Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Hornet22, post: 4123991, member: 8508"] I think in sports, organizations want to bring in a leader who has a proven track record of winning. Yes, there are instances where giving a young up and coming coach with a lack of experience leading an entire team a crack at the job which can ultimately create a more fair and balanced way of vetting resumes. But let’s be fair, the majority of this board (not saying you BL) is excited about the Mora hire why? Well, he has experience being a head coach at the collegiate and pro levels which means what? He was networked into the position via who he knows and the relationships he’s made along the way. Even if the hire was tasked to a search committee and dozens of resumes were looked at, the point you make of trying to find qualified candidates would ultimately lead to who has attained the most success at coaching. So the perusing of said resumes would only be a perfunctory exercise where the true objective would be exclusion of coaches that may have articulated a wonderful vision but lack the experience as a HC. Unlike a regular state job, head coaching and sports hires are usually tied to large monetary gains or losses and are almost immediate in their impact. These hires affect fanbases that are the vehicles of the support needed to make the money and grow the franchise. There might be a few fans out there that wouldn’t mind a no name candidate that articulates a great vision for UConn football that was hired through a fair and balanced process that has absolutely zero wins as a HC. But unlike the whole 2-3 years of experience disclaimer that lots of jobs add to their postings, the “qualified” sports coach usually needs to display a record of winning which places them in a smaller fraternity. You’re catering to the fanbase. Fanbases don’t really want equity in the HC hiring process- they want a proven winner. Just my humble opinion. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach