Better hire SL or GM?

[untbowler]

Right now I think GM is better hire because he has a history of winning. SL is a first time HC, and first season was 5/8 with now a questionable recruiting class.

GM has worked his way up winning at every level.

[Cerebus]

On 3/13/2017 at 8:10 PM, UNT Mean Green said:

Littrell and McCasland are stars.

I'm happy with what SL has achieved in his first year, but I'm not ready to call him a star until he improves recruiting.  GM is very promising and the best BB hire I have ever seen at NT, but he also needs to prove something before he gets the star label. 

[VideoEagle]

Basing just on "the day they were hired," I'm going with GM. He's show to be a successful D1 head coach capable of turning around a D1 program. Plus he'd been a successful college head coach at lower divisions. SL was well regarded and considered a candidate for head coaching jobs, but he had not run an FBS program at the time he was hired here. 

[Mean Green 93-98]

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 1:41 PM, KingDL1 said:

Sure there is SL was assistant head coach at North Carolina, P5 up and comer, his entire pedigree is P5 from player until just before we hired him. 14 Years Coaching at P5 schools D1a. Seth has been in programs I been impressed by when he was there.  

McCasland was a Sunbelt Head coach for one season as his D1 experience as a head coach and 5 years D1 total experience.  

I am not trying to knock McCasland just not as impressed yet. Lets see what he can do. 

Seems like there is plenty of logic to go around. 

Why would his entire pedigree being P5 be a positive thing?  GM has been an assistant at a P5 just like SL has, and he has been a successful one at that.  But he has also been successful at different levels, and that is Exhibit B that he can be successful at our level.  The fact that he has been successful as a head coach at a peer school is Exhibit A.  We're not P5 (pretty much a football concept anyway, but we'll leave it alone), and we're not a basketball powerhouse.  Tony Benford was an assistant at a basketball (at least approaching) powerhouse, and he failed miserably at UNT.  But by your criteria, you would see Benford as a better hire on the day he was announced than McCasland?

[KingDL1]

36 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

Why would his entire pedigree being P5 be a positive thing?  GM has been an assistant at a P5 just like SL has, and he has been a successful one at that.  But he has also been successful at different levels, and that is Exhibit B that he can be successful at our level.  The fact that he has been successful as a head coach at a peer school is Exhibit A.  We're not P5 (pretty much a football concept anyway, but we'll leave it alone), and we're not a basketball powerhouse.  Tony Benford was an assistant at a basketball (at least approaching) powerhouse, and he failed miserably at UNT.  But by your criteria, you would see Benford as a better hire on the day he was announced than McCasland?

It is what is valuable to me, and the 14 years  at the top level I think turning offenses in football is a big deal. Having one wining year at s Sunbelt school could be a fluke, and just a lot of money on GM. To me it is not just the stats, it was playing at OU, the time SL spent at different programs and what he contributed. I am giving you my reasons is all. But good news is Basketball can swing to winning fast, one season with some luck. Football takes time like to build an Offensive line.

I hope GM is a Super Coach and has us in the tourney next year. 

[Cerebus]

1 hour ago, KingDL1 said:

I hope GM is a Super Coach and has us in the tourney next year. 

The conference tourney?  I think that's a pretty safe bet.

I think, if you look at each hire on day 1, GM is a more impressive hire.  However, both of them are impressive due to the amount of money need for the buyouts and salaries .