CBS Coaches Hot Seat

[slugboy]

Key debuts at “All good…for now”

2023 College Football Hot Seat Rankings: Evaluating the job security of all 133 FBS coaches

From 'win or be fired' to 'untouchable,' every college football coach gets rated by Dennis Dodd

www.cbssports.com

Around the conference, Mario Cristobal has dropped from untouchable to “All good…for now”, and Dino Babers probably has the hottest seat in the ACC.

This is better than astrology, but It’s just ok armchair stuff. For Key, he needs to prove he can move the program in the right direction, like Duke’s coach did last year. It’s not hate—it’s that “new” coaches need to show it on the field to be viewed as “safe”.

Key wasn’t the hot name, where coaches like Brohm and Jamey Chadwell were. Even Chadwell wouldn’t have been untouchable here IMO.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

It’s usually a pretty good indicator.

ETA: I thought this was the other Hot Seat poll where they rank them. This one has a “needs to win or be fired”!
That fits almost every coach.

 

[CEB]

Key debuts at “All good…for now”

2023 College Football Hot Seat Rankings: Evaluating the job security of all 133 FBS coaches

From 'win or be fired' to 'untouchable,' every college football coach gets rated by Dennis Dodd

www.cbssports.com

Around the conference, Mario Cristobal has dropped from untouchable to “All good…for now”, and Dino Babers probably has the hottest seat in the ACC.

This is better than astrology, but It’s just ok armchair stuff. For Key, he needs to prove he can move the program in the right direction, like Duke’s coach did last year. It’s not hate—it’s that “new” coaches need to show it on the field to be viewed as “safe”.

Key wasn’t the hot name, where coaches like Brohm and Jamey Chadwell were. Even Chadwell wouldn’t have been untouchable here IMO.

I know there is only so much nuance you can work into a 1-5 rating, but I find it odd to think Key is on the same level as Elliott and Pry. Maybe Elliott benefits from some apathy toward football up there in Cville, but I can’t imagine folks in Blacksburg will sit quietly for long.
Think of it this way; if GT, VT and UVA all post 4-5 wins this season, Key is coming back without question and will be a whole lot more comfy than those two.

Btw, the off field issues ought to have Kirby at “1” but this goes to show how little the sports fans care about other stuff.

 

[jojatk]

Key debuts at “All good…for now”

2023 College Football Hot Seat Rankings: Evaluating the job security of all 133 FBS coaches

From 'win or be fired' to 'untouchable,' every college football coach gets rated by Dennis Dodd

www.cbssports.com

Around the conference, Mario Cristobal has dropped from untouchable to “All good…for now”, and Dino Babers probably has the hottest seat in the ACC.

This is better than astrology, but It’s just ok armchair stuff. For Key, he needs to prove he can move the program in the right direction, like Duke’s coach did last year. It’s not hate—it’s that “new” coaches need to show it on the field to be viewed as “safe”.

Key wasn’t the hot name, where coaches like Brohm and Jamey Chadwell were. Even Chadwell wouldn’t have been untouchable here IMO.

There were actually plenty of new coaches at "1" so I disagree that it was just because he's a new coach. Kenny Dillingham at ASU, Hugh Freeze at Auburn, Tim Beck at Coastal Carolina, Tom Herman at FAU, Alex Golesh at USF, Kevin Wilson at Tulsa, Lance Taylor at W. Michigan, Luke Fickell at Wisconsin, Matt Rhule at Nebraska all got "1" despite them being new at their current schools. My point isn't that Key should have gotten a "1" it's just that I don't think the "2" was just because he's new. I think it's a combination of his new-ness and that the perception was J Batt was after different guys and that Brent was second or third choice so that maybe he has less runway. Just my own speculation on what thought process might have led to a "2" and not suggesting he DOES have less runway. Also, several of those guys I mentioned are first time head coaches (I don't count HS as relevant HC experience) so that's not it, either.

 

[slugboy]

There were actually plenty of new coaches at "1" so I disagree that it was just because he's a new coach. Kenny Dillingham at ASU, Hugh Freeze at Auburn, Tim Beck at Coastal Carolina, Tom Herman at FAU, Alex Golesh at USF, Kevin Wilson at Tulsa, Lance Taylor at W. Michigan, Luke Fickell at Wisconsin, Matt Rhule at Nebraska all got "1" despite them being new at their current schools. My point isn't that Key should have gotten a "1" it's just that I don't think the "2" was just because he's new. I think it's a combination of his new-ness and that the perception was J Batt was after different guys and that Brent was second or third choice so that maybe he has less runway. Just my own speculation on what thought process might have led to a "2" and not suggesting he DOES have less runway. Also, several of those guys I mentioned are first time head coaches (I don't count HS as relevant HC experience) so that's not it, either.

