Marcus Trice supporting Chico for HC job

[SilverEagle]

Right, it doesn't happen a lot. Also, quite a few made an improvement from the coach that was fired.

Moral of the story? Don't get geeked up because Chico wins a game or 2. That's what usually happens in a situation like this. 

It doesn't happen very often, but that doesn't mean that every interim coach that was passed on would have been a failure if they had been hired for the job. To me, a study where every interim coach was hired to take over and then their subsequent records looked at would be a much more valid study.

What this study showed me more than anything is that AD's don't take chances. And if you get passed over to be permanent HC, you end up being pseudo shunned. A strange clan-like behavior if you ask me........but then, I'm sure you never would.

Edited November 2, 2015 by SilverEagle

[HoustonEagle]

we seem to have this debate every year so let me try to address this.  You cannot go to a recruit and tell them you have a 1-year contract and win said recruit against any other coach recruiting against you.  The standard contract term for an FBS football head coach is 5 years.  Please stop offering up short term contracts as viable options for our struggling program right now.

Secondly, I appreciate everything Chico is doing.  He is clearly out performing his predecessor.  However, Chico has to take responsibility for the lack of success under his predecessor as well.  QB evaluation and recruiting was unacceptable and that is why he and the rest of the staff have got to be replaced.

Respectfully disagree.  Players do not think of contracts when they consider if the coach will be with the team through their tenure. They look at prior results, news reports and bulletin board speculation.  Those three take about 20 minutes of research and give the clearest picture. 

[SilverEagle]

Respectfully disagree.  Players do not think of contracts when they consider if the coach will be with the team through their tenure. They look at prior results, news reports and bulletin board speculation.  Those three take about 20 minutes of research and give the clearest picture. 

Your competition is the one that will point out to the recruit the tenuous situation of a coach with a one year contract.

[HoustonEagle]

Your competition is the one that will point out to the recruit the tenuous situation of a coach with a one year contract.

No doubt, but then who does not re-sign the coach that just took them to a bowl game?  Conversely, who re-signs the coach when he has strung together losing seasons and is getting absolutely hammered on the score board?  Hypothetically, lets say Mac is still here. Do you think any recruit gives a damn that he has 3 more years on his contract?

I will not claim that the coaches contract is not important to a recruit.  It's just in the back of the line compared to the reality called results.   Long term contracts are much more about the current job market than about recruiting. That name hire we want to make is going to ask for 5 years.  We most likely will be pushing for 4.  How bad you want said coach is how the gap gets closed.  Yet all of this just obfuscates the truth. It is really just about the total compensation number.   
 

[ADLER]

Fine by me if Canales is signed to a 3 year contract, but only as long as not a single cent is guaranteed past year one. There's no way that North Texas should wind up buying out the contract of a very questionable interim.

He needs to prove to us that he can do it as the head guy. Trial By Fire is the only way. Get results or get lost.

Would Canales be up to that challenge?

[GMG_Dallas]

Excuse me if this has already been answered, but in his 30 years of coaching, why hasn't Chico been given a chance at HC job somewhere? I am really trying to find reasons to like him as our next HC but I just can't agree with the move if it were to happen. If he were that good, he would be somewhere else by now. This is a response to all of those saying give him a shot. Unless we win out the rest of the year (except the Tennessee game) I just don't see a reason why you give him a chance at HC.

Edited November 2, 2015 by GMG_Dallas

[greenminer]

Respectfully disagree.  Players do not think of contracts when they consider if the coach will be with the team through their tenure. They look at prior results, news reports and bulletin board speculation.  Those three take about 20 minutes of research and give the clearest picture. 

 

If a coach comes into your home and tries to pitch his system and your role in his system, you don't think it matters that the coach won't be there after 1 or 2 years?

[VideoEagle]

 

If a coach comes into your home and tries to pitch his system and your role in his system, you don't think it matters that the coach won't be there after 1 or 2 years?

Or that the university has so little faith in the coach they are doing everything possible to make it easy and cheap to get rid of him. If the university doesn't trust its own coach, why should a recruit? That is the exact argument rival coaches will use. 

I've known several family friends who heard this exact argument put to me and did not go with the short term coach. While I'm sure there are a few recruits who don't care, many more do. 

[GreenTexan13]

If Chico beats Tennessee, then I say give him the job. Otherwise, we are starting to go, "full North Texas" if we sign him as our HC. He definitely improved the team after Mac's departure. But we need that new coach smell here at UNT.

Another HUGE thing that concerns me. Is the example that we are shown with SMU. They are still terrible, and are running a new coach to turn things around. Is this a case of giving a coach a rebuilding year, or they just hired themselves a dud? I would think that a new hire could do better then 1-7 so far, and I would expect our new coach to throw us a better record next season at this time.

[MeanGreenTexan]

If Chico beats Tennessee, then I say give him the job. Otherwise, we are starting to go, "full North Texas" if we sign him as our HC. He definitely improved the team after Mac's departure. But we need that new coach smell here at UNT.

Another HUGE thing that concerns me. Is the example that we are shown with SMU. They are still terrible, and are running a new coach to turn things around. Is this a case of giving a coach a rebuilding year, or they just hired themselves a dud? I would think that a new hire could do better then 1-7 so far, and I would expect our new coach to throw us a better record next season at this time.

Consider all of the parallels between SMU last season and UNT, then temper expectations for 2016 accordingly.

[GreenTexan13]

Consider all of the parallels between SMU last season and UNT, then temper expectations for 2016 accordingly.

Only difference is that their coach quit, ours got fired...

[MeanGreenTexan]

Only difference is that their coach quit, ours got fired...

because our AD does not know how to keep that crap on the inside and coerce a 'resignation'.

[Side Show Joe]

 

Personally, I really like Canales. When he took over for Dodge he proved to be a better and more competent coach. Now, he has taken over for Mac, and again he has proven to be the better coach for the job.

The main reason Canales won't get serious consideration for the job is because over his time at UNT he hasn't lured big time Texas recruits to our campus. If he were to continue winning and North Texas finishes the season on a winning streak, and he lands a couple of P5 caliber players before the end of the season, he would have to get consideration for the job. That's a lot of things that would have to fall his way, and it's not going to happen.

But his biggest problem is no top notch high school recruit, or any FBS level recruit for that matter, is going to commit to play for an interim head coach.

Sorry Chico, but we have to land a coach that can out recruit the other C-USA programs and the majority of the Texas programs.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Side Show Joe

[MeanGreenRoadrunner]

In my short time here and from what I've seen Canales do this year and what I've heard he did pre-McCarney, he deserves a full year tryout.  If only to prove that he can manage a solid team.  It's too easy to look good when teams dont have tape on your game plan - coaches are creatures of habit.  Nobody has real video on Smith at the QB spot.  If he pulls off a winning record in his short time at HC this year, give him the spot next year.  If he can duplicate it, then it's real.  If not, well the success was just like any other player/team who catches teams off guard only because they've never seen them.

It's that sophomore season that can bite-ya!

[Cr1028]

Solution: Since we are concerned he may fail if given a long-term deal and we are also concerned about losing recruits because of his lack of a long-term deal, let us do this.....

Give him the standard 5yr contract with 400-500k base, performance-based incentives up to an additional $500k for a max of $900k to $1M. Make the buyout for said contract 1 year's base salary. If he failed miserably after a year or two, we lose $500k max, rather than another $2M. If he was successful and someone tried to lure him away, then we could worry about increasing the salary and buyout or even just allow the other team to steal him. Arkansas State and WKU have been doing pretty damn well having their coaches poached annually. I'd like to have  a problem like that here. Ultimately, if it came to someone trying to hire him away, we would see if his loyalty was truly to our university or to the opportunity of being a head coach.

[FirefightnRick]

Can you elaborate? I don't follow why a bad extension would negate the value of a 5 year contract.

Mac had a five year contract...then in year three got it extended another two or three years.  But despite all the wonderful guaranteed years of pay and employment Mac had in the bank it never paid off in the recruiting battles for him.  Same for Stephens...same for Petersen...and same for Benford.  

