Sometimes, I like to put myself in the Head Coach's shoes and think about how to build a sustainable winning program. To me, there's 4 primary facets of being a head coach that don't include "babysitting" or "being an ambassador for the school." If you're bad enough at either of those two, anybody will get fired, but they're still secondary considerations when it comes to winning. I think those 4 primary facets are 1) Actual Coaching, probably either offense or defense, 2) Recruiting/Player Retention, 3) Staff Hiring/Player Development, 4) Administrative Influence and Fund-Raising. I believe the highest ceiling coach prioritizes those facets as follows: 1. Recruiting/Player Retention 2. Staff Hiring/Player Development 3. Administrative Influence and Fund-Raising 4. Actual Coaching. This to me is your CEO archetype, this is what we are hoping Napier will be. This is close to what I consider Urban Meyer, Nick Saban, and Kirby Smart to be. Maybe swap 2 and 3 for some of them. And in the case of both Saban and Smart, their actual coaching is still pretty damned good. A less successful version would probably look something like Ron Zook. The highest floor coach prioritizes the following: 1. Actual Coaching 2. Staff Hiring/Player Development 3. Recruiting/Player Retention 4. Administrative Influence and Fund-Raising. This is closer to your Steve Spurrier archetype. Coaches typically call their own plays, run one side of the ball, but typically have some holes because they have less of a bird's eye view of the program by being so focused on actual Xs and Os. Other coaches that fall into this category are Lane Kiffin, Lincoln Riley, Dan Mullen, Mike Leach (may he rest in peace) and Will Muschamp. I'm no insider, but I think a lot of this depends on the commitment to the football program from the university. If they're willing to get in crazy bidding wars with the big dogs like Ohio State, Alabama, and Georgia... and we have a base of boosters with similar support, that changes what Florida should value. And I'm not saying there's a right answer for that. College Football is an insane world and there's a lot more important parts of a university than the football program. But the first steps to making things better is acknowledging who we are, accepting it or changing it, and establishing an identity. My perception is we either don't have the administrative or financial support of those schools, or we didn't and we're still playing the same catch-up game we've been playing since Urban Meyer. This includes being a cowboy in this new wild west of NIL/transfer portal college football. If these other teams are pushing the boundaries of the rules and we're not, we're not going to beat them at their own game. If we don't have a realistic plan to catch-up, our best move is probably going for a Spurrier archetype. If we do have a realistic plan to catch up, hope that Napier turns it around and if he doesn't, hire somebody with a similar blueprint to running a program but with better execution. Which archetype do you think fits best with Florida? Am I missing some archetypes or facets? How would you prioritize them?
Coaching is #1, #2 and #3. Nothing else matters as if we didn't learn that already from Spurrier, Meyer and The Zooker. Spurs could take his 3* players and beat your 4* players because that's what great coaches do. Zook recruited great but was a lousy gameday coach despite his recruiting classes and enthusiasm. And then you take accountability and clean house like Kelly just did when your assistants don't perform. Kelly, LSU moving on from 4 assistant coaches
Does "actual coaching" cover motivating the players and coaches to do their best? Or is "actual coaching" just strategy and game-planning? Just wondering where that falls since Meyer was the master of motivation.
I would say "Actual Coaching" falls under results over time on one side of the ball. It's what you see on gameday and in the box score. That is most tied to strategy and game-planning, IMO. "Player Development" is more towards getting individual players to realize their potential, whether that be through motivation, competition, strength and conditioning, development, or some combination of those things.
Recruiting is No. 1 and it isn't even close. SOS could do that then with a class ranked in the top-10, but now you have to have top-5 to even think about it. I also think luck and/or being in the right situation makes a huge difference too. Kirby and SOS are outliers in that both found perfect situations at programs they were truly passionate about beyond their own careers.
That's the thing, though. I don't think Meyer was much of a hands on coach, at least compared to Spurrier and Mullen. The program had great "coaching" because Meyer generally hired a first class staff. He had great players and he had great development largely due to the competitive culture, high minimum standard for players, and locker room leaders. Spurrier changed the game. When the entire college football world was going left, Spurrier went right. He's arguably the greatest offensive mind in the history of college football, had scheme advantage, and had an easier time recruiting (while not being the best recruiter) because playing for Florida was cool and fun, and recruiting was much more regional back then which really helped Florida.
It helped the entire state. Keep in mind, from 1983-2001, the NC went through the State of Florida. Florida was then what the SEC is now.
+11111 Whatever it takes to win (within legal boundaries). No blaming the talent and be able to motivate the players.
Looking back at past coaches I doubt Meyer or Spurrier would have succeeded in this era of portal and nil. Constantly re-recruiting your team every year plus paying for players just to have a decent recruiting class. It is tough to be a head coach compared to fifteen or twenty years ago. Too much transition.
You jest right,? UM coached the special teams. Fundraising is easily number 4, coaching is 3, staff 2, recruiting 1. This is a fluid hierarchy in the beginning of any tenure its 1 staff, 2 recruiting, 3 coaching, 4 fundraising
I know he coached special teams. I don't think that's even close to the top reason why he was successful at Florida. Recruiting, staff, and competitive culture were the big reasons he won. He just happened to coach special teams and he happened to play stars on special teams.
I saw an interview where Kirby said college football is: 25% player evaluation 50% recruiting 25% coaching
Dont change your argument you posted he wasnt a hands on coach like SOS or DM a misrepresentation of fact. Then you dis the success we had on ST as not a big impact on the over all success of the program. He just happened to coach 6 phases of the game, all game/momentum changing situations. He also prioritized participation on these units and the players on them. SOS clearly changed the SEC during his time here. DM not so much. UM blitzed through SEC like a wildfire and then burned out. His forte was psychological motivation and attention to detail not mastery of offensive or defensive schemes. Play calling wasn’t his wheel house
