So the concept is that we need to bring Strong back because we are young and inexperienced, and next year these kids will be older and more seasoned - thus, it's only fair to give Charlie a more optimal situation.
Fair enough. Simple idea to project moving forward. But two questions:
1. Shouldn't this concept be acceptable for the rest of the coaching staff? (If we can't truly judge Strong on his current mix of player age mix, how are we to judge other coaches?)
2. If the logic is true that players will improve with more experience (time is the driver), wouldn't also be true that the players will be improved next year no matter WHO the head coach is? (If time is driving player improvements, that means that a new HC would also reap the benefits of these improvements.)
We can't allow double standards. If Texas will be better next year because our young players will have more experience and be a year older physically, we need to apply these improvements to every scenario.
Fair enough. Simple idea to project moving forward. But two questions:
1. Shouldn't this concept be acceptable for the rest of the coaching staff? (If we can't truly judge Strong on his current mix of player age mix, how are we to judge other coaches?)
2. If the logic is true that players will improve with more experience (time is the driver), wouldn't also be true that the players will be improved next year no matter WHO the head coach is? (If time is driving player improvements, that means that a new HC would also reap the benefits of these improvements.)
We can't allow double standards. If Texas will be better next year because our young players will have more experience and be a year older physically, we need to apply these improvements to every scenario.
