re: We’re about to go into the dark ages

Honest question: what do either of them bring scheme wise that you can't get from someone else?

Recruiting: maybe. But Urban is literally going to have a heart attack if he coaches one typical Auburn game, and Hugh will just use his university issued phone to get rub and tugs cause he's a reply guy cheap frick.


You're better off hiring a Jeff Lebby or Jeff Grimes if you want an innovative offense that's actually evolved over time.


If you hire either of them (Freeze or Urbs), you're basically hiring Gus again.

Like I said in another thread, Auburn has 7 tough games ahead. The schedule is going to be the vetting process for Harsin.

He’s already proven he is not connecting in recruiting matters, now let’s see if he can get through this 7 week gauntlet.

Fire him if the next 7 games go badly. No point in continuing with the Idaho experiment if it isn’t working.

quote:

---

You're better off hiring a Jeff Lebby or Jeff Grimes

---

i'll take a proven winner or the guy that made Malik Willis draftable over two shite coaches that no one even knows about.

quote:

---

i'll take a proven winner or the guy that made Malik Willis draftable over two shite coaches that no one even knows about.

---

Lulz.


We'll deserve any ridicule we get for hiring Freeze.

And not knowing who Lebby or Grimes are, along with calling them shite, just shows an ignorance to what's going on in college football outside of Auburn.


Grimes even fricking coached here!

Also agree that it's time to give an up and coming coordinator a shot.

edit....nvm. No positive value in my specific thoughts on this matter.

I understand the conservatives' concern about falling into an abyss if the next coach is mediocre. But I don't think the risk of that happening is that great. We could recover quickly.

Auburn is in the middle of THE most fertile recruiting ground in the US. You don't have to be a football mastermind to have 10-win seasons here on the reg. You just need to prioritize recruiting and be a bit above average when it comes to football smarts. Yes, boosters getting together is huge. But I think there are a few names that could galvanize that base. Not a ton. But there are a few.

Harsin Stans are not committed to Harsin. Alpine probably is but he doesn’t seem like the type to stick around. The rest are just afraid of the boogeyman articles once we do fire Harsin. So they want to stick with him for years to prove that we can be attractable to great coaches. However, we should still get a good candidate given our money. In other words they got the wolf by ears. They cannot hold onto it, but they cannot let it go either. So then I’m going to introduce the sink cost fallacy:

quote:

---

The Sunk Cost Fallacy in Our Lives
According to microeconomic theory, the only costs that matter in making a rational decision are prospective costs. Whatever you decide at any given moment rests solely on your current alternatives. It is only the future that matters, not the past.
If you made the mistake of misspending your money or wasting your time on something previously, it doesn’t matter anymore. What matters is where you decide to spend your resources moving forward. In other words, sunk costs should not affect your future decisions.
And yet, what happens in theory is vastly different from what happens in the real world.
People do consider where their sunk costs have gone. They make present decisions based on the past. In the sunk cost fallacy (or Concorde fallacy), people use their past costs to justify further expenditures.
It’s something we’ve all experienced at some point in our lives. For example:
You bought a ticket to an event, only to feel incredibly bored when attending. Having paid the ticket, you stay at the event until it ends.
You maintain a relationship with someone you don’t enjoy spending time with, mostly because you already invested so much time and energy into the relationship.
You start reading a book and discover by twenty pages in that you don’t want to continue, but you do so simply because you already started it.
When you see these things from an outsider’s perspective, the answer seems incredibly obvious: Just quit! Cut your losses and move on.
It makes no sense to keep throwing good money after bad when it’s become apparent you’re getting less than what you put in.
However, there are reasons why we persist, knowingly sinking resources into something that doesn’t yield fruit. People fall to the sunk cost effect because:
They are afraid of loss.
They remain hopeful that things will turn around eventually.
Their reputations are at stake, since they were responsible for the initial expenditures.
They don’t want to appear wasteful — quitting something is an admission that prior resources used were wasted.
Some of these reasons are less rational, such as fearing loss or appearing wasteful. After all, continuing on with a fruitless endeavor will only lead to more loss and waste.
Other reasons are more justifiable. Sometimes, seemingly hopeless investments do turn out profitable in the long run. And when your reputation is at risk, it can make sense to see something through rather than cutting things abruptly.

---

Lettuce discuss if this applies to Harsin Stan mentality

One of those Hardashian sloots was looking fine at the game.