I have never agreed with the "A coach must have a 5 year contract or he won't be able to recruit" argument. Unless the boss of the guy recruiting you has a last name Saban, Myer, Stoops or Patterson your kidding yourself if you believe they will for sure be there your entire four/five years.

 

Rick

Fine by me if Canales is signed to a 3 year contract, but only as long as not a single cent is guaranteed past year one. There's no way that North Texas should wind up buying out the contract of a very questionable interim.

He needs to prove to us that he can do it as the head guy. Trial By Fire is the only way. Get results or get lost.

Would Canales be up to that challenge?

Agree but this would require some sound,  hard nosed negotiation with a demand for accountability that protects the interest of North Texas up front before anything else.  And you and I know that ain't gonna happen. 

Rick    

Edited November 3, 2015 by FirefightnRick

[greenminer]

 

Mac had a five year contract...then in year three got it extended another two or three years.  But despite all the wonderful guaranteed years of pay and employment Mac had in the bank it never paid off in the recruiting battles for him.  Same for Stephens...same for Petersen...and same for Benford.  

Unless the boss of the guy recruiting you has a last name Saban, Myer, Stoops or Patterson your kidding yourself if you believe they will for sure be there your entire four/five years.

 

A <5 year contract will hurt you in the recruiting battles.  That's not saying 5+ year contracts will win you recruiting battles.

Also, the contract term is pretty much irrelevant to the benefit of the program if 1) you're a shit recruiter and 2) stubborn in your game day preps.

[FirefightnRick]

 

A <5 year contract will hurt you in the recruiting battles.  

Can you prove this?  And can you explain all the countless examples of coaches all over the country bringing in recruits in years three..four or five?

Remember all those Seniors that won the HOD bowl?  What year of his contract was Dodge in when they signed?  Year three or four?

 

Rick

 

 

[Dr. Seuss]

Can you prove this?  And can you explain all the countless examples of coaches all over the country bringing in recruits in years three..four or five?

Remember all those Seniors that won the HOD bowl?  What year of his contract was Dodge in when they signed?  Year three or four?

 

Rick

 

 

Yes, the market says that the HC gets a min 5 year contract.  If I'm wrong, please find how many head coaches in the last 3 years signed less than a 5 year deal. 

[FirefightnRick]

Yes, the market says that the HC gets a min 5 year contract.  If I'm wrong, please find how many head coaches in the last 3 years signed less than a 5 year deal. 

The market for the new head coach or the market for the interim head coach..which was really Adler's point.  

And the last time I did a search like that it was for basketball and I found nearly 20 percent of the D1 coaches signed the previous 8 years had done so for 4 years or less...including the current coach at UNLV, who signed for 3 years, led the team to 26 wins and an NCAA bid...all under Smatresk's watch.  All the while our guy in charge of the coal mine on Bonnie Brea was telling me and everyone who would listen that..."no coach worth his salt would come to coach basketball at North Texas for less than five years".

So I guess he finally found a coach who really isn't worth their salt...our own Jalie Mitchell, right?

 

Only At North Texas.

 

Rick

Edited November 3, 2015 by FirefightnRick

[Dr. Seuss]

The market for the new head coach or the market for the interim head coach..which was really Adler's point.  

And the last time I did a search like that it was for basketball and I found nearly 20 percent of the D1 coaches signed the previous 8 years had done so for 4 years or less...including the current coach at UNLV, who signed for 3 years, led the team to 26 wins and an NCAA bid...all under Smatresk's watch.  All the while our guy in charge of the coal mine on Bonnie Brea was telling me and everyone who would listen that..."no coach worth his salt would come to coach basketball at North Texas for less than five years".

So I guess he finally found a coach who really isn't worth their salt...our own Jalie Mitchell, right?

 

Only At North Texas.

 

Rick

Im talking about football not basketball or woman's basketball.  My guess is less than 10% signed less than 5 years and less than 5% signed less than 4 years 0% less than 3 years.  Again, this is FBS College coaches only.

[FirefightnRick]

Yes, the market says that the HC gets a min 5 year contract.  If I'm wrong, please find how many head coaches in the last 3 years signed less than a 5 year deal.

Ok here you go,..the very first coach I thought of.....

