It doesn’t seem possible, but you seem like a less intelligent 13th reincarnation of Ord/Ewerz/Helen/Lucy , and since you just joined on 11/17 with 35 posts, hmmm.Go reread posts #44, #50, and #64. If you still don't understand, then you should just give up. You keep asking the same things but with a twist each time that don't change anything. You are truly embarrassing.
Oh, and to answer about other schools doing the same type of hiring is like comparing apples to oranges. I don't know what the other schools' story of how or why they hired coordinators, but I'm sure they were at least groomed beforehand and not thrown into the fire to get there.
I understand very clearly, we hired a proven defensive coordinator with very strong ties to our state, and a seemingly strong leader of men. Will that translate to a successful HC ? I have no idea, but neither do you or anyone else. To say our AD doesn’t care about winning as a result is just dumb. Minnesota had a national search, hired a HC and went from 9 wins to 5, also losing to PU. So as you can see, no matter who you hire there are no guarantees how it will turn out. Fleck may end up doing quite well at UM, as might Allen at IU, but no one knows those answers YET. That is the point you continue to ignore, just because we went from 6 to 5 wins in year 1 proves nothing either way. For some reason many seem to be treating CTA’s tenure as a continuation of CKW’s, it isn’t, nor is it fair to treat it as such. CTA needs to be given time to recruit and develop players before a reasonable assessment can be made.
Please explain why other schools hiring a coordinator is “apples to oranges”, and how exactly guys like Lincoln Riley were “groomed” for their position moreso than CTA. Riley is 34 years old, never a head coach, OC at ECU and 2 years OC at OU, yet OU felt comfortable hiring him as HC.