Hot Seat Culture?

[jmcrosson 203]

I'm going to try this again, since this was previously locked erroneously as though it was about the hiring and firing of coaches, and not the fanbase mentality and culture that is meant to be the topic of discussion.

I was actually thinking this morning about Gary Patterson and TCU. In 2012, TCU had a 7-6 record, followed by 4-8 in 2013. This wasn't the first time that TCU was bad - they had 6 wins in 2001 and 5 wins in 04. Granted, they have had far more success than failure under Patterson, but I began to ask the question: "How blazing would the seat be if any coach had a 7-6 record followed by a 4-8 record at Auburn?"

Do you think we, as a fanbase, have contributed to a culture of calling for our coaches to be fired too soon? Tubs was here for 10 years, but at least half of that time, he was on the hot seat. Personally, I don't think it's a good thing that we're so quick to call for heads to roll when Auburn has a bad season.

What do you think? Do we have that kind of culture at Auburn? Thoughts and comments appreciated.

[metafour 4,969]

Expectations at TCU are completely different than expectations at Auburn.

[3Jtiger22 0]

Not for much longer.

After this year expectations will begin to change. And not for the better.

[ShocksMyBrain 9,397]

Watching bama's recent consistent success is probably a large source of this attitude.

[jmcrosson 203]

Yeah, that's true. I'm just wondering, though, if our expectations as a fanbase are healthy or if our desire for consistent success has created a lack of balance between what we want and what is logically expected.

For instance, I really believe that we blew expectations out of the water in 2013. I, myself, would have been ecstatic with an 8 win season that year. I think that going to the national championship raised our mindset, collectively as a fanbase, to a place beyond where we should be. My point is, if we had won 8 games, then 8 games, I think our mindset would be, "Hey we're still rebuilding and recovering from the Chizik era."

Maybe I'm wrong, I just wonder if our fanbase as a whole has a logical and realistic expectation. I just feel like we're really quick to call for coaching changes, and I'm not sure if that's right or not. Just think it's interesting to talk about.

[boisnumber1 2,831]

As long as coaches are getting paid millions, there will be a hot seat culture. Period. Realistic expectations do not matter. You get a million dollar contract, you better produce. Right or wrong, like it or not, doesnt really matter. Its the nature of the beast we've created. It isn't 1973 college football anymore.

[jmcrosson 203]

Watching bama's recent consistent success is probably a large source of this attitude.

That's a good point, and I agree with you. It's hard when our instate rival has had such consistent success. I can remember, though, that Saban had two pretty bad years, but he had a lot of rope. And that followed 4 overall bad years from the Shula era.

[metafour 4,969]

I can remember, though, that Saban had two pretty bad years, but he had a lot of rope.

What?

His first year was "bad". They won 12 games in his second season and they haven't won less than 10 a year in every season after that.

[SCTiger2011 1,298]

In the SEC, there is always a "put up or shut up" attitude toward coaches. This arbitrary number of time to prove oneself is usually 3 years, so it's not surprising to find a coach with two 8 win seasons (hypothetically) be 16-8 and on the "hot seat" unless you are talking about a perennial "rebuilding" candidate like Vandy, Kentucky, etc.

Auburn has put itself (rightly) in the conversation for the upper echelon of SEC teams for much of the past decade. Because of that, we have 1 NC, another NC appearance, but 3 head coaches. I agree with most in that because the coaching staff is very lucratively compensated, coupled with "preseason hype", any setbacks are going to be met with frustration and add to the "hot seat culture" of which you speak.

Does this take a toll on the product on the field? I've never been in that position so I don't have an answer. However, if you take this typical 3-4 year cycle and apply it to all members of a coaching staff and just not the head coach, you get 2-3 recruiting cycles per coach. A quick trigger by an administration would result in regime changes when most of the said recruits are coming off a redshirt freshman year or true sophomores and not even able to make a big impact for the coach that recruited them. Repeat this over multiple staffs and you have tons of talent, but also tons of different coaching philosophies and techniques swimming through 19-20 year old kids' heads. I'm not saying this is what we have at Auburn, but I am curious as to how the "3 year plan" of approaching coaching hires came to be.

[jmcrosson 203]

As long as coaches are getting paid millions, there will be a hot seat culture. Period. Realistic expectations do not matter. You get a million dollar contract, you better produce. Right or wrong, like it or not, doesnt really matter. Its the nature of the beast we've created. It isn't 1973 college football anymore.

