Getting a Gary Patterson for SMU
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:45 pmThe potential head coaching candidates that get talked about a lot largely fit one of two profiles:
#1. The "Scratch-and-Dent" Coach: An established (and/or older) name that can bring immediate cache to the position and is looking for one last challenge before riding off into the sunset of retirement in a few years. These would be your Larry Brown, Mack Brown, Rick Neuheisel and pre-2008 June Jones types.
#2. The "Rising Star" Coach: An energetic young blood who's making waves as an assistant at an established team who could use the SMU job as a launching point for a head coaching gig at a larger, more prestigious program. Names like Josh Heupel, Chad Morris and Jake Spavital.
Setting aside for a moment these, or any other, candidates' individual qualifications, it would appear that neither profile of coach makes for a long-term strategy.
Your Scratch-and-Dent Coach gets his last hurrah and eventually retires. And every year, your Rising Star Coach further improves the program, fans spend the offseason fretting over when (not if) he's going to get poached, a la Kevin Sumlin to Texas A&M after his success at Houston.
With the right candidate, either profile of coach could have a positive impact on the program, but we're likely back searching for a new coach in less than six years.
Enter Gary Patterson.
Patterson was 40 when he took over at TCU, and his first full season as head coach (2001) coincided with TCU's move from the WAC to C-USA. Four years prior, TCU went 1-10 in Pat Sullivan's last year as coach.
In the Patterson era, TCU has improved its conference affiliation twice (three times if you count the move to the Big East that got nixed), won five conference championships, made two BCS bowl appearances and won seven of 12 bowl games.
Patterson hasn't left TCU for a better job opportunity because over the past 14 years, he's made TCU the better opportunity — a top-25 ranked, Power 5 Conference contender.
It reminds me of that scene in the second season of Mad Men, when Draper tells the Mohawk Airlines exec that his agency is dropping them for a shot at American Airlines' business. The betrayed Mohawk exec reminds Draper of his pitch the two companies would grow big together, "You said Sterling Cooper didn't need a big airline. You were going to make us a big airline."
And that's my point: I want a coach who has the talent, drive and aspiration to run a Power 5 Conference football program. But I don't want him to get there by merely using SMU as a stepping stone; I want a coach who can create that opportunity for himself by elevating SMU's program to that stature.
Granted, Patterson's tenure at TCU isn't the perfect analogy to SMU's situation. There's the three-year gap following Sullivan's dismal final season that Dennis Franchione coached TCU to three WAC championships (on the back of LaDainian Tomlinson), which no doubt gave Patterson a much stronger foundation to build from.
And to be clear, my comparison is ignoring the fact that Patterson was Franchione's defensive coordinator. I'm not trying to draw the conclusion that Tom Mason should get the SMU job (a clean break from the existing regime is in order, IMHO).
But am I naïve in thinking SMU is roughly in the same position that TCU was in 1997, at the end of Sullivan's tenure? Early on, Sullivan helped establish new expectations for the TCU program and there were flashes of progress before things with south for him — much in the same way that SMU went through its own institutional overhaul when June came in, which was followed by marked improvement and then a sudden decline.
Also, Sullivan's final season was TCU's second year in the WAC, following the end of the Southwest Conference and getting left out of the Big 12. We're in year two of the American after the Big East (or at least, a Big East Conference with football) dissolved.
But even if SMU is closer to the start of the Franchione regime rather than the Patterson era, why wouldn't it be in the best interests of SMU and the right head coaching candidate to think of this job not as an intermediary gig he would eventually grow out of, but as a long-term opportunity to transform SMU into his ideal position?
Why shouldn't that be the expectation for this coaching search? Do coaches like Patterson still exist? Or have the big money prospects of college football made it impossible for an up-and-coming coach can take over a program the two grow together? You could look no further to Kliff Kingsbury as an example of the contrary, who I think could be setting himself up for a long tenure at Texas Tech. Is he the exception to the rule?
It seems that there's an argument to be made that SMU would be selling itself short by being resigned to the fact that any coach we get is either going to retire soon or get poached after a few years on the job.
Or perhaps I'm underestimating other factors that influence SMU's ability to attract a career-minded coach who would foster a long-term growth trajectory.
