Lane Kiffin hired by Bama

[johnny2x2x]

http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=10275677&src=desktop

Guess they had a plan. I wonder if the Bama AD will hold a press conference about it while Saban is driving Kiffin to the airport?

 

[Sbee]

I've heard they didnt fire nussmeir but told him he was welcome to look elsewhere

 

[johnny2x2x]

I've heard they didnt fire nussmeir but told him he was welcome to look elsewhere

Yeah, they had to pay Nussmeier zero dollars in buyout money, they already had Kiffin in place, they just needed someone to take Nussmeier off their hands. Saban had the whole thing planned. The exact way the Ravens got rid of Mattison. Hoke wanted to hire a buddy he coached at Ball State with.

David Brandon is running that program.

 

[deathroh]

Yeah, they had to pay Nussmeier zero dollars in buyout money, they already had Kiffin in place, they just needed someone to take Nussmeier off their hands. Saban had the whole thing planned. The exact way the Ravens got rid of Mattison. Hoke wanted to hire a buddy he coached at Ball State with.

David Brandon is running that program.

Mike Valenti is running your thought process.

 

[johnny2x2x]

Mike Valenti is running your thought process.

We don't get him on this side of the state, but I think it's retty obvious what happened here. Kiffin was the guy Saban wanted and he was going to be the OC at Bama, period. Nussmeier is a good QBs coach, but not a lot of experience as OC and the Bama fans wanted better. Bama got Lane Kiffin, the guy is probably the 2nd best recruiter in the country after Saban and he's a big time head coach much less OC, Saban knows he'll have him for 1 or 2 years max, but it's a huge upgrade for Bama coaching.

Not that Michigan didn't get a good young up and comer, maybe one they really wanted, but Bama played this beautifully like they've done several times in the past. And after that travesty of a Press Conference, is there any doubt that Nussmeier is Brandon's guy, not Hoke's? If he's Hoke's guy, how do he and Hoke know each other before now? Hoke just fired one of his best friends to hire a guy he has no history with? Sure.

 

[deathroh]

Oh yeah, I was 100% sure you hadn't listened to him, you probably aren't even really sure who he is. Right.

I agree that's probably how it played out for Bama, but I don't even come close to giving a shit. For Michigan I view this is a very nice upgrade and that's all I'm concerned with.

Regarding the "power" stuff, who knows and who cares? I really don't know why people think this stuff matters.

 

[RedeemerKid]

Oh yeah, I was 100% sure you hadn't listened to him, you probably aren't even really sure who he is. Right.

I agree that's probably how it played out for Bama, but I don't even come close to giving a shit. For Michigan I view this is a very nice upgrade and that's all I'm concerned with.

Regarding the "power" stuff, who knows and who cares? I really don't know why people think this stuff matters.

I agree it is an upgrade for UM. The net result of it all is that UM has a better OC.

But in a situation where the AD calls the shots on who becomes a key assistant coach without the Head Coach leading and driving the process and making the actual offer/selection (not necessarily convinced that was what happened here), there is a chance for a dysfunctional relationship between the newly hired assistant coach, his Head Coach, and the AD.

Who does the new assistant coach feel he works for? Who is he accountable to? Who is he working to satisfy every day? Who feels they are on the hook for making sure his hiring works out?

The answer to all of those question can easily be be both the AD and the Head Coach. That can create dysfunction.

But I also think if that happens, it is fairly easily remedied. Early on, the AD sits down with the new assistant and the Head Coach (together or separately) and makes it clear that the Head Coach has all the responsibility, authority and accountability for the entire coaching staff and the team. End of conversation. Now go win 11 games. From there the AD communicates with the football team and staff via the Head Coach.

 

[Sbee]

new rumor is ed ogeron as the possible DL coach for Bama

 

[LuciousGameWinner]

new rumor is ed ogeron as the possible DL coach for Bama

No way! I really thought he was going to get a chance at being a head coach somewhere after what he did at USC.

 

[johnny2x2x]

new rumor is ed ogeron as the possible DL coach for Bama

That would be a big slap in the face to Brady Hoke, who is the current D Line coach at Michigan.

