10-15-2025, 05:58 AM
The value of a big name is it gives us a jolt at a time when our roster is crap and we are badly in need of an overall boost in recruiting as we are mired in a self-reinforcing doom spiral of bad players breed bad results breed bad players breed….
I think there is a solid theory of the case that Luck at the helm + gradually increasing enthusiasm around the program + eye-catching money via big donations + a bold-faced name nobody could ignore = the thing that can help us get out of the doom spiral. In this scenario even an old-timer with less fire/work ethic may be what we need more than a typical hire we hope pans out. In any case, it is of course highly unlikely Saban or Swinney would come.
GK3’s questions on cost/resources are key. Obviously my top 3-4 categories are not happening if we aren’t swinging some big shots and deploying competitive resources. You aren’t competitive below $5 million a year, serious below $6 million a year, or approaching impressive below $7 million a year, to say nothing of the big bucks that would be required for buyouts in many cases. I don’t know where we will slot. But with Levin, Donahoe, and Luck on board and big-time fundraising in full swing, I think it’s possible we swing big.
If we can’t slot in the serious or impressive range financially or even if we just conclude that an ambitious younger guy on the rise is what we need regardless, the question of who is the next Leipold or Cignetti (or Campbell o Klieman….) is an important one. Kinne, Sumrall, and Golesh are leading candidates for that. But not all rising guys are attractive Stanford fits (extremely hard to see Kinne at Stanford, for example) and, most importantly, if we can see it so can others and it’s a very crowded market right now.
We have lost our first mover advantage in the coaching carousel now that it’s in full swing and we, like many others including much more attractive programs, are still exploring. To me it is inescapable that we not only need to evaluate/hire well but we need to demonstrate a seriousness of purpose/resources that lets attractive candidates know we have a vision that is equally or more compelling to their other suitors.
Like I said, Swinney, Stoops, Leipold, Kleiman, Smith, Silverfield, and Huff are who I would prioritize.
P.S. Agree that Roman’s resume has red flags. To me Roman or Will Stein are attractive only in the instant offense sense. If we aren’t going to bring in a big bold-faced name who can supercharge recruiting then we need to find a way to succeed despite a lack of talent for several years. Getting somebody who can get offensive line play right like Roman or Silverfield or can scheme advantage like Roman or Stein could be attractive.
I think there is a solid theory of the case that Luck at the helm + gradually increasing enthusiasm around the program + eye-catching money via big donations + a bold-faced name nobody could ignore = the thing that can help us get out of the doom spiral. In this scenario even an old-timer with less fire/work ethic may be what we need more than a typical hire we hope pans out. In any case, it is of course highly unlikely Saban or Swinney would come.
GK3’s questions on cost/resources are key. Obviously my top 3-4 categories are not happening if we aren’t swinging some big shots and deploying competitive resources. You aren’t competitive below $5 million a year, serious below $6 million a year, or approaching impressive below $7 million a year, to say nothing of the big bucks that would be required for buyouts in many cases. I don’t know where we will slot. But with Levin, Donahoe, and Luck on board and big-time fundraising in full swing, I think it’s possible we swing big.
If we can’t slot in the serious or impressive range financially or even if we just conclude that an ambitious younger guy on the rise is what we need regardless, the question of who is the next Leipold or Cignetti (or Campbell o Klieman….) is an important one. Kinne, Sumrall, and Golesh are leading candidates for that. But not all rising guys are attractive Stanford fits (extremely hard to see Kinne at Stanford, for example) and, most importantly, if we can see it so can others and it’s a very crowded market right now.
We have lost our first mover advantage in the coaching carousel now that it’s in full swing and we, like many others including much more attractive programs, are still exploring. To me it is inescapable that we not only need to evaluate/hire well but we need to demonstrate a seriousness of purpose/resources that lets attractive candidates know we have a vision that is equally or more compelling to their other suitors.
Like I said, Swinney, Stoops, Leipold, Kleiman, Smith, Silverfield, and Huff are who I would prioritize.
P.S. Agree that Roman’s resume has red flags. To me Roman or Will Stein are attractive only in the instant offense sense. If we aren’t going to bring in a big bold-faced name who can supercharge recruiting then we need to find a way to succeed despite a lack of talent for several years. Getting somebody who can get offensive line play right like Roman or Silverfield or can scheme advantage like Roman or Stein could be attractive.