In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 115
Online now 57 Record: 1921 (4/30/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Irony of ironies, I'm typing from the back of a room where a lecture on rational choice under uncertainty is ongoing (it's so boring the second time). John von Neumann could have picked an awesome DC, let me tell you.
Given SPa track record of meddling and mucking up the hiring process I'd be willing to bet he has something to do with the delay in hiring a DC.
PCs sarcastic comment about the search tends to indicate that he's no happy with the delay either.
Name one program that had taken this long to hire a coordinator? Yeah nothing to worry about here
A "Real PITT MAN"............get off my porch!
Another clarifying question: is this whole nobody-takes-this-long lemmingness (lemmingishness? lemmingry?) also serious? It's like we're watching an episode of Extreme Benchmarking: Football Edition. Lots of companies engage in different practices than industry standards. If it works, we call it innovation. If it fails, we call it...what...hubris?
Well it's fairly obvious they were waiting for Austin's season to end to interview, and possibly hire him.
Either the interview did not go well, (and Christ does not like his other candidates and is still interviewing); or they are in a challenging negotiation with Austin, and Christ is working Admin for more money as it would not surprise me to see it take 600k+ to get a great DC like Austin away from the NFL.
Or they already came to an agreement, and are waiting to make the anouncement until Austin gets back from vacation at the end of the week.
So yes, there are literally an endless number of reasons why this could be taking so long. And not all of them are bad, or end in doom & gloom.
PANTHERMARTIN, YOU JUST WON HUGS FROM SHRUGGS.
Here is the Trib's take:
Man it's been a while since I got ShruggsHugs. All the way back to the Scout days ;-)
^^Code for Boy Scouts. :-0(
This post was edited by waltspappy 14 months ago
Well, I appreciate Jerry D writing something.
I'll disagree on the focus put towards the bowl, because that team who showed up in Birmingham was anything but focused.
Regarding his list of candidates, everyone outside of Austin and maybe Tim Lewis are very much meh... Not much of a list IMO.
Pretty high on the list of Jokes that Would Cause Problems if Shoes Switched Feet ;-).
^ LOL! Shruggs. Could you stop with the condescending lectures? You post on this very same message board as I do. You, are in the very same boat as me. Let's hope it isn't a sinking ship.
Otherwise (thinking out-loud). I very much believe you are a harmless poster who may be as bored with life as I am and very much as harmless. BTW, I'm very comfortable in my shoes. I've been accused of much worse things on these board. IMO.
Keep your mind and eyes wide open. I think you're learning. BUT! I'm watching you!
Well Pappy - I see your mind is more dirty and disgusting than
Or maybe Wyndell stole your old handle and is impersonating the Pappy on 24/7?
PC was only 6-7 in his first year so I'd hold off on annointing him the second coming of Christ.
Do you have any original thoughts or is the extent of your contribution challenging other peoples thoughts and opinions without providing any counter arguments or facts to support an alternate view?
My take on your view is that no one should every challenge The admins or the staffs actions because we dont have any facts to quantitatively define the downside to their decision and the upside to the alternative. Is your lemmingness in swollowing everything that the admin and staff feeds you serious?
Do you actually have any industry experience? If not how would you know first hand whats don in industry? More to the point, if you dont have management experience, how would you have any basis for passing judgement on anything that was a "management decision"
Why would they have to wait till Austins season is over to interview him? NFL assistants interview for other jobs all the time while they have another job? Didnt Bob, while he was the Pats coordinator interview for the UPS job and accept it prior to the superbowl? That doesnt make any sense.
As Gibby said they knew they had this position opening prior to the bowl game. MOst really good coaches and AD's have a short list of guys they would consider for each position should once of their staff be ready to leave. Programs that have their stuff together dont take this long to hire a Coordinator. Again this is not a secondary coach or some lesser positon. THis is the guy who will run the defense this year. Not quite as important as a head coach but its up there.
I do agree with one thing said in the article. If the guy they pick is a great hire all will be forgotten. But hey this is a message board and this is valid topic to discuss as it is very unusual for a position of this level of importance to remain unfilled. The reasons for them not fillng it may be debated but the facts are that this is taking unusually long.
