(Written by kencraw)

Ragnarok over at CGB has a great post about how we place so much emphasis on the head coach to the exclusion of everything else and what the consequences of doing that is: Read it here.

I generally agree on the implications of this reality, but I don’t think the solutions provided are very workable. Basically he suggests that the solution is to emphasize the rest of the program so that no one guy can take it down. I mostly agree with his list of what makes up the rest of the program, but I think each of them are difficult to promote/maintain outside of the coach.

I’ll run through each one of them he listed:

• Assistant coaches: The big problem here is that all head coaches demand that they bring in their own coordinators. And why shouldn’t they in today’s environment where they’ll reap all the success (or failure) of the program? Rag mentions the idea of bringin in assistants to groom for the head coaching spot down the road and while this idea has some merit it has a lot of pratical problems. For one, the list of head coaches who were internal promotions that were a failure is a long one including both of Cal’s most recent internal hires: Gilbertson (who also failed as an internal promotion at UW) and Holmoe. The jump from coordinator to head coach is a difficult one. Even Tedford, who has done really well, has had some bumps in the road as he’s had to learn how to stop being the offensive coordinator and focus just on being the head coach.
• Academics: This is great as far as it goes, but it has two problems: One, the biggest and best recruits are thinking NFL not their fallback job in the real world. Two, only certain schools have this and it’s very hard for the school to turn it around based on athletic desires to make it better. (not that it wouldn’t be noble if it could be done)
• Facilities: This has the chicken and the egg problem. When the program isn’t successful it’s very hard to get donors to contribute money. Cal is the perfect example. We needed Tedford to turn the program around before the SAHPC could be built. And of course once you find that coach, they’re going to get “god status”, just like at Cal.
• Location: This has the same problems as Academics as you’ve either got it or you don’t and it’s almost impossible to change it substantially. Plus it also suffers from the NFL problem of not being a big factor for top athletes who see this as a stepping stone.
• Other things that don’t change with head coach: There’s just not much here to rely on. Big donors (like Nike for Oregon)? Well that risks a different sort of problem that’ll get you in trouble with the NCAA if it’s not sold right. Strong set of young players (or good recruiting classes)? Yup, that can most definitely be used, but it’s not a headliner sort of thing. About the only thing I can think of that can be used is success of the program with proof that it transcends multiple head coaches. Boise State can do that as can the big programs like USC and Florida. But even at those schools, they’ve had down times and for recruits since they’re only going to be there for 4-5 years, hearing that the program will be good in the long run doesn’t give them much confidence if the program looks to be entering a dry spell.

Overall, I think it is because of the difficulty of selling these other items that the head coach, the singular place a program can put all of their marbles, has become the focal point. It’s similar to politics where the president gets all the glory (or blame) for whatever happens in the country no matter how much or little it was their doing.

The same is going to be true for head coaches.