Gary Patterson makes 3 million. We know what Saban makes. Regardless of how many millions one makes, realistically, not everyone amongst the many coaches being paid millions to coach will always have championships, or even winning seasons. This is especially the case in the SEC, where the lowest coaching salary is Derek Mason of Vanderbilt with 2.5 million a year.

Gus is 6th in terms of salary, interestingly enough.

[jmcrosson 203]

I can remember, though, that Saban had two pretty bad years, but he had a lot of rope.

What?

His first year was "bad". They won 12 games in his second season and they haven't won less than 10 a year in every season after that.

Yeah, you're right. I would call the first year horrendous, with a loss to LA-Monroe. But then he turned the ship and hasn't looked back.

[OnthePlains 2,014]

I worry about stability but then i remember Richt at UGA and despite the success he has had he still doesn't have a natty much less two title game appearances and it's been a few years since an SEC title. Stability doesn't guarantee anything, just see the end of Tubs tenure. I want Auburn to be in the convo for the playoff more years than not and as others have said Auburn is paying to get those results from coaches.

[jmcrosson 203]

In the SEC, there is always a "put up or shut up" attitude toward coaches. This arbitrary number of time to prove oneself is usually 3 years, so it's not surprising to find a coach with two 8 win seasons (hypothetically) be 16-8 and on the "hot seat" unless you are talking about a perennial "rebuilding" candidate like Vandy, Kentucky, etc.

Auburn has put itself (rightly) in the conversation for the upper echelon of SEC teams for much of the past decade. Because of that, we have 1 NC, another NC appearance, but 3 head coaches. I agree with most in that because the coaching staff is very lucratively compensated, coupled with "preseason hype", any setbacks are going to be met with frustration and add to the "hot seat culture" of which you speak.

Does this take a toll on the product on the field? I've never been in that position so I don't have an answer. However, if you take this typical 3-4 year cycle and apply it to all members of a coaching staff and just not the head coach, you get 2-3 recruiting cycles per coach. A quick trigger by an administration would result in regime changes when most of the said recruits are coming off a redshirt freshman year or true sophomores and not even able to make a big impact for the coach that recruited them. Repeat this over multiple staffs and you have tons of talent, but also tons of different coaching philosophies and techniques swimming through 19-20 year old kids' heads. I'm not saying this is what we have at Auburn, but I am curious as to how the "3 year plan" of approaching coaching hires came to be.

I think that your last paragraph is full of good points, and I think it's definitely not a stretch to think that this may very well be the case at Auburn and why we have so much talent, but so little consistent solid productivity - especially on the defensive side of the ball.

[GoAU 1,631]

Most of the best programs in the SEC, and the country, have stability I'm the coaching office. Show me any school that rotates coached 3-4 times a decade and sustaines a high level of results.

[jmcrosson 203]

Most of the best programs in the SEC, and the country, have stability I'm the coaching office. Show me any school that rotates coached 3-4 times a decade and sustaines a high level of results.

I don't think you will find it, and that's what has me thinking hard when I read all the posts suggesting Gus is on his last leg after 3 (admittedly brutal) games into his 3rd season at the helm.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Most of the best programs in the SEC, and the country, have stability I'm the coaching office. Show me any school that rotates coached 3-4 times a decade and sustaines a high level of results.

Think Nebraska would be a good indicator of what you are saying. They fired Solich who's worst season was 7-7 one time, in fact fired him after he went 10-3. Tried Callahan and went backwards. Pelini was 9-4 at his worst and they fired him. Then the best they could get was a lower level Pac 12 coach that was coming off a losing season and are now 1-2 with a win vs S. Alabama.

I don't suspect Riley will be around long at Nebraska.

They have the facilities, the name, the fans etc.

[metafour 4,969]

Most of the best programs in the SEC, and the country, have stability I'm the coaching office. Show me any school that rotates coached 3-4 times a decade and sustaines a high level of results.

That is all kind of an obvious oxymoron. A poor coach isn't going to get 10 years at any school in the SEC, therefore it shouldn't be all that surprising that if you are rotating coaches ever 3-4 seasons, you probably aren't having much success. If you aren't rotating coaches, it is because your current coach is winning consistently.

[Weagle98 119]

I think it is more than about W and Ls. I expect to see a good product game in and game out. What I saw yesterday was a terrible product. I can deal with 8 win seasons or 6 win seasons (in a rebuilding year - not plural on purpose) but I expect to see a well coached hustling team on the field that is in most games and decisively winning games against FCS opponents.

[boisnumber1 2,831]

As long as coaches are getting paid millions, there will be a hot seat culture. Period. Realistic expectations do not matter. You get a million dollar contract, you better produce. Right or wrong, like it or not, doesnt really matter. Its the nature of the beast we've created. It isn't 1973 college football anymore.

