He left both programs declining and worse off than when he was hired. Neither fan base is glad they hired him.
Chun popping up in AD rumors/moves
- Thread starter chugspig
- Start date
9 of 17 losses were by more than 30 points or the defense coughed up more than 50 points.
And not a good record vs the Texas teams.
The point Biggs is making is that Tubberville wasn't a bad hire for Tech at the time he was hired. It was in response to a post suggesting Leach suing Tech inhibited them from hiring any good coaches. Arguing what Tubberville did at Tech and subsequently at Cinci is irrelevant. What was his resume when he was hired by Tech? 85-40 and an undefeated season at Auburn.
And yet they still had bowl games. It doesn’t change his OVERALL record of success as a HC no matter how much cherry picking there is to deny him that.
I just hope for two things, 1. that Dickert wins out and is the clear choice. 2. They give him enough money to recruit and hire great assistants. Dickert is young, and lacks experience, I think he is more mentally prepared to be a HC than most coordinators, and he doesn't appear to have a big ego. So surrounding himself with quality assistants is key to the future success. My prediction is, if he doesn't win them both we are looking at an entirely new staff. AZ is 1-9, if you can't beat them, the "interview" didn't go well, The UW is a S show right now, I don't care about how we crap our pants in the AC every year, there is no excuse to lose to that sorry ass bunch this year. And I hope Chun has someone lined up. Moos had Leach lined up prior to the original Turd's last game. I'd like to think or at least hope, Chun has a solid plan B.
Last edited:
I'd be surprised if Chun didn't start putting his list of candidates together this summer when it became obvious that Rolo was going to buck the Covid Vax mandate. Love him or hate him, Chun comes across as someone to me that is pretty organized and doesn't like to get caught off guard and unprepared (which is a death knell for an AD that wants to climb the ladder). As fun as it would be for fans to know all the inside games going on in the HC search, we're never going to be privy to all the facts in the process so the second guessing that is coming our way (for whatever choice is made) by the media and fan boards are pretty much going to be "guesses". Some will be very entertaining guesses, but guesses nonetheless.
As far as Dickert, I like his chances and hope he's the guy IF during the interview process he's able to talk thru and have a solid plan for most of the question areas and potential weaknesses that Biggs mentioned in posts past relating to his lack of experience as a head coach. (I've conducted a lot of interviews over the years -- it's easy for candidates to talk about their strengths. I want to hear about what they perceive their weaknesses to be and how well they address them by bringing in systems or people around them. Same applies to experienced HC's interviewing, but with Dickert never having been a HC he's going to need to acknowledge that there are pieces he's never done before but has a plan for his program to address those. By virtue of his "on-the-job" training and incumbency, he's also going to have an inherent advantage in some areas.) At the very least, this will be a very entertaining process to watch.
As far as Dickert, I like his chances and hope he's the guy IF during the interview process he's able to talk thru and have a solid plan for most of the question areas and potential weaknesses that Biggs mentioned in posts past relating to his lack of experience as a head coach. (I've conducted a lot of interviews over the years -- it's easy for candidates to talk about their strengths. I want to hear about what they perceive their weaknesses to be and how well they address them by bringing in systems or people around them. Same applies to experienced HC's interviewing, but with Dickert never having been a HC he's going to need to acknowledge that there are pieces he's never done before but has a plan for his program to address those. By virtue of his "on-the-job" training and incumbency, he's also going to have an inherent advantage in some areas.) At the very least, this will be a very entertaining process to watch.
Nothing is better from an interview standpoint than watching a guy going about his business for two years. Interviews matter a lot more when you don't know the candidate and need to try to form an opinion.
If you interview Dickert, he's going to do well. He'll be able to speak to the challenges facing the team better than an outsider. Especially considering the money being thrown around this off-season, he's should be able to talk himself into the job.
I've been on hiring committees who have interviewed both underlings and outsiders for a job when the current manager. The underlings were able to talk a much better game than the outsider. They knew all the pieces and players and could articulate how they would lead. One of them convinced a skeptical room to pick them despite an initial gut reaction that they weren't up to the task. I was one of those people who couldn't believe I recommended them for the job. Disaster ensued.
I've learned to trust my gut on people after I've seen them work at a job for a year or two. This is why I thought we should have an up or down decision on Dickert fairly early on. The longer he goes without a contract the higher the likelihood of overthinking the decision.
I agree to a certain extent. My experience is much the same -- if you let the interviewee (any interviewee) talk about what they know about the job and their strengths, you only get part feel good vibes back. If you force them to talk about your perception of their potential weaknesses, and make them address the portions of the job they may not be well suited for, you figure out if they are the guy/gal for the job.
Similar threads
