OK I got to ask

[Leakfan12]

Why can't the AD hire Charlie Strong and hire an OC on their own? Just wondering.

 

[Escambia94]

The AD hires the HC, and gives the HC a budget to hire his assistants. The quality of the assistants is limited by the coaching tree of the HC, or the ability of the HC to expand his coaching tree. Charlie Strong does not have a good OC in his coaching tree, and he has not shown the ability to find one.

I would love to have Charlie, but Stricklin is obviously gunning for an offensive minded HC with a good OC. Chip Kelly is the only HC candidate who is both offensive minded, and able to grab multiple, high quality OCs.

 

[DRU2012]

I understand Lf's question/proposal, and E-'s reasoned answer/explanation. BUT:
MY "take" is more along lines of "tradition", and/or "how things are just DONE" BE DAMNED! If ever there was a time to do things differently, break with the past, this has to be it--for a lotta reasons, and potentially in a lotta different ways.
Hence my comments over in my latest posted thread, "Meanwhile..."
We have "followed the accepted path", gone with the guy with the right credentials who said the right things, repeatedly--right into an accelerating downward spiral and the "last stop on the way to ignominy" we are well into now.
How bout maybe we consider breaking the mold, do things differently this time, if "heart and gut", rather than whatever "reason", "logic" and/or "normal procedures" suggest?
Ask ourselves, "What ARE the alternatives, and what advantage might be gained in considering them?"
Just a thought.

 

[Escambia94]

This is not about tradition. This is just how the world works. Even if we were to entertain the possibility of making up new ways of contracting coaches, who would you want Stricklin to hire? Even if an AD could hire any OC, the HC needs to have chemistry with his assistants, and what kind of Head Coach is willing to let an Athletic Director micromanage his team?

 

[DRU2012]

This is not about tradition. This is just how the world works. Even if we were to entertain the possibility of making up new ways of contracting coaches, who would you want Stricklin to hire? Even if an AD could hire any OC, the HC needs to have chemistry with his assistants, and what kind of Head Coach is willing to let an Athletic Director micromanage his team?

OK. I certainly see the realistic, practical problems with forcing THOSE particular confrontations. But are they the only "alternatives"? Are we really restricted to choices that automatically, inevitably lead there? ALL that which is defined by current "accepted norms"?--Are these truly all that's available, "allowed", out in that "real world"?
I don't claim to know the absolute answer--in fact, my questions here are honest, open ones--and rather than an opening to recommending a particular course, I am merely proposing that we consider for a moment ANY CONTRARIAN ONES!
I would like to see us at least consider ways to BREAK OUT of the mold, the "real world rules" that have, after all, brought us here and seem to limit us now.
Now, when I say "us", I DO mean US, the dedicated and thinking fans, Pop Warner-and small town prep participants, up'n'coming young coaches out here, and all the rest who we may never "KNOW"--but DO know that nonetheless we, all together, SHAPE the shared-worldview that comprises "reality", whatever we come to think of as "normal and accepted". In this way, I propose that a change in focus, a RE-framing of a WORLDview that NEEDS changing: The "normal" way hasn't served us well of late, and appears to be hampering us now.
I'm "only" talking about GATOR change here, of course; NOT "revolution" but rather our own need to forge a new identity and future--no more, no less. If ANY such EVOLUTIONARY change is to come, it TOO has to begin with a clean sheet, I think--a fresh approach to what the challenges are, and what we can really DO about them.
Real change comes from the bottom up, begins with new possibilities that are seen, tried by someone--whether out of vision and/or desperation--and the ones that WORK are copied, adapted, eventually become part of that "normal world".
All I am suggestimg at this point is, in the absence so far of an individual who in effect embodies such change (in some decades, longer, out of dozens of tries, we have had TWO of those--one by fate, one by temporary "good fortune"), we can for now at least contribute in small fashion to our future: To somehow spur open dialogue and flexibility this time among those charged with the practical moves that will shape our immediate AND long term future. Yes, our AD, plus the less-public but nonetheless realistically powerful individuals who will participate in and have to sign off on any decision regarding the Coach AND the limits to his power and leeway.
I don't know to what extent (or even IF) these people are ready to consider, let alone acknowledge and are by now even discussing what "new ideas and directions" should be considered, incorporated in identifying and embarking on the time and course ahead. But I am sure it is required--am sincerely hoping, even counting on their already BEING there in their thinking.
Regardless, it is time we "out here" were unbound by restrictions in OUR thinking. Let's put ANYTHING on the table, throw it out there, pick it apart. It'll be interesting, fun--and you never know where it all eventually leads, the last domino falls or the pulled thread finally last unravels.
Let's at the very least do our small part to tear some holes in the walls and windows, let in a little light and fresh air.

