So a good CEO needs a replacement for an ineffective worker in the 2nd most important position in the company. They target one person, he is burned out and CEO gives up and relies on ineffective worker who happens to be his close friend? The question is? Why didn't he bring in any of the other dozens of OCs who have better analytics than Satt, especially at 1.4 million a year?
I don't get paid 7 million a year to make these calls, I can't figure everything out.....I just report major breaking stories before sipple and thammel..and bring logical absolutes to the forefront.
I appreciate the thoughts and info, just getting it out on the board that Rhule shouldn't get a pass just because Dana wasn't available. Rhule should be restructuring his contract in admittance that he screwed up royally and cost a lot of people money by making games against Indiana, OSU, UCLA, USC lack the drama that they should have. These contracts given out that have almost no accountability or checkpoints for production are so poison. I guarantee if Rhule could lose a few million by sticking with Satt...A. He never would have hired him, B. He would have been 1 and done.
thats a bit over my pay grade also...I'm thinking folks ain't doing back flips over tuckers or jimbos contract either...accountability? hell look at dc...thats makes millions look like crumbs...
Dana would have been calling plays IF he had taken the Co-OC job when offered last winter. Anybody using a sliver of common sense would know that. I don't care what Satt's job title was, there was no way in hell Rhule was going to keep Satt as the play caller after watching last year. Rhule isn't an idiot.
he was thinking him, raiola and glen could add some more nfl plays to help sat out..till dana put houston behind him...
IF he had hired Dana there was no way Satt would have been calling plays. Rhule no doubt failing to get Dana, thought that Thomas coaching Dylan and helping Satt with game planning would help the play calling clearly there's no fixin Satt's play calling.
I am just absolutely blown away that 99% of college football fans are competitive capitalist minded people, who value competition and performance accountability and using that competition from winning and compensation to create the best product, and yet in college football, we have a blockhead linebacker making an relatively unilateral decision based on his "heart", giving a guy who hasn't won a trophy a guarantee of 65 million, an 8 year contract, a large buyout and then absolutely no accountability as to how he build his first and most important staff. I actually hope the more we pay players, the more contracts become incentive based for coaches as there will be a money crunch somewhere. Wouldn't it be awesome if each coach made 35% of their current salary based on 0 wins, and that would reach 75% with a bowl, and 100% with a playoff performance, or 11 wins. Rhule seems like a good guy, but as a coach, he is less important than his coordinators and probably some position coaches. At some point reason will win out.
I see a upward trajectory with rhule
Rhule was never looking to replace Satt after 1 year, that's just a blatant mistruth. And the critique against buddy hires is very fair given what we've seen. Riley brought most of his staff here, guys he knew a long time, and it was a disaster. Frost brought nearly his whole staff over from UCF, and it was a disaster. And Rhule brought in people he knew from Baylor and Temple to coach the offense, and it was a disaster. In any coaching transition, there's a chance to hire the best available guy rather than your buddy who's been with you. When you don't take that chance to upgrade staff and instead make buddy hires, as we've seen, the track record of that actually working out is abysmal.