 

[deathroh]

I agree it is an upgrade for UM. The net result of it all is that UM has a better OC.

But in a situation where the AD calls the shots on who becomes a key assistant coach without the Head Coach leading and driving the process and making the actual offer/selection (not necessarily convinced that was what happened here), there is a chance for a dysfunctional relationship between the newly hired assistant coach, his Head Coach, and the AD.

Who does the new assistant coach feel he works for? Who is he accountable to? Who is he working to satisfy every day? Who feels they are on the hook for making sure his hiring works out?

The answer to all of those question can easily be be both the AD and the Head Coach. That can create dysfunction.

But I also think if that happens, it is fairly easily remedied. Early on, the AD sits down with the new assistant and the Head Coach (together or separately) and makes it clear that the Head Coach has all the responsibility, authority and accountability for the entire coaching staff and the team. End of conversation. Now go win 11 games. From there the AD communicates with the football team and staff via the Head Coach.

I see your point. I'm not worried about it in the least, because as you said it would be easy to fix, and more than likely was taken care of between Hoke and Brandon before the offer even went out to Nussmeier, but your worst case scenario is possible. To me this is just speculation for speculations sake, done to fill airwaves and newspapers...mostly based on who answered questions at a press conference and who didn't. Seems ridiculous, but outside of the NFL playoffs these are pretty dead times.

 

[Michchamp]

I agree it is an upgrade for UM. The net result of it all is that UM has a better OC.

But in a situation where the AD calls the shots on who becomes a key assistant coach without the Head Coach leading and driving the process and making the actual offer/selection (not necessarily convinced that was what happened here), there is a chance for a dysfunctional relationship between the newly hired assistant coach, his Head Coach, and the AD.

Who does the new assistant coach feel he works for? Who is he accountable to? Who is he working to satisfy every day? Who feels they are on the hook for making sure his hiring works out?

The answer to all of those question can easily be be both the AD and the Head Coach. That can create dysfunction.

But I also think if that happens, it is fairly easily remedied. Early on, the AD sits down with the new assistant and the Head Coach (together or separately) and makes it clear that the Head Coach has all the responsibility, authority and accountability for the entire coaching staff and the team. End of conversation. Now go win 11 games. From there the AD communicates with the football team and staff via the Head Coach.

no one except Brady Hoke and Dave Brandon knows the truth, but the idea that Hoke would have retained Borges if Brandon didn't force his hand seems absurd to me.

you have to assume 1.) Hoke doesn't care about his W/L record or reputation and 2.) Hoke wasn't bothered by having to field questions all year long about why the offense stunk, and wouldn't mind doing it again for all of 2014 with even more urgency at stake. if you watched any pressers #2 was obviously not the case.

like you said, the bottom line in this whole thing is that by all appearances we've upgraded our OC, and that's really all that matters. the rest is just background noise from the Michigan-hating segment of the MSU fanbase.

two weeks from the first Rose Bowl appearance in 20+ years, and they're already talking about Michigan again. sad.

 

[RedeemerKid]

no one except Brady Hoke and Dave Brandon knows the truth, but the idea that Hoke would have retained Borges if Brandon didn't force his hand seems absurd to me.

you have to assume 1.) Hoke doesn't care about his W/L record or reputation and 2.) Hoke wasn't bothered by having to field questions all year long about why the offense stunk, and wouldn't mind doing it again for all of 2014 with even more urgency at stake. if you watched any pressers #2 was obviously not the case.

like you said, the bottom line in this whole thing is that by all appearances we've upgraded our OC, and that's really all that matters. the rest is just background noise from the Michigan-hating segment of the MSU fanbase.

two weeks from the first Rose Bowl appearance in 20+ years, and they're already talking about Michigan again. sad.

Except Brady Hoke did say in early December (after the regular season) that he expected the entire staff to remain status quo for next year. Was he lying, or did he change his mind based on the subsequent bowl game performance of the OC with a freshman QB at the helm, and a simplified offense? Few people complained about the offense and play calling against OSU in the game just prior.

