Uncle Si":r1ejk517 said:
So... despite the Seahawks own coach doing it, their is some historical precedent in which coaches dont go back and forth? got it.... in fact, depending on what you call "successful" (lets go with mediocre) there have been a lot of NFL coaches who became quite successful college coaches
I cant imagine a coach stepping away from the NFL, its intense pressure and short lifespan for the same (if not more) money of the NFL to return to a major collegiate program and be king.
cant see it. You're right, the destitute Raiders or Jags would be far better than a major college football program.
Truth told, I could care less if he stays with the 9ers, moves to the Raiders, takes over Michigan or flies to the moon. your resolution, however, is assumption not fact.
It seems like you're being serious, so I'll explan it clearly one more time before dropping it.
A) I said that there is no historical precedent for HCs leaving the NFL to be HCs at the college level
when they have the option to remain HCs at the NFL level.
After being fired by the Pats, P.C. was
only offered coordinator jobs at the NFL level, so he does not apply to the claim I made.
B) My "resolution" is of course an assumption, and I have not claimed it to be otherwise. It is an assumption based on five things, in descending order of importance:
1) There is no historical precedent for a coach with HC opportunities in the NFL choosing to return to the college ranks. As should always be the case, it should take a preponderance of evidence to believe that something that could have happened all the time will now be happening for the very first time.
2) Harbaugh and the Raiders have been reported to be mutually interested in each other.
3) Harbaugh family nixed a move to Cleveland, OH because they wanted to stay in the Bay Area, where like, the Raiders are, and the Wolverines in Ann Arbor definitely aren't.
4) Alums use Harbaugh's history at Michigan to hope he'll save their flailing major college program. He also has ties to the Raiders.
5) If the argument is that the Raiders have fallen on hard times and are not desirable, the Wolverines are the answer? They too have fallen on hard times.
Make sense? I am making an assumption iit just happens to be an assumption that's based on multiple justifiable reasons. That doesn't mean my assumption is correct (by a long shot), but it is in the least explained (repeatedly) and supported. If someone wants to counter the legitimacy of these reasons I'm all for it, but just disagreeing without anything substantive isn't a good use of anyone's time, IMO.