Well, that didn't sound very happy. I WEEP. Some of these questions are pointed enough that I'd be remiss if I didn't respond. Now, you're not going to read this; or, if you do, you'll just think I'm being pompous, trying to put on airs, blah blah blah. PEOPLE THAT TRY TO SOUND SMART USUALLY AREN'T. Or maybe pappy will chime in with his guesses about my family's level of wealth (or, even better, will---jokingly---question my sexuality, NICEEEEEEE). But if you're trying to get inside the TERRIBLE BUT INTERESTING MIND OF SHRUGGS----which you just established that you're trying to do---then here you go. THIS IS MOSTLY JUST SO I CAN CITE THIS AGAIN NEXT TIME YOU MAKE BAD GUESSES ABOUT MY THOUGHT PROCESS.
I have original thoughts. SOMETIMES I'VE EVEN POSTED THEM. I don't like playoffs, for example, and I don't like conferences. I don't like media coverage of sports. I think, all else equal, Steve Pederson should be fired, but I'm not sure about all the variable that we'd be holding constant for the "all else equal" part being set at levels that make such a move feasible at the moment. I think Charles Mingus was the greatest musician of the 20th century. And so on. And this isn't even to bring up my work, which at times is far more original than it should be given professional constraints. And, I don't just approve of the opinion of folks I happen to agree with already---people on here have persuaded me of different viewpoints. steel, paco, and reed immediately come to mind on that end. I'm sure there are others.
You've misextrapolated my views on Pitt, though that's my fault. First of all, apparently it's come across that I'm thinking only in empirical, namely quantitative (statistical), terms. That isn't the case. I'm not a statistician, and I don't think like one. More often than not, you can write down a model that summarizes my thinking mathematically, but it's only mathematical theory. You're right to point out that it's difficult to know how to interface your theories (be they mathematical or informal) from your empiricism, especially with regards to measurement. If I ask "what is your criterion?," I'm not saying "OH MY GOD YOU ARE TRYING TO COME AGAINST PITT WHEN YOU CANNOT." I'm honest-to-god asking what a person's criterion is. Criteria among reasonable people can vary, and it's an interesting question as to how people pick their criteria, the implications of one criterion over the other, and so on. This isn't about statistics. AT ALL. This is like the UMTEENTH (to use the precise statistical term) time you've brought this up. This has nothing to do with being able to quantify things. A "null hypothesis" can be completely informal, non-statistical, etc. It really can.
You don't need quantitative analysis to know when somebody is being loose with their thinking. We just saw this last week with the "well can you prove there ISN'T an effect?" conversation. And if somebody says something that inane---and let's be honest, that is a completely INANE thing to say---and it happens that they're erring in the direction against Pitt, I will say something. In that regard, maybe I am the lemming you say I am: I prefer thinking not to be erroneous, but I prefer thinking that errs on Pitt's side rather than against Pitt. And this is a short-term view. I know many people that think erroneously against Pitt---particularly Steve Pederson---in the short term are doing it because they love the university and are thinking long-term. But that's just a bad strategy. There are a million findings in the dynamics literature to tell you that. That doesn't mean that you should swallow everything the administration says. You should question everything, INCLUDING YOUR OWN TENTATIVE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS YOU ASK WHEN YOU QUESTION THINGS.
You also don't need to have an alternative theory in mind to be able to say that a given theory is flawed. Coming up with a good answer to a question takes a long time, and it's often the case that such answers arise when we look at various flawed answers and figure out what was good about them. Sometimes taking an existing flawed argument and asking critical questions about it to see what remains after a few tests is a good strategy for figuring out what's what. And again, if I ask a clarifying question about a particular poster's viewpoint, it's because I'm honestly curious and would like to see if there's something good in what they're saying that I don't quite understand. This is not about pure undercutting or counterpunching or anything. Now, if somebody says "IT RAINED TODAY BECAUSE STEVE PEDERSON IS OUR AD," well, I'm probably not going to find much good to learn from them, because they're probably pretty stupid.
