Offline
I figure this hire is a no lose situation for the many critics of Larry Scott...either it is adding another paid administrator to an already very expensive administrative staff and office location or it is what the Pac-12 desperately needs because Scott is struggling.
After reading Canzano and other articles / columns...I will go with the latter...
1) Much to my surprise, as Canzano notes, currently nobody in the Pac-12 office has any football experience.
2) As someone who is a critic of fanboy websites with no access to coaches, players, etc yet portray themselves as having an "inside look," I prefer people like Canzano who in this situation claims 4 Pac-12 head coaches reached out to him after a column last year about the lack of football knowledge in the Pac-12 offices.
Welcome Merton Hanks!
Last edited by DucksReign (8/20/2020 9:10 am)
Offline
DucksReign wrote:
I figure this hire is a no lose situation for the many critics of Larry Scott...either it is adding another paid administrator to an already very expensive administrative staff and office location or it is what the Pac-12 desperately needs because Scott is struggling.
After reading Canzano and other articles / columns...I will go with the latter...
1) Much to my surprise, as Canzano notes, currently nobody in the Pac-12 office has any football experience.
2) As someone who is a critic of fanboy websites with no access to coaches, players, etc yet portray themselves as having an "inside look," I prefer people like Canzano who in this situation claims 4 Pac-12 head coaches reached out to him after a column last year about the lack of football knowledge in the Pac-12 offices.
Welcome Merton Hanks!
I like this hire, and yeah, hard to believe that there is no FB experience in PAC-12 leadership. To me, there needs to be a house cleaning and a move toward fiscal responsibility.
Offline
It's a good hire but Larry Scott is still highly suspect as the commissioner. If college football ever comes back again we'll see if there are any positive changes. Or will Scott try to mold Hanks into his yes man?
Offline
I hope he doesn't stick his neck out for that turkey Larry Scott!
Offline
While adding a bureaucratic layer to an already over-layered hierarchy, this move makes sense. Hanks is a veteran professional all-pro player (with a ring!) who has a wealth of executive experience and because of his background should much more accessible to the "players movement" in the conference, Larry way over his head on that front. Love his chicken dance celebrations, guy was one of the best in the 90's...
Offline
1) I think Scott is arrogant but not stupid as it relates to his job security. The question posed in a previous comment is valid i.e. Will he simply turn Hanks into a "yes man." Along that same thought process, will he be one of those leaders who takes all the credit when good things happen and then allows blame to be directed at Hanks when bad things happen?
2) Setting aside Hanks many solid credentials for doing this job along with the fact that he "played the game"....with almost half(5) of the Pac-12 football head coaches being African-American...Shaw, Lake, Dorrell, Sumlin and Edwards...besides countless assistant coaches and players....his hire should provide a healthy channel of communication in that context but for everyone because now there is a "football man" running football. I do not have the feeling that head coaches, assistant coaches, players and maybe even AD's, regardless of their ethnicity, will now complain about having to bypass Larry Scott to work with Hanks.
3) I have been wondering who the 4 head coaches are who approached Canzano as per his column? Just a guess of course but for sure at the top of my list is the now departed Mike Leach who make no secret of his dislike for Scott. Maybe Cristobal and Smith due to the proximity to Canzano and that he "covers" them regularly and presumably has an "off the record" at times understanding with them. Possibly Edwards. Without having any idea of Canzano's relationship with these head coaches, it is all just a fun guessing game!
Offline
DucksReign wrote:
1) I think Scott is arrogant but not stupid as it relates to his job security. The question posed in a previous comment is valid i.e. Will he simply turn Hanks into a "yes man." Along that same thought process, will he be one of those leaders who takes all the credit when good things happen and then allows blame to be directed at Hanks when bad things happen?
2) Setting aside Hanks many solid credentials for doing this job along with the fact that he "played the game"....with almost half(5) of the Pac-12 football head coaches being African-American...Shaw, Lake, Dorrell, Sumlin and Edwards...besides countless assistant coaches and players....his hire should provide a healthy channel of communication in that context but for everyone because now there is a "football man" running football. I do not have the feeling that head coaches, assistant coaches, players and maybe even AD's, regardless of their ethnicity, will now complain about having to bypass Larry Scott to work with Hanks.
3) I have been wondering who the 4 head coaches are who approached Canzano as per his column? Just a guess of course but for sure at the top of my list is the now departed Mike Leach who make no secret of his dislike for Scott. Maybe Cristobal and Smith due to the proximity to Canzano and that he "covers"
them regularly and presumably has an "off the record" at times understanding with them. Possibly Edwards. Without having any idea of Canzano's relationship with these head coaches, it is all just a fun guessing game!
In regards to guessing who the 4 coaches were who approached Canzano; A probable answer to that question is no coach approached him. This is Canzano we're talking about here...