We will never know for sure unless Brady Hoke or David Brandon someday write a "tell all" book.

And I think lots pf people are talking about this move, yes including some MSU fans an UM haters from non-UM fan bases. But that's by design. They held a press conference. They want chatter about this. It's relevant.

 

[Michchamp]

Except Brady Hoke did say in early December (after the regular season) that he expected the entire staff to remain status quo for next year. Was he lying, or did he change his mind based on the subsequent bowl game performance of the OC with a freshman QB at the helm, and a simplified offense? Few people complained about the offense and play calling against OSU in the game just prior.

...

he gave the only possible answer a competent manager would give in that situation. accordingly it didn't reveal anything about his thinking.

any reporter worth his salt should know that if you ask a coach right out whether he's going to fire a staff member or not before the end of the season, you're not going to get a real answer, nor should you.

 

[deathroh]

Except Brady Hoke did say in early December (after the regular season) that he expected the entire staff to remain status quo for next year. Was he lying, or did he change his mind based on the subsequent bowl game performance of the OC with a freshman QB at the helm, and a simplified offense? Few people complained about the offense and play calling against OSU in the game just prior.

What was he supposed to say? Even if he was 100% positive that he would make changes, why say anything other than what he did? That would be stupid. If my coach doesn't routinely lie during press conferences, THEN I have a problem with him.

 

[deathroh]

damn it, beat me to it

 

[RedeemerKid]

he gave the only possible answer a competent manager would give in that situation. accordingly it didn't reveal anything about his thinking.

any reporter worth his salt should know that if you ask a coach right out whether he's going to fire a staff member or not before the end of the season, you're not going to get a real answer, nor should you.

If you aren't going to be 100% transparent (which I agree you never would be), I prefer the old canned response of:

"We have a great deal of confidence in the abilities of our entire staff and our entire football team. But if we have an opportunity to get better, whether it be with players on the field, or with the coaching staff, or anywhere else for that matter, we'll evaluate our options as we always do."

A response along those lines covers your arse regardless of what you may or may not do. It also reinforces the idea that everyone working to keep their jobs every day. Saying what he said at the time opens him to criticisms of hypocrisy, or speculation that (weeks later) he did not want the change made.

 

[deathroh]

If you aren't going to be 100% transparent (which you never would be), I prefer the old canned response of:

"We have a great deal of confidence in the abilities of our entire staff and our entire football team. But if we have an opportunity to get better, whether it be with players on the field, or with the coaching staff, or anywhere else for that matter, we'll evaluate our options as we always do."

A response along those lines covers your arse regardless of what you may or may not do. It also reinforces the idea that everyone working to keep their jobs every day.

It also opens the door for repeated questioning, articles, and uncertaintly for recruits. Saying what he said for the benefit of the program is something I'd greatly prefer over your response which is more geared toward gaining media and fan approval, and as you said, covering his ass.

 

[deathroh]

... Saying what he said at the time opens him to criticisms of hypocrisy, or speculation that (weeks later) he did not want the change made.

Maybe he dosesn't care about those criticisms, and as mentioned earlier, this speculation now (which is very regional and will die out shortly) is much preferrable to the rampant speculation regarding a potential coaching change that likely would have occurred.

 

[RedeemerKid]

It also opens the door for repeated questioning, articles, and uncertaintly for recruits. Saying what he said for the benefit of the program is something I'd greatly prefer over your response which is more geared toward gaining media and fan approval, and as you said, covering his ass.

I guess you "pick your poison" at worst.

But I don't see much downside of my suggested type of response if you live it and preach it in good times as well as bleak times. It's a non-answer.

Besides, I think there was already lots of speculation about potential coaching changes, and I bet recruits were hearing it. Some recruits might have liked the idea of a change. Further, you are always as a staff, in contact with recruits and settling their individual concerns as much as you can. You say things to them (particularly the commits) that you wouldn't necessarily say to the media.

But if recruits see you say one thing in the media, and then you do the opposite weeks later, perhaps the recruits also speculate on your credibility.

But like we said before, and you astutely reinforced, this is a short term "noise" and the bottom line is, it is an upgrade,