Gary Patterson makes 3 million. We know what Saban makes. Regardless of how many millions one makes, realistically, not everyone amongst the many coaches being paid millions to coach will always have championships, or even winning seasons. This is especially the case in the SEC, where the lowest coaching salary is Derek Mason of Vanderbilt with 2.5 million a year.

Gus is 6th in terms of salary, interestingly enough.

So what is your point? Btw, Patterson is a bad comparative example if you are using him to compare to Gus and Auburn. He had done more than prove himself over a period of time to TCU and he had pretty much made a team out of a nobody. Gus has hardly done that at AU.

[boisnumber1 2,831]

I think it is more than about W and Ls. I expect to see a good product game in and game out. What I saw yesterday was a terrible product. I can deal with 8 win seasons or 6 win seasons (in a rebuilding year - not plural on purpose) but I expect to see a well coached hustling team on the field that is in most games and decisively winning games against FCS opponents.

This. The type of play we saw yesterday will get you fired. Teams that will fight and scratch and leave it all on the field - the fans will always get behind win or lose. Im not saying get rid of Gus at all, but I do believe he is at a crucial crossroads in his young college football HC career. Hes obviously still learning, and he needs to figure some things out or he will be in trouble. No doubt about that. Hope he figures it out - and fast. Or at least show some signs that things are going in the right direction.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

As long as coaches are getting paid millions, there will be a hot seat culture. Period. Realistic expectations do not matter. You get a million dollar contract, you better produce. Right or wrong, like it or not, doesnt really matter. Its the nature of the beast we've created. It isn't 1973 college football anymore.

Gary Patterson makes 3 million. We know what Saban makes. Regardless of how many millions one makes, realistically, not everyone amongst the many coaches being paid millions to coach will always have championships, or even winning seasons. This is especially the case in the SEC, where the lowest coaching salary is Derek Mason of Vanderbilt with 2.5 million a year.

Gus is 6th in terms of salary, interestingly enough.

So what is your point? Btw, Patterson is a bad comparative example if you are using him to compare to Gus and Auburn. He had done more than prove himself over a period of time to TCU and he had pretty much made a team out of a nobody. Gus has hardly done that at AU.

He also got to prove himself at a lower level first with TCU (Conference USA/Mountain West). He went 7-6 and 4-8 his first two years when they moved into the Big 12, so he didn't light that league on fire when he stepped into it.

[jmcrosson 203]

As long as coaches are getting paid millions, there will be a hot seat culture. Period. Realistic expectations do not matter. You get a million dollar contract, you better produce. Right or wrong, like it or not, doesnt really matter. Its the nature of the beast we've created. It isn't 1973 college football anymore.

Gary Patterson makes 3 million. We know what Saban makes. Regardless of how many millions one makes, realistically, not everyone amongst the many coaches being paid millions to coach will always have championships, or even winning seasons. This is especially the case in the SEC, where the lowest coaching salary is Derek Mason of Vanderbilt with 2.5 million a year.

Gus is 6th in terms of salary, interestingly enough.

So what is your point? Btw, Patterson is a bad comparative example if you are using him to compare to Gus and Auburn. He had done more than prove himself over a period of time to TCU and he had pretty much made a team out of a nobody. Gus has hardly done that at AU.

He also got to prove himself at a lower level first with TCU (Conference USA/Mountain West). He went 7-6 and 4-8 his first two years when they moved into the Big 12, so he didn't light that league on fire when he stepped into it.

I would say the biggest turnaround in college football history and a national championship game appearance would qualify as him proving himself at least a little bit. He hasn't had time to prove himself over a period of time, and won't, if a fanbase begins calling for his head after one bad year. Again - just playing devil's advocate here. I agree with the poster who commented on the quality and heart of the play on the field. Not saying he shouldn't be held accountable, but also think that we as a fanbase need to have the right mindset. I'm not sure what that is yet, which is the point of this discussion. I appreciate all of your input.

[boisnumber1 2,831]

As long as coaches are getting paid millions, there will be a hot seat culture. Period. Realistic expectations do not matter. You get a million dollar contract, you better produce. Right or wrong, like it or not, doesnt really matter. Its the nature of the beast we've created. It isn't 1973 college football anymore.

Gary Patterson makes 3 million. We know what Saban makes. Regardless of how many millions one makes, realistically, not everyone amongst the many coaches being paid millions to coach will always have championships, or even winning seasons. This is especially the case in the SEC, where the lowest coaching salary is Derek Mason of Vanderbilt with 2.5 million a year.

