I noticed a bit of discussion on this point in another thread, and thought I'd start a thread on the subject. I've wondered the same thing since Engstrom fired Pflu/O'Day, and after hearing that Engstrom didn't know much about football or athletics and was mainly an academic who became an administrator. Everyone seems to agree that Engstrom wants a clean program, whatever that means. But does that mean that any coach who has ever had a significant issue somewhere (not matter how long ago), is automatically disqualified at UM? At what point does Engstrom's goal of a clean program take precedence over a commitment to excellence and success in football or athletics? I can't imagine that Haslam isn't committed to success in football, but I wonder how much he is hamstrung by Engstrom.
Any thoughts?
By the way, I liked all of the leading candidates, including Stitt. It seems like the search has veered in some odd directions at times, and I'm curious as to why that occurred. And yes, we know that it's possible to have a clean program and be successful. And no one is suggesting that UM not have a clean program.
Any thoughts?
By the way, I liked all of the leading candidates, including Stitt. It seems like the search has veered in some odd directions at times, and I'm curious as to why that occurred. And yes, we know that it's possible to have a clean program and be successful. And no one is suggesting that UM not have a clean program.