I’m not saying he’s new to the school or in his first year as HC *here*—he’s new to head coaching and new to P5 head coaching.

Key was the OC and “head coach in waiting” at UCF.

Matt Rhule has been a successful HC before, and even has NFL time. The others are either known quantities or coaching at a lower level

 

[roadkill]

I’m not saying he’s new to the school or in his first year as HC *here*—he’s new to head coaching and new to P5 head coaching.

Key was the OC and “head coach in waiting” at UCF.

Matt Rhule has been a successful HC before, and even has NFL time. The others are either known quantities or coaching at a lower level

Been looking at the range of ratings for first-year coaches and attempting to find consistencies and correlations. There are some logical explanations for Key's rating. There also could be something akin to Hanlon's razor at work here. I think you nailed it with "This is better than astrology, but It’s just ok armchair stuff.".

 

[jojatk]

I’m not saying he’s new to the school or in his first year as HC *here*—he’s new to head coaching and new to P5 head coaching.

Key was the OC and “head coach in waiting” at UCF.

Matt Rhule has been a successful HC before, and even has NFL time. The others are either known quantities or coaching at a lower level

I still think that's not right which is why I pointed out that some of those other guys who got "1" were ALSO brand new to head coaching. I looked at the coaching histories of most of them and some of them are no more known quantities as head coaches based on their histories than Brent. Some are known but have poor histories but got "1" (Tom Herman for example). So again, I'm not arguing about the rating Brent got. Just saying that there's got to be more to it than that he's new to being a head coach. I happen to agree that if Matt Rhule gets a "1" that Brent gets a "2." That makes total sense to me. Some of the other guys getting "1" while Brent got a "2" doesn't make sense to me. Kenny Dillingham at ASU, Tim Beck at Coastal Carolina, Alex Golesh at USF, Kevin Wilson at Tulsa, Lance Taylor at W. Michigan I THINK don't have any real HC experience, either. I'm doing that from research earlier in the day so I could be mistaken on one or two of them.

 

[roadkill]

I still think that's not right which is why I pointed out that some of those other guys who got "1" were ALSO brand new to head coaching. I looked at the coaching histories of most of them and some of them are no more known quantities as head coaches based on their histories than Brent. Some are known but have poor histories but got "1" (Tom Herman for example). So again, I'm not arguing about the rating Brent got. Just saying that there's got to be more to it than that he's new to being a head coach. I happen to agree that if Matt Rhule gets a "1" that Brent gets a "2." That makes total sense to me. Some of the other guys getting "1" while Brent got a "2" doesn't make sense to me. Kenny Dillingham at ASU, Tim Beck at Coastal Carolina, Alex Golesh at USF, Kevin Wilson at Tulsa, Lance Taylor at W. Michigan I THINK don't have any real HC experience, either. I'm doing that from research earlier in the day so I could be mistaken on one or two of them.

I think trying to make sense of this list is going to be an exercise in frustration. I can see assigning either a "1" or a "2" for first-year coaches, but a "0" (untouchable) or a "3" (pressure mounting) for coaches that have yet to coach a game in their new job? The list contains two of each. This reads like something thrown together in 15 minutes over a couple of beers.

 

[jojatk]

I think trying to make sense of this list is going to be an exercise in frustration. I can see assigning either a "1" or a "2" for first-year coaches, but a "0" (untouchable) or a "3" (pressure mounting) for coaches that have yet to coach a game in their new job? The list contains two of each. This reads like something thrown together in 15 minutes over a couple of beers.

Totally fair observation

 

[GaTech4ever]

Isn’t the primary difference between CBK and other first year head coaches on the list that he actually… won big games as the head coach at the same school he’s currently at? Wouldn’t that inherently give him a longer leash than any other first year head coach who’s never won a big game at their current school before?

Edit: The point I’m making is separate from @jojatk’s point about being a new head coach vs. never having been a head coach before.

 

[jojatk]

Isn’t the primary difference between CBK and other first year head coaches on the list that he actually… won big games as the head coach at the same school he’s currently at? Wouldn’t that inherently give him a longer leash than any other first year head coach who’s never won a big game at their current school before?