Looking forward to reading your thoughts. #PonyUp
#1. The "Scratch-and-Dent" Coach: An established (and/or older) name that can bring immediate cache to the position and is looking for one last challenge before riding off into the sunset of retirement in a few years. These would be your Larry Brown, Mack Brown, Rick Neuheisel and pre-2008 June Jones types.
#2. The "Rising Star" Coach: An energetic young blood who's making waves as an assistant at an established team who could use the SMU job as a launching point for a head coaching gig at a larger, more prestigious program. Names like Josh Heupel, Chad Morris and Jake Spavital.
Setting aside for a moment these, or any other, candidates' individual qualifications, it would appear that neither profile of coach makes for a long-term strategy.
Your Scratch-and-Dent Coach gets his last hurrah and eventually retires. And every year, your Rising Star Coach further improves the program, fans spend the offseason fretting over when (not if) he's going to get poached, a la Kevin Sumlin to Texas A&M after his success at Houston.
With the right candidate, either profile of coach could have a positive impact on the program, but we're likely back searching for a new coach in less than six years.
Enter Gary Patterson.
Patterson was 40 when he took over at TCU, and his first full season as head coach (2001) coincided with TCU's move from the WAC to C-USA. Four years prior, TCU went 1-10 in Pat Sullivan's last year as coach.
In the Patterson era, TCU has improved its conference affiliation twice (three times if you count the move to the Big East that got nixed), won five conference championships, made two BCS bowl appearances and won seven of 12 bowl games.
Patterson hasn't left TCU for a better job opportunity because over the past 14 years, he's made TCU the better opportunity — a top-25 ranked, Power 5 Conference contender.
It reminds me of that scene in the second season of Mad Men, when Draper tells the Mohawk Airlines exec that his agency is dropping them for a shot at American Airlines' business. The betrayed Mohawk exec reminds Draper of his pitch the two companies would grow big together, "You said Sterling Cooper didn't need a big airline. You were going to make us a big airline."
And that's my point: I want a coach who has the talent, drive and aspiration to run a Power 5 Conference football program. But I don't want him to get there by merely using SMU as a stepping stone; I want a coach who can create that opportunity for himself by elevating SMU's program to that stature.
Granted, Patterson's tenure at TCU isn't the perfect analogy to SMU's situation. There's the three-year gap following Sullivan's dismal final season that Dennis Franchione coached TCU to three WAC championships (on the back of LaDainian Tomlinson), which no doubt gave Patterson a much stronger foundation to build from.
And to be clear, my comparison is ignoring the fact that Patterson was Franchione's defensive coordinator. I'm not trying to draw the conclusion that Tom Mason should get the SMU job (a clean break from the existing regime is in order, IMHO).
But am I naïve in thinking SMU is roughly in the same position that TCU was in 1997, at the end of Sullivan's tenure? Early on, Sullivan helped establish new expectations for the TCU program and there were flashes of progress before things with south for him — much in the same way that SMU went through its own institutional overhaul when June came in, which was followed by marked improvement and then a sudden decline.
Also, Sullivan's final season was TCU's second year in the WAC, following the end of the Southwest Conference and getting left out of the Big 12. We're in year two of the American after the Big East (or at least, a Big East Conference with football) dissolved.
But even if SMU is closer to the start of the Franchione regime rather than the Patterson era, why wouldn't it be in the best interests of SMU and the right head coaching candidate to think of this job not as an intermediary gig he would eventually grow out of, but as a long-term opportunity to transform SMU into his ideal position?
Why shouldn't that be the expectation for this coaching search? Do coaches like Patterson still exist? Or have the big money prospects of college football made it impossible for an up-and-coming coach can take over a program the two grow together? You could look no further to Kliff Kingsbury as an example of the contrary, who I think could be setting himself up for a long tenure at Texas Tech. Is he the exception to the rule?
It seems that there's an argument to be made that SMU would be selling itself short by being resigned to the fact that any coach we get is either going to retire soon or get poached after a few years on the job.
Or perhaps I'm underestimating other factors that influence SMU's ability to attract a career-minded coach who would foster a long-term growth trajectory.
Looking forward to reading your thoughts. #PonyUp
