I have a question about the coaching staff.

Maybe I am just stupid or maybe my answer is posted elsewhere but I am honestly confused by this.



So as I understand it the NCAA posts limits on the number of paid coaches you can have on your staff, correct? I assume that BYU, and most other schools, typically have the max number of coaches allowed by the NCAA.



Assuming this means that with Coach Hill BYU was at it's limit. You fire Hill and you're down one. Then you hire Poppinga as a Defensive Coach and you're back at the limit again right?



So doesn't this mean that BYU WILL NOT be hiring a new defensive coordinator because they CAN'T hire a defensive coordinator?

It depends whether Pop was an interim hire or a permanent hire. There is a limit. I assume BYU is at that limit but do not know for certain.



I doubt, either way, that Bronco let's go of DC duties again any time soon.



His recent (2010) pattern has been to promote up and comers from within by picking people that fit the mold and understand what he expects of them - paraphrasing Bronco's recent comments on moving assignments around.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I think the balance Bronco has struggled to find relates to how he wants to influence his players. Based upon comments made yesterday, it sounds as if he has positioned himself to be a confidant for many, more of a life counselor, President Mendenhall. Obviously, if you are "jonny intense" and in those kids faces at practice, makes it harder to take that approach. However, being more hands off has caused some things to slide. I think Bronco sees he needs to show them, be more hands on, and that gets his message across better, and his coaches will take the same approach. I think the intensity level is about to go up in this program, and I for one am pumped about it. Will be less mission pres and more drill sergeant, but with a balance in between.

Cougarbib2 wrote:
It depends whether Pop was an interim hire or a permanent hire. There is a limit. I assume BYU is at that limit but do not know for certain.



I doubt, either way, that Bronco let's go of DC duties again any time soon.



His recent (2010) pattern has been to promote up and comers from within by picking people that fit the mold and understand what he expects of them - paraphrasing Bronco's recent comments on moving assignments around.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

WE AGREE!!!



I doubt that Poppinga is here in that same capacity next year, and if he is - that is more telling that Bronco isn't giving up the defense again. From what I understand, you can only have so many people that you are paying according to the NCAA. With us paying Jamie through the rest of the year into next, we have a "position" to occupy (DC) but not a salary to provide for it. Jamie and co really have no reason to feel bitter about anything, they got the severance package of a lifetime.

Cougarbib2 wrote:
It depends whether Pop was an interim hire or a permanent hire. There is a limit. I assume BYU is at that limit but do not know for certain.



I doubt, either way, that Bronco let's go of DC duties again any time soon.



His recent (2010) pattern has been to promote up and comers from within by picking people that fit the mold and understand what he expects of them - paraphrasing Bronco's recent comments on moving assignments around.

I've thought about whether Poppinga is an interim hire or not and I have my doubts that he is. It doesn't make sense to promote a graduate assistant for 3 or 4 months just to send him back to GA status. Instead of being an interim hire why not just give him more/different responsibilities as a GA? That way you don't have to demote him at the end of the year.



I'm not trying to argue with you bib, I'm just trying to figure it out. :)

And with fat severance arrangments come a whole set of collusive variables that cause things to end up where they are now.

For example, get a fat sev and you make it painful for the institution to fire you...until you really screw up, ie., 120th--dead last--in run defense.

Additionally, get a fat sev and you create bitterness from other D coaches who don't like you anyway. Who knows maybe the eggs came not from fans or players but from D coaches. :-)

Finally, get a fat sev and entitlement grows: "go ahead and fire me, I'm set for 2 years". "Go ahead and disagree with my coaching philosophy, you picked me, let me do it my way or else, what, you going to fire me?"



Throw all that together with "a protected class" (women over 40, disabled, or racial minority) employee (not that a private, non-state-based institutiion is held to as high a standard) and you create some very real entitlement.

**nobody need call me a bigot, its just employment law and the real world**



Chances are, and I'm surprised and a little disappointed Hill got fired, things have been bad for awhile; and as I and others have pointed out, there have been dissensions among the BYU coaches over tyhe last several years and double-digit wins have kept this from unraveling--but I digress from the thread.

Its relevant bc Bronco can't hire another and won't till off season. I don't believe sev packages can limit actual # of coaches. Look at Crowton. What did he have a 3-4 year pay-out?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Wasn't Hill working two positions? DC and DB's? I know some others do this but I wonder how common it really is. I think Long is "only" the DC at SDSU, is that correct? If so do we have the extra position then?

Including strength coaches, Alabama has 11 coaches on their staff, Florida 10. Including Kelly Poppinga(his profile is up at byucougars.com and Hill is gone), we have 11 coaches on our staff. I think we are at the limit now. We also have 2 other admin positions for football---high school relations, which is obviously recruiting and a Director of Football admin, which is basically the HC admin assistant, but not on the field coaches. I do not see a new hire for defense unless some other coaches leave. Same with offense.

As I indicated, I don't know if Pop is permanent or not, but remember some word in an interview of Bronco that could be taken either way. Maybe it is an audition. I also do not know for sure what the exact limit on # of coaches is.



If someone knows, a reconciliation would be interesting. Many teams have coaches wear multiple hats or have the head coach also be one of the coordinators to justify one more position or recruiting coach.



I think we are at full count. And, whether Pop is interim, permanent, or auditioning, I don't see Bronco giving up the DC reins again soon, if ever.