Not that my credentials matter here, but I do have experience in management. I still work as a consultant for businesses on the side, mostly with manufacturing businesses that are interested in improving their operations. A lot of what I do remains pretty abstract---data analysis or formal operations research models---but a lot of it is applied, and a LOT of it applies to benchmarking and strategic choices about it. SUCH AND SUCH DID SOMETHING AND IT WORKED WE SHOULD DO IT TOO. Well, let's talk about that. Or, WE DID THIS ONE TIME AND IT FAILED WE SHOULD NEVER DO IT AGAIN. Well, let's talk about that. And all that I said to this point was "the fact that nobody else engages in a given practice means we should, too" is a pretty lousy justification for any given argument on best practice. Moreover, even if I didn't have such experience: you don't have to have experience in a given field to be able to comment on it from the side. None of us have been President, but we all have opinions on what he should do, what the nature of the game he plays may look like, and so on. I certainly wouldn't need management bona fides to say "everybody else did it so I will, too" is a crappy way to go through life---don't moms say this to their kids every day? But in this particular instance, I do think a bit about benchmarking.
As for the DC: it's unusual. It's worthy of conversation. It's good message board fodder. Unfortunately, it's also a chance for folks that say inane things to say inane things about the DC search. I'm uncomfortable about it, because the most-plausible scenario in my head is the one where we've been turned down once or twice. I don't like that scenario, because it means we're not getting the coach we want. Unfortunately, the department has been quite tight-lipped on the subject, so we haven't had many names to chew on in that regard. And as I said last week, some reasonable guessing is what we should be doing---not "CAN YOU PROVE THERE IS NOT AN EFFECT NO YOU CAN'T SO YOU ARE THE SAME AS US FOOLISH BALD MAN," but reasonable guessing. We don't know much of anything. The insiders know less than usual. This, when coupled with our urge to discuss, means that maybe we don't do our best guesswork.
To my mind, people here have now said I lack industry experience to post informatively, that I'm too young to post informatively, that my parents have made too much money for me to post informatively, and that I don't listen well enough to post informatively. How about you guys worry less about me and more on the senseless crap you sometimes spew. You don't like it, ignore me. To quote pappy: focus on the posts and not on the posters.
End of rant. I need a sandwich.
OOOOOH let me use one of your lines on you. WELL YOU JUST MADE A CONDESCENDING LECTURE ABOUT CONDESCENDING LECTURES NANNY NANNY BOO BOO.
I'm not bored with life, but I'm pretty bored with my dissertation.
This post was edited by shruggs 14 months ago
Around the beginning of the year, a couple of the Ravens fans/flamers on the Scout Steelers board were bragging that their coaching staff pledged not to interview for other jobs during the upcoming Superbowl run. Baltimore coaches were not interviewing during the playoffs. The entire organization had total commitment to winning the Superbowl.
Interesting. Thats for providing the back up even though Im not sure I buy the message board rumor. It does make some sense.
It was a total rumor, true. But it's more to work with than your supposition that something is terribly wrong based on nothing except the hire is taking a while Biggie.
Shruggs- we share a somewhat similar perspective about benchmarking, hiring, etc. Management type, have studied and trained other managers on cutting edge interviewing techniques. Work a lot with benchmarking, and of course the biggest issue is always how do you know which ones are legit keys to success, and which ones are crap.
Also, it's pretty much confirmed by Chryst himself that he tried to hire a college coach for DC in either December or January. If Teryl Austin is our second choice and we get him, color me pleased.
Serious question....how was that confirmed?
Secondly, how do we know they are engaging in advanced hiring tactics? They literally could be sitting on their hands. One one side wants to speculate or guess it's ok, when the other side does it's outlandish...
And this is where you don't get it. One camp posits a theory and says it's probably true. Another provides a plausible alternative. That's not guessing---it's just saying "your list of possible options isn't exhaustive." Do you see the difference?
Oh that's what happens?.
How was it confirmed Chryst wanted to hire someone from the college ranks?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports