweighs the negatives of keeping Weis around. Right now, we need continuity in the leadership and coaching philosophy of our football program.

Like I've said before (link here), I want Weis to succeed. I am hoping that this season is an aberration in his tenure as our head football coach. He is a Notre Dame man that understands the mission of the University and embraces success without compromising integrity. We must support him and the team. We have no choice. The only time it is acceptable not to do so is when a coaching change is not only needed, but also possible. Right now, that just isn't the case. Besides, my Godson gives him a thumbs-up (OK, he hasn't quite learned how to do it yet).