[NU Sports] Change the coaches?

[Jeff Beamsley]

"Poor Northwestern" is just shorthand for all of the tedious set of excuses
that we've all heard about why Northwestern will never have a good football
program.  But just like many of the other excuses, this one doesn't hold up
to closer scrutiny either.  There are a lot schools with winning traditions
and strong football programs that are also far from the top of the coaching
food chain.  They realize that the price they pay for football success is
that they regularly have to recruit new coaches.  Some of the MAC schools
like Bowling Green come to mind as good examples.

You've been here long enough to know that I also don't buy into the Moses
theory of football success.  The theory goes like this.  RW is our Moses and
if we are patient enough, he will get us there.  I know that there are
others here who are fervent believers and they will be able to point to RW's
recent success as proof of this theory.  That's OK, because I like winning
football games more than winning arguments (just barely <g>).  Whether or
not the Moses theory proves true, the food chain theory suggests that
success is going to bring opportunities that even Moses can't resist.  

So no, my point isn't that Northwestern can only be successful by getting to
the top of the food chain.  It's exactly the opposite. We shouldn't have to
be wait to be successful.  We should expect to be successful now and we
should be willing to accept that the price of that success may be losing the
coach that got us there.

Jeff





-----Original Message-----
From: John Labbe [mailto:johnl at mac.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 11:35 AM
To: jeffb at hilgraeve.com
Cc: nwu-sports at tssi.com
Subject: RE: [NU Sports] Change the coaches?

Hey, wait a minute.  Aren't you the same one who just said the other day
that you don't buy the "poor Northwestern" excuse, and now you're saying
just that:  "poor Northwestern, we'll never be able to hire a coach who will
want to stay here."  If NU isn't at the top of the coaching food chain,
isn't it your point to change that (by paying higher salaries and/or
developing a winning tradition that will be the envy of other coaches)?  If
you don't think that mentality can be changed, then you, too, are accepting
the "poor Northwestern" mentality.




On Friday, November 18, 2005, at 10:58AM, Jeff Beamsley
<jeffb at hilgraeve.com> wrote:

>Sorry for picking on you again, but what is so bad about a coach doing 
>great here and getting hired away?  Isn't that what RW has said his 
>goal is for all of his assistants?
>
>NU is not at the top of the coaching food chain.  I think most all of 
>us are OK with that because we think that there is more to life than
football.
>
>Anyone who does well here (including RW) is going to become the subject 
>of rumors for open positions at higher football-profile schools 
>REGARDLESS of what they are getting paid here and REGARDLESS of past 
>statements of loyalty.  Whether they take advantage of those 
>opportunities depends on how they see themselves.
>
>For any school lower in the food chain, the only reliable way to 
>prevent your coach from getting offers is to have consistently mediocre 
>teams, and even in those circumstances the ambitious coaches will find 
>a way to promote themselves.
>
>So our choices are to pick a coach who thinks that NU is the best that 
>they can do, and hope that continuity translates into success - OR - 
>pick a coach who is ambitious and does his best to build a program 
>which reflects that ambition.
>
>I personally would prefer to have a coach who wants to be the best, 
>deal with the reality that they may some day move on, and hold them 
>accountable when they don't perform.  That appears to be Stanford's 
>philosophy.  In other words, I would be willing to trade a handful of 
>Motor City Bowls for the occasional Rose Bowl.  I also realize that 
>this is a personal opinion and you can make a strong argument that 
>coaching consistency will ultimately result in consistent winning.
>
>As far as RW is concerned, I don't know what his personal ambitions 
>are, but if he is able to put together another winning season next 
>year, we'll probably find out.  I think we are all kidding ourselves, 
>however, to think that he couldn't be hired away by someone else.  If 
>that proves to be the case, it does point out that there are risks to 
>the slow and steady approach too.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nwu-sports-bounces at tssi.com [mailto:nwu-sports-bounces at tssi.com] 
>On Behalf Of Hakirsch at aol.com
>Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 1:11 AM
>To: sjtruog at yahoo.com; nwu-sports at tssi.com
>Subject: Re: [NU Sports] Change the coaches?
>
>In a message dated 11/17/2005 10:05:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
>sjtruog at yahoo.com writes:
>
>> And as we see, Stanford either gets a coach who leaves in a few years 
>> for a better job or one who gets dumped in a few years.
>> 
>
>Yep--read Bill Walsh, Dennis Green, Ty Willingham-
>
>Adding credence to my argument that if the coach really gets to be top 
>notch
>
>at a school like  NU or Stanford (or similar) he will likely leave 
>because either he doesn't see greatness opportunity or those 
>institutions won't pay huge $ to keep them
>
>Harry
>_______________________________________________
>nwu-sports site list
>nwu-sports at tssi.com
>http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
>
>_______________________________________________
>nwu-sports site list
>nwu-sports at tssi.com
>http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
>
>