Getting beat down 70-14 by ARMY on national television undoes a WHOLE lot of good feelings about two winning seasons...
Very true, and some still question Charlie getting fired after year 3 after losing to KANSAS and zero winning seasons. Sorry to go down that rabbit hole.
I have. The debate still goes on sometimes. There is definitely a contingent that feels Charlie should have been given more than 3 years.
I was one of Charlie's biggest supporters. After the Kansas defeat I was finally able to get behind moving on. I do not, and don't recollect seeing anyone else, think he should have been given another year. During the Sam/Shane debate I have wondered aloud how Shane might have looked with another year under Sterlin Gilbert.
Applewhite’s failure to get a defensive coordinator is all on him. Same with Mack not dumping Manny Diaz after 2012. It was clear after Major’s first season he needed a new DC. That said though, U of H has made it clear before Applewhite they have ridiculous expectations. Army beatdown or not, it is generally not fair to fire a coach after two years, especially given that Applewhite lost his darkhorse heisman contender QB to injury and Ed Oliver was basically a continuous internal problem the minute Herman left. Applewhite did fire his DC after this year and the winning seasons did deserve a shot at a third year. Use Charlie Strong at South Florida as an example. He has not met expectations, has few quality wins and the trajectory of that program is not looking good with him at the helm. The six game losing streak is bad. That said, he has has two winning seasons and firing him now would be absurd. He deserves a third year. Coaches almost always deserve a third year. Mike Locksley at New Mexico is one of the few cases where his first two years were a complete disaster on and off the field and he deserved to be fired, but even he got to start a third year. It is not a good look for U of H to say “we want 10 wins in the first two years or you are gone”. They also fired Tony Levine after a winning season and went nuts on Herman and Sumlin after they left for better jobs. The truth is, when you have no leash, the school’s expectations are unrealistic and they do not see themselves as the stepping stone job that they are, it is not a good opportunity for a lot of coaches. If you are a coach, do you really want to go somewhere where you could be fired for going 8-5 your first two years? The WVU HC (unless Dana just really wants to be back in Texas) and USC OC are far better than what U of H is offering.
If you and, more importantly, UH didn't think Major was the answer, then why should they give him another year? He was, in fact, going to get a third year, which is why UH agreed to give Briles a raise. But when Briles bolted and UH got throttled by Army, it became pretty clear that UH and Major were in an untenable position. He needed to replace both his DC and his OC; but who was going to sign on for what could be only a 1-year tenure? And was UH supposed to extend Major to allow him to attract coordinators? For better or worse, Tilman is exerting his influence. Frankly, I think he bungled the Major hiring by insisting that applicants agree to his onerous contract terms. We'll see if he gets it right this time. Hiring Holgerson would be quite a coup. We'll see whether he's just leveraging UH for a raise. I don't understand why, though, folks denigrate UH by suggesting that they should know their place, accept mediocrity, or restrain their expectations. A lot of folks here knew that Strong wasn't the answer after year 2 and were calling for his firing--those folks were right, as it turns out.
With you almost all the way, moondog. I wasn't fully off Charlie's bandwagon until the Kansas loss, though I will admit to already having one foot dragging in the dirt ready to leap prior to our ill-fated visit to Lawrence. I will say I recall Shaark being the most vocal supporter to the idea of Charlie getting a 4th season. I may be somewhat alcohol addled on New Year's Eve, so if I am wrong about that, allow me to apologize in advance.
I don't think being upset about going 8-5 with both their best offensive and defensive player out is realistic expectations. That has very little to do with them being UH. And it has very little to do with Charlie Strong either - "have a winning season in 3 years and don't lose to Kansas" is pretty different.