 

[Escambia94]

Once in a while, an outsider breaks into the ranks as a college coordinator. Gus Malzahn is an example. However, it is the responsibility of the head coach to find those diamonds in the rough, not the athletic director. Most athletic directors are businessmen, not coaches by trade.

 

[DRU2012]

Yep: Comes back and "DOWN" to the Head Coach hire.
In the same way, there are "powers behind the scene" who influence and steer the process of ultimately hiring that HC, but as you have repeatedly reminded us, E-, it is the AD who is both point man and final arbiter who makes the hire.
We may have been somewhat hand-tied by the timing here, a new and relative outsider having "just" come in to replace a well-respected and solidly entrenched "Florida guy" as AD, now having to pursue and land what may be the most crucial Coaching hire since the early-90s post-probation situation...and there is no Steve Spurrier hitting his stride just as we need him this time.
Who knows? All of this may force the "hang on by our fingernails in the INTERIM (get it?)"-situation I have mentioned that ultimately GETS us to that "Right Guy", who by circumstance we cannot get (or cannot SEE) right now. But that also means we for now must jump into the unknown, and HOPE that chance or FATE saves us.
The idea that that might be a better choice than anything "we" (or at least those who actually MAKE such decisions) rationalize our way INTO is a scary one. It may be the wisest, tho...But do we count on "wisdom" from our current AD and cabal surrounding him? THAT could be the longest "long shot" of all.

 

[Escambia94]

Yep: Comes back and "DOWN" to the Head Coach hire.
In the same way, there are "powers behind the scene" who influence and steer the process of ultimately hiring that HC, but as you have repeatedly reminded us, E-, it is the AD who is both point man and final arbiter who makes the hire.
We may have been somewhat hand-tied by the timing here, a new and relative outsider having "just" come in to replace a well-respected and solidly entrenched "Florida guy" as AD, now having to pursue and land what may be the most crucial Coaching hire since the early-90s post-probation situation...and there is no Steve Spurrier hitting his stride just as we need him this time.
Who knows? All of this may force the "hang on by our fingernails in the INTERIM (get it?)"-situation I have mentioned that ultimately GETS us to that "Right Guy", who by circumstance we cannot get (or cannot SEE) right now. But that also means we for now must jump into the unknown, and HOPE that chance or FATE saves us.
The idea that that might be a better choice than anything "we" (or at least those who actually MAKE such decisions) rationalize our way INTO is a scary one. It may be the wisest, tho...But do we count on "wisdom" from our current AD and cabal surrounding him? THAT could be the longest "long shot" of all.

Sometimes timing is everything. In 1986 Steve Spurrier was passed over as the head coach of LSU, because LSU was more comfortable with their interim coach, Mike Archer. Spurrier was only looking at the job, because the USFL had folded. After a year of playing golf he decided to return to Duke, this time as head coach. In 1989 Spurrier contacted his alma mater about the possibility of returning home to Florida when he heard that Galen Hall was probably going to be dismissed. The athletic director at Duke was very supportive of Spurrier going back home, and he was happy that he was able to have Spurrier for two stints in the 1980s.