ULM's Todd Berry......

Signed in 2010 for four years at an average of $187k a year.

Was he "worth his salt"?  You be the judge.

In only his third year he beat Arkansas, lost in overtime to Auburn, hosted Baylor and fought them to a 5 point loss and earned an 8-4 overall record and a trip to the Independance Bowl as possibly the nation's lowest paid head coach in FBS.

http://archive.thenewsstar.com/article/20100226/SPORTS/100225027/System-board-considers-new-contracts-ULM-s-Berry-Tech-s-Van-de-Velde-Dykes

By the way...if it is so damn important that it's known by all that a coach has a 5, 6 or a 7 year contract you would think this information would leap out at you from the computer screen during a quick search of any coach rather than having to go through countless archival searches through sub media pages.  This info should be in the bio of all 128 coaches..right up top in bold print, right?  But for some reason it's not.   Why?  Because recruits don't give a crap about it.  They want playing time and they want to play for a winner at a school that can help them advance themselves.

Rick

 

 

Edited November 3, 2015 by FirefightnRick

[Dr. Seuss]

Ok here you go,..the very first coach I thought of.....

ULM's Todd Berry......

Signed in 2010 for four years at an average of $187k a year.

Was he "worth his salt"?  You be the judge.

In only his third year he beat Arkansas, lost in overtime to Auburn, hosted Baylor and fought them to a 5 point loss and earned an 8-4 overall record and a trip to the Independance Bowl as possibly the nation's lowest paid head coach in FBS.

http://archive.thenewsstar.com/article/20100226/SPORTS/100225027/System-board-considers-new-contracts-ULM-s-Berry-Tech-s-Van-de-Velde-Dykes

By the way...if it is so damn important that it's known by all that a coach has a 5, 6 year or a 7 year contract you would think this information would leap out at you from the computer screen during a quick search of any coach rather than having to go through countless archival searches through sub media pages.

Rick

 

 

The question was in the past 3 years, but hey, we can go with this.  However, there are going to be outliers, I never said that it wasn't possible.

 Lets say they're another 2 other coaches that signed a 4 year deal (benefit of the doubt).  Theres about 13 new head coaches a year (low balling it).  Thats less that 5% of the hires, do we want to be where we were or not.. You don't sound like you're wanting this program to grow...

[FirefightnRick]

The question was in the past 3 years, but hey, we can go with this.  However, there are going to be outliers, I never said that it wasn't possible.

 Lets say they're another 2 other coaches that signed a 4 year deal (benefit of the doubt).  Theres about 13 new head coaches a year (low balling it).  Thats less that 5% of the hires, do we want to be where we were or not.. You don't sound like you're wanting this program to grow...

 

You asked for an example and I quickly gave one. I'm not going to search for days to prove something I already know.  I've done it once and won't again.  But if it's within the 3 previous year parameter you want to stick to Berry was extended in 2012 to 2016...another four year contract for even less money than he made in the 2012 season.   Besides....your missing the point.  You may not have meant to say it's never possible but the guy cracking the whip at the coal mine says so.  He's said it so often..like so many other things..that our low-expectation fan base takes it as our only option despite example after example showing it isn't

Believe what you want to believe.  If you think this program is going grow under RV's leadership then there's nothing else to say. Go ahead and let him make the next hire and flush even more money down the toilet.  Who knows..maybe he'll get lucky this time?   I'll believe what I see and hear.   And in '12 I watched a guy with a $187k 4 year contract in his back pocket kick our guy with the 5 year $750k deal's ass. Three years later a guy with even less money, fewer scholarships and a 1 year deal kicked god's gift to salt and skins on the wall's ass between his shoulder blades.

 

Rick

Edited November 3, 2015 by FirefightnRick

[UNT90]

Yes, the market says that the HC gets a min 5 year contract.  If I'm wrong, please find how many head coaches in the last 3 years signed less than a 5 year deal. 

If you are taking a chance with a lesser known guy (read: no other head coaching offers), a four year deal can get done. Seems like a Belt team did this recently.

I see the Chico lunacy/idiocy continues...

Edited November 3, 2015 by UNT90