Gus is 6th in terms of salary, interestingly enough.

So what is your point? Btw, Patterson is a bad comparative example if you are using him to compare to Gus and Auburn. He had done more than prove himself over a period of time to TCU and he had pretty much made a team out of a nobody. Gus has hardly done that at AU.

He also got to prove himself at a lower level first with TCU (Conference USA/Mountain West). He went 7-6 and 4-8 his first two years when they moved into the Big 12, so he didn't light that league on fire when he stepped into it.

I would say the biggest turnaround in college football history and a national championship game appearance would qualify as him proving himself at least a little bit. He hasn't had time to prove himself over a period of time, and won't, if a fanbase begins calling for his head after one bad year. Again - just playing devil's advocate here. I agree with the poster who commented on the quality and heart of the play on the field. Not saying he shouldn't be held accountable, but also think that we as a fanbase need to have the right mindset. I'm not sure what that is yet, which is the point of this discussion. I appreciate all of your input.

2013 is proving himself a little bit but no more than a little bit. 5 years from now we may look back and realize that was an anomaly, a fluke. Not enough data to know. Heck, Terry Bowden went undefeated his first season, Chizik won a natty, but we dont look at either of them as good HCs overall. Both of them had this same issue we mentioned with putting a bad product on the field when all was said and done.

[EagleAir89 2]

I worry about stability but then i remember Richt at UGA and despite the success he has had he still doesn't have a natty much less two title game appearances and it's been a few years since an SEC title. Stability doesn't guarantee anything, just see the end of Tubs tenure. I want Auburn to be in the convo for the playoff more years than not and as others have said Auburn is paying to get those results from coaches.

I think the Richt Era at uga is an interesting one to look at in relation to Auburn. (I have, down thought the years, always enjoyed AU/uga comparisons)

Rict was hired in 2001, has 2 SEC titles and a record of 139-48 (80-34). A good stable SEC program with 2 titles.

In that same time, Auburn has had 3 head coaches (plus Jetgate) 3 SEC titles, 2 BCS appearances, 1 national title, several underperforming seasons, and 2 really bad years (2008 and 2012) & 2 undefeated/Perfect seasons (and one Heisman which I thoroughly enjoyed). Overall record since 2001: 124-56 (69-44).

So the question may be which one is better? Which would you rather have?

Me? I have simply come to accept that this is Auburn…………great struggles coupled with fantastic (and sometime unbelievable) accomplishments. If the coach gets to stay a long time, great! If not Auburn and Auburn people seem to always find a way to dust themselves off and climb back up the mountain. To me it has always been about Auburn as a whole and not just one or two people. I simply try to enjoy the journey as a part of the Auburn Family.

just my $.02

[jmcrosson 203]

I worry about stability but then i remember Richt at UGA and despite the success he has had he still doesn't have a natty much less two title game appearances and it's been a few years since an SEC title. Stability doesn't guarantee anything, just see the end of Tubs tenure. I want Auburn to be in the convo for the playoff more years than not and as others have said Auburn is paying to get those results from coaches.

I think the Richt Era at uga is an interesting one to look at in relation to Auburn. (I have, down thought the years, always enjoyed AU/uga comparisons)

Rict was hired in 2001, has 2 SEC titles and a record of 139-48 (80-34). A good stable SEC program with 2 titles.

In that same time, Auburn has had 3 head coaches (plus Jetgate) 3 SEC titles, 2 BCS appearances, 1 national title, several underperforming seasons, and 2 really bad years (2008 and 2012) & 2 undefeated/Perfect seasons (and one Heisman which I thoroughly enjoyed). Overall record since 2001: 124-56 (69-44).

So the question may be which one is better? Which would you rather have?

Me? I have simply come to accept that this is Auburn…………great struggles coupled with fantastic (and sometime unbelievable) accomplishments. And i try to enjoy the journey.

just my $.02

Those are good observations. I've thought about that too. I really think you may have hit on the heart of the discussion. What I seem to be taking away from a lot of the conversations I've heard and read is that a large portion of the fanbase is desiring more consistency instead of the extreme highs and extreme lows of the Auburn program.

As you illustrated well, we have had bigger highs than Georgia (drawing from the example you used), but greater lows. It's a really interesting question - would you rather experience the mountaintops, followed by the cellar with comparatively little in-between? Or would you rather experience a program consistently good, but that might never reach the playoff?

Ideally, I think we all want similar success as the other team in our state, but if you had to choose between the DNA of our program and one like Georgia - what would you choose?