Like you said, there is no Spurrier waiting to come home. The closest thing would be if Charlie Strong were to come to Gainesville and clean up the defense and the locker room. For that to happen, Scott Stricklin would need to prioritize defense and discipline over offense, because those are Charlie's strong points, not offense.

I honestly think there is something deeply wrong with the Florida football program that will not be solved with an offensive minded coach. The problems need to be solved by a head coach who addresses all the issues at the same time: the historically strong defense that has lost its way, the pervasive lack of discipline that has plagued UF for a decade, and the horrible strength & conditioning program that has probably led to five years of injuries. Once UF fixes those issues, then it will be in position to add an offense that will defeat Nick Saban.

 

[DRU2012]

Sometimes timing is everything. In 1986 Steve Spurrier was passed over as the head coach of LSU, because LSU was more comfortable with their interim coach, Mike Archer. Spurrier was only looking at the job, because the USFL had folded. After a year of playing golf he decided to return to Duke, this time as head coach. In 1989 Spurrier contacted his alma mater about the possibility of returning home to Florida when he heard that Galen Hall was probably going to be dismissed. The athletic director at Duke was very supportive of Spurrier going back home, and he was happy that he was able to have Spurrier for two stints in the 1980s.

Like you said, there is no Spurrier waiting to come home. The closest thing would be if Charlie Strong were to come to Gainesville and clean up the defense and the locker room. For that to happen, Scott Stricklin would need to prioritize defense and discipline over offense, because those are Charlie's strong points, not offense.

I honestly think there is something deeply wrong with the Florida football program that will not be solved with an offensive minded coach. The problems need to be solved by a head coach who addresses all the issues at the same time: the historically strong defense that has lost its way, the pervasive lack of discipline that has plagued UF for a decade, and the horrible strength & conditioning program that has probably led to five years of injuries. Once UF fixes those issues, then it will be in position to add an offense that will defeat Nick Saban.

YES. Well put, man.
I too am absolutely certain that it is NOT a simple, "Need more offense. Get more offensive Coach." proposition.
Like you, I believe deeply that we need an overall man-of-honor and integrity to rebuild and reinvigorate our whole program. Yes, the practical aspects marking Strong's actual history with the OC position gives one pause--but I ALSO believe that (1) he can GET himself a good young OC to complete the picture, and (2) he has appeared to have made clear progress in that direction in his latest stint at USF.
In short, I am more hopeful about staking our future on Strong putting together a strong and effective staff, including offensively. He and that staff will return us to defensive prominence, while he in particular brings overall pride, honor, discipline, and balance to a foundering program before it fully falls--rather than simply "get the latest guy whose team scores in bunches" and expecting HIM to "fix things" everywhere else too. Our own experience so far is that it doesn't necessarily work--that at least one such guy came in and FIXED NOTHING, LEAST of all the vacant offense.
I am tempted here to go into the unfairness, even despicable way Strong was treated during his time at Texas...Instead, I will only argue that he in fact accomplished much, put the program back on track and on steady wheels rollimg forward, had begun to FIX the deep mess that Mack Brown had created there through distraction and flagging interest (to say the least--and I'm being generous in not elaborating or expanding on that), to the point that everything ELSE could then begin working right on their own...Tom Herman was his beneficiary--and already right here in Texas, ul tge road and making his mark in the 2nd most fertile talent pool in America.
But suffice to say, rather than a "failure" or even a seeming "stumble" in his career, it may be that the UT stint says much about how and why Charlie Strong is the guy we need here and now at UF.
No matter what the reason though (and am TOLD that at least back at the START of our search Strong himself was at the top of our list, but "backed away" from any such offer--and by now I have no idea of where he OR our people stand in any future possibilities), it seems that if we wanted him now we'd have to clear the board, start again and GO AFTER HIM once more.
I don't know that that will happen now, not THIS time anyway. Which I fear leaves us "lost in the wilderness, without a compass". Or is it "Up the river, without a paddle"??? (OR maybe SHANNON for now IS "our paddle"...)