Not to hijack my own thread, but does anyone know how many years are left on Anae's contract?



Both Hill and Anae probably have "Employment at Will" contracts with obligations for full buyout if terminated unless very specific and hard to prove criteria are met that would be a breach of said contract.



So, if one of you gets offerred the DC job, ask for a 5-year contract. TIC TIC TIC



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Typically, assistant coaches are giving contracts on a year to year basis. Especially position coaches. That is why coaches move so much. Longer deals can be in place for coordinators, though, but I still think it is rare. Usually only the head coach has a long term deal. The HC wants flexibility to make changes if needed, and long deals can cost team that way.



As to coach Hill's sweetheart buyout, I have not seen one detail about it, has anyone here? I doubt it since BYU keeps its contracts private and can because it is a private university. All I heard is that it runs until August 2011--basically until next season starts. So he probably gets paid under his contract terms til it expires, as happens is sports, unless they agree to a buyout lump sum upfront. Not sure that is a sweetheart deal, because he may have trouble finding a job that pays equal wage, but it is better than nothing.



But a 5 year deal for a DC just does not happen. Unless you are named the head coach in waiting, like at Texas.

PS - depending on his contract language, Hill may or may not get the full buyout if he quickly lands another job. It could actually turn out to be a financial blessing if he gets the full buyout and a new job in 2 weeks.



But Hill should be careful about using words Like Scapegoat and Mrs Hill should be careful about implying discrimination if they do not want to scare off potential employers.



Bronco gave Hill the opportunity to resign to help him avoid coming across wrong in the media. Hill was at least quick to make it clear that he will not litigate the settlement.



Let's turn the other cheek and not fan the flames here and hope the Hill's quickly and quietly move - it would be the smart thing for them to do



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I forgot to put TIC - I agree that it would be highly unusual for a DC to get a 5-year contract and even less likely at BYU. I thought when I said "if one of you gets offered the DCJob" it would be clear that my tongue was all the way in my cheek.



Typos on my iPhone may have muddled the clarity of that.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Bronco's true love is being involved in these kids life, and being more of a life coach, instead of just a coach. While he is running the defense now; look for him to hand off the job as soon as a suitable replacement comes, or is prepared. Now, Rocky Long would do that for the cougs next season. He could step in and take over in one off-season, and we would be the better team for it, with he Bronco and Rocky. Mendenhall would full on give him the reigns. Look for BYU to aggressively try to hire Rocky after the season, especially if we win SDSU again. Otherwise, I don't see Bronco handing over the reigns to anyone for a couple years. He will have a D-cord, whether it be Poppinga (doubt it, highly) or someone else filling the position and getting prepped, but he won't give it over for a few years. He has learned his lesson, and he only has so much job security that he can use up.

I Doubt Rocky Long gets hired. Isnt he still the designer and master of the 3-3-5? One big problem--we dont exactly have the best track record recruiting and DB's. NOt sure he's the guy.

The 3-3-5 is very similar to the 3-4, except trade a LB for a DB. As far as pressure goes, you can really bring it with either, but we typically sit back more in zone in our schemes now. The trick with this is that the front 4 need to pressure to make the zone effective. Give the QB too much time and the zone buckles. That is the issue this year for us, and was an issue last year as well at times. The years we were really solid on D (2006, 2007), we had a front 4 that pressured, and LBs that were quick and made plays within the scheme. And in both of those years, our corners were not as good as this year, probably not the safeties either. Basically, we need more pressure front the front 4, and for the LBs to make more plays this year. I suspect Bronco will be more aggressive in his fronts this week in hopes of opening lanes for guys to make plays.

dmcougar wrote:
I Doubt Rocky Long gets hired. Isnt he still the designer and master of the 3-3-5? One big problem--we dont exactly have the best track record recruiting and DB's. NOt sure he's the guy.

Disagree. We would actually be better off running the 3-3-5 THIS year, not to mention in the future with guys like Sampson coming, Everett playing, Corby Eason, Bills coming back off a mission, etc. We are much better placed to play it up. Either way, it is not much of a change to do a 3-4 or a 3-3-5, and that is the reason we were able to change to it in a single season. They are pretty interchangeable, actually because the front 6 are the same guys. So we could actually run both in a season if we ever needed to. I would like to see us go to the 3-3-5 under Rocky.

Lawboy wrote:
The 3-3-5 is very similar to the 3-4, except trade a LB for a DB. As far as pressure goes, you can really bring it with either, but we typically sit back more in zone in our schemes now. The trick with this is that the front 4 need to pressure to make the zone effective. Give the QB too much time and the zone buckles. That is the issue this year for us, and was an issue last year as well at times. The years we were really solid on D (2006, 2007), we had a front 4 that pressured, and LBs that were quick and made plays within the scheme. And in both of those years, our corners were not as good as this year, probably not the safeties either. Basically, we need more pressure front the front 4, and for the LBs to make more plays this year. I suspect Bronco will be more aggressive in his fronts this week in hopes of opening lanes for guys to make plays.

Exactly. What I don't understand is why we having our OLB on the strong side play a down lineman position 9 out of 10 times. A hurt JP simply doesn't have the umph to close off the run every single down. If we are going to play such a base 3-4, might as well put a down lineman in there who has more gut to throw around. The coverage is basically the same and wouldn't be hard to learn except JP would have to learn some extra sets, because he would no longer be the one setting the edge, the D end would do that.