Posted by colonels19 on 10/23/2013 10:08:00 PM (view original):
CS doesn't want to say anything concrete so no one can "point to" anything as a defense of their situation.  It's understandable, but perhaps there should be more transparency with the process to begin with.

to quote CS the job criteria are " Success, Loyalty, Reputation and Experience" We can all track loyalty, reputation, and experience with the stats that are publicly available but there is no definition of success and CS refuses to give any insight. So the only criteria that matters is completely opaque.

Posted by girt25 on 10/23/2013 11:22:00 PM (view original):
Doomey, the biggest thing is what you've done in the last 4-5 seasons, which is the way it's always been. And the most recent season or two count the most within that.

Your last four seasons at Stanford were uninspiring (average of 13 losses, 30-30 the last two seasons, only one NT win, basically just a very average BCS program  and the recent 13-16 season is just a dream crusher).

His last four seasons had a better W/L, a S16 appearance, a little bit better average RPI ... granted, there is no question he did it in an easier conference. For that, we can discount the W/L record. But his postseason success was actually a little better than yours over this time, as were his RPIs.

I think it's fair to argue that your longevity could've/should've trumped these recent advantages. I really think that 13-16 season crushed you, and if you would've had a more normal season that you would've gotten the gig.

You've hurt yourself pretty badly by scheduling non-con games you'd lose. Playing in a tough conference where you've basically been averaging about 8-8 over the last 4-5 seasons, you need to schedule to go 10-0 in non-con. If you're one of the better BCS teams in your conference you can take more chances. Ultimately, I actually believe if you would've scheduled smarter in non-con, you would've gotten the job.

Your analysis is fine but the issue is CS gives no insight into what matters so opinions are just that, opinions, nothing to base them on

You are right on point regarding my resume, girt, uninspiring. Not all that surprised I didn't get it, my long term resume would have to be considered (they just use last 10). What floors me is the resume that did. That resume should get you a good B program, B+. Not an Elite. Makes no sense. Dude only has 3 Nt wins in D1 and none in the past 3 seasons. No way that gets you hired at a premiere program. Like I said, that's a great resume to step up to a lower-mid BCS.

CS gives no insight into what matters? how do you figure? besides, you can pay attention and get a pretty good feel for what kind of resume it takes to get what kind of job. girt is a pretty sharp dude, its still an opinion, but its not nothing to base them on...

only thing i disagree with is "we can discount his W/L for that (being in a much easier conference)" - i dont think it works that way, but im not sure.

Posted by colonels19 on 10/23/2013 10:08:00 PM (view original):
CS doesn't want to say anything concrete so no one can "point to" anything as a defense of their situation.  It's understandable, but perhaps there should be more transparency with the process to begin with.

And perhaps Seble should drop by the forums more than once every six months.

Here's an interesting factoid, Arizona's prestige just went up from a B to B+ After the hire. Go figure.