I have a lot of sayings. One of them is that there are three directions for a G5 program to go: Retirement home, wifey or young fling. All three offer benefits and downsides. Let's look at this deeper.
Retirement Home
This is what UTSA did with Larry Coker. Hal Mumme, Houston Nutt and Paul Wulff would line up with this thinking, and those names were thrown around in one form or another during this search. The benefits are obvious: A name coach comes to a smaller program and brings credibility and attention to the school. In theory, that looks great. It rarely works, though. It is human nature to not fight as hard with nothing on the line. Coker's legacy was cemented before he came to UTSA. For all the hand-wringing and love shown towards Coker for "taking a chance on UTSA", it was a win-win for Coker and he was smart enough to know that. He wanted to get back into coaching (and make more money) and there were no expectations at UTSA. He always had the blanket of failure being okay at UTSA because it was a new program. Success was gravy. Coker wasn't a great coach, despite a national championship ring with Butch Davis' players. If he was a great coach, he wouldn't have been vacuuming when Lynn Hickey called him to offer him the job. He would have been coaching. That is what coaches do when they're wanted by other programs.
No one wants Humme, Nutt or Wullff either. That's why none of them are coaching at big schools, or at all. They've been found wanting, and now UTSA is sniffing around and wondering if those guys could be good fits at UTSA. The definition of insanity is doing the same things and expecting different results. A really smart guy said that once.
Wifey
Rice is probably the best example of this philosophy in college. Basically, this one comes down to finding a really good, affordable coach who could potentially stay with the program for 10-15 years. The older coaches rarely last that long because of the grind that comes with recruiting these days. The interesting thing here is David Bailiff, Rice's head coach and the best wifey in the state, is reportedly interested in the job. Former Houston coach Tony Levine is also interested and would fit perfectly in this mold. These guys have head coaching experience. They're steady. You know what you'll get with these guys and athletic departments love safe bets. Guys like Baliff and Levine know how to put together a staff, recruit, etc. They've done it. The downside is, they've done it. You know what you're going to get with these guys. They're likely not the type to lead a team to 10-win seasons based on their track record.
This may be the best bet for UTSA right now. The program isn't in a position to swing-and-miss on this hire. They need to hire a guy who can coach there for the next 5-10 years.
Young Fling
For the reasons I outlined directly above, this option may be out for UTSA. It is my favorite option out of the three, though. It requires forward-thinking and fortitude, so not a ton of schools in UTSA's position take the route. That isn't how these people work usually. They like stability because it is safe and easy. Hiring a "young fling" means you may being looking for a new one in two years. Think Houston and what could potentially happen with Herman. Or what Arkansas State does. AD's don't like being viewed as a stepping-stone, but there is nothing wrong with it. If the guy does move on to a bigger job, it usually means he was successful and left the program he was at previously in better position. The issue: it doesn't always work. The Roadrunners would be hard-pressed to take that chance right now, which is why I think some names like Jeff Traylor never got a real look by Hickey and crew.
Retirement Home
This is what UTSA did with Larry Coker. Hal Mumme, Houston Nutt and Paul Wulff would line up with this thinking, and those names were thrown around in one form or another during this search. The benefits are obvious: A name coach comes to a smaller program and brings credibility and attention to the school. In theory, that looks great. It rarely works, though. It is human nature to not fight as hard with nothing on the line. Coker's legacy was cemented before he came to UTSA. For all the hand-wringing and love shown towards Coker for "taking a chance on UTSA", it was a win-win for Coker and he was smart enough to know that. He wanted to get back into coaching (and make more money) and there were no expectations at UTSA. He always had the blanket of failure being okay at UTSA because it was a new program. Success was gravy. Coker wasn't a great coach, despite a national championship ring with Butch Davis' players. If he was a great coach, he wouldn't have been vacuuming when Lynn Hickey called him to offer him the job. He would have been coaching. That is what coaches do when they're wanted by other programs.
No one wants Humme, Nutt or Wullff either. That's why none of them are coaching at big schools, or at all. They've been found wanting, and now UTSA is sniffing around and wondering if those guys could be good fits at UTSA. The definition of insanity is doing the same things and expecting different results. A really smart guy said that once.
Wifey
Rice is probably the best example of this philosophy in college. Basically, this one comes down to finding a really good, affordable coach who could potentially stay with the program for 10-15 years. The older coaches rarely last that long because of the grind that comes with recruiting these days. The interesting thing here is David Bailiff, Rice's head coach and the best wifey in the state, is reportedly interested in the job. Former Houston coach Tony Levine is also interested and would fit perfectly in this mold. These guys have head coaching experience. They're steady. You know what you'll get with these guys and athletic departments love safe bets. Guys like Baliff and Levine know how to put together a staff, recruit, etc. They've done it. The downside is, they've done it. You know what you're going to get with these guys. They're likely not the type to lead a team to 10-win seasons based on their track record.
This may be the best bet for UTSA right now. The program isn't in a position to swing-and-miss on this hire. They need to hire a guy who can coach there for the next 5-10 years.
Young Fling
For the reasons I outlined directly above, this option may be out for UTSA. It is my favorite option out of the three, though. It requires forward-thinking and fortitude, so not a ton of schools in UTSA's position take the route. That isn't how these people work usually. They like stability because it is safe and easy. Hiring a "young fling" means you may being looking for a new one in two years. Think Houston and what could potentially happen with Herman. Or what Arkansas State does. AD's don't like being viewed as a stepping-stone, but there is nothing wrong with it. If the guy does move on to a bigger job, it usually means he was successful and left the program he was at previously in better position. The issue: it doesn't always work. The Roadrunners would be hard-pressed to take that chance right now, which is why I think some names like Jeff Traylor never got a real look by Hickey and crew.