Edit: The point I’m making is separate from @jojatk’s point about being a new head coach vs. never having been a head coach before.

You would think so. It's either that there are other factors that they felt gave him a bit less security OR that @roadkill is right and the list wasn't super well thought out for every coach. Or a combination of both.

 

[roadkill]

You would think so. It's either that there are other factors that they felt gave him a bit less security OR that @roadkill is right and the list wasn't super well thought out for every coach. Or a combination of both.

Probably a combination of both. I mean, if you are really trying to be objective about it, there are multiple factors to consider for defining how "hot" the seat should be. For example, the fanbase and booster's expectations are influenced by the school's winning history, both recent and over the last decade or so, as well as the coach's contract (both salary and buyout), along with a coach's record at the school. So even for a coach with no record yet, it's a complex thing to gauge accurately. I doubt the writers tried.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Probably a combination of both. I mean, if you are really trying to be objective about it, there are multiple factors to consider for defining how "hot" the seat should be. For example, the fanbase and booster's expectations are influenced by the school's winning history, both recent and over the last decade or so, as well as the coach's contract (both salary and buyout), along with a coach's record at the school. So even for a coach with no record yet, it's a complex thing to gauge accurately. I doubt the writers tried.

At the end of the day, the perception of most of the nation is that GT didn't have enough cash to hire the coach it was flirting heavily with (Fritz) and "settled" for CBK. Given a choice between a 1 or 2 here, with the perception out there that we settled for CBK, I can totally understand the 2. In a couple of years when we start winning big with him, it will probably get to a 1 or 0.

 

[orientalnc]

At the end of the day, the perception of most of the nation is that GT didn't have enough cash to hire the coach it was flirting heavily with (Fritz) and "settled" for CBK. Given a choice between a 1 or 2 here, with the perception out there that we settled for CBK, I can totally understand the 2. In a couple of years when we start winning big with him, it will probably get to a 1 or 0.

The perception may be exactly that, but what I have come to believe is that Batt and Cabrera didn't want any of the available coaches at their ask. I think Batt had more money but didn't like any of the options better than the guy already in the building.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

The perception may be exactly that, but what I have come to believe is that Batt and Cabrera didn't want any of the available coaches at their ask. I think Batt had more money but didn't like any of the options better than the guy already in the building.

I agree wholeheartedly, but that's not the way it looked to the outside world. All the news was on our back and forth with Fritz and then we announce we are removing the interim tag from CBK. As someone who was in the CBK boat from the beginning, I am extremely happy with the hire, but to other fanbases we look like we settled.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I couldn't care less about the perception in July. What's the perception in February 2024? That's all that's going to matter.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I couldn't care less about the perception in July. What's the perception in February 2024? That's all that's going to matter.

True, but this discussion is centered on why our coach was rated a 2 and not a 1.

 

[forensicbuzz]

True, but this discussion is centered on why our coach was rated a 2 and not a 1.

I understand that and have no problem with the discussion. I'm just saying I don't care why our coach was rated a 2, not a 1. It doesn't really matter because a rating of 1 or 2 won't change anything between now and February. Therefore, this is a pointless exercise other than for discussion (which is okay for another 10 days; then we need to focus on real football).

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I understand that and have no problem with the discussion. I'm just saying I don't care why our coach was rated a 2, not a 1. It doesn't really matter because a rating of 1 or 2 won't change anything between now and February. Therefore, this is a pointless exercise other than for discussion (which is okay for another 10 days; then we need to focus on real football).

I mean, most of this board is a pointless exercise other than for discussion...

LOL. This season can't come fast enough.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

There were actually plenty of new coaches at "1" so I disagree that it was just because he's a new coach. Kenny Dillingham at ASU, Hugh Freeze at Auburn, Tim Beck at Coastal Carolina, Tom Herman at FAU, Alex Golesh at USF, Kevin Wilson at Tulsa, Lance Taylor at W. Michigan, Luke Fickell at Wisconsin, Matt Rhule at Nebraska all got "1" despite them being new at their current schools. My point isn't that Key should have gotten a "1" it's just that I don't think the "2" was just because he's new. I think it's a combination of his new-ness and that the perception was J Batt was after different guys and that Brent was second or third choice so that maybe he has less runway. Just my own speculation on what thought process might have led to a "2" and not suggesting he DOES have less runway. Also, several of those guys I mentioned are first time head coaches (I don't count HS as relevant HC experience) so that's not it, either.

Win some ball games and that runway gets a lot longer. IIWII