Ok, so these have been brought up as the two coaches we will first look at, and for all the people tantruming about that possibility . . . this post isn't for you. Im just simply comparing the two.
Taggart
Basically the big shot on Taggart is his 7-6 record at Oregon after a year there, and its senseless to force that on him because hes not even playing with his players or fully integrated his system at this point. This is his record:
In 2010 he took over WKU who had a 26 game losing streak. He only one 2 games his first season (but that broke the streak), then had two seven win seasons after which he accepted the USF job.
USF won 2 games his first season (they only won 3 the year before he got there). His second year they only went 4-8 and underwent major personnel changes while bringing in improved recruiting classes. HE DID A FULL REBUILD (key point). So, in 2015 they went 8-5 and to a bowl for the first time in half a decade, and then went 10-2, winning their conference division and having the first double digit win in USF history . . . then Taggert went to Oregon. Keep in mind his turn around at USF took 3 years to show up.
At Oregon this is his first season and he has gone 7-5 after they went 4-8 the year before he got there.
Taggart clearly excels in recruiting, as you can see his programs take off as he gets his system and plan in place. At oregon where the cupboard was depleted but not empty he improved their record his first year. So thats not a case of "he only went 7-5", thats a case of, "with only his coaching he made an improvement at a declining school in one year." One can only imagine what he would do back in his main recruiting grounds in florida, with so much built up recruiting talent WKU and USF cry about it.
Strong - In 2010 Strong took over a louisville team that had had 2 consecutive losing seasons. He had immediate success winning 7 games his first year, 7 his second year, and then once his system was in place went 11-2 and 12-1. Note he didn't have to rebuild but he had a similar effect as Taggart in Oregon.
In 2014 charlie took over for Mack Brown in a texas program in dysfunction. They won 8 games the previous year but had had lacking recruiting classes and multiple issues which needed to be addressed. Charlie GUTTED the program his first year and still managed to win 6 games. The next two years he only won 5 games . . . but was already having to fight administration his second year in (in fact before he even got on campus some administrators were protesting him as a coach).
Compared to the rebuild Taggart did at USF, STrong had to do a more extensive rebuild and had to compete with several rising star in state rivals.
At FSU Strong would have less of a rebuild than ever before and more talent available. He would possibly be an even better recruiter than Taggart. Hermann at texas essentially inherited Strong's completed rebuild and went a much more competitive 6-6. However one has to wonder where Strong would have been? Perhaps 8 and 4? After 4 years? And with penny pinching counterproductive support from admin like he would face at FSU as well?
SUMMARY: Given the two, Taggart looks like he would thrive as he has been shown to turn programs around and responded favorably to the expanded funds and exposure at Oregon. Taggart seems to take 2 years to get his program in place, but may be able to improve in his first year.
Strong on the other hand takes longer to get his system in place and has not shown to excel at Texas, he would be the riskier hire.
Both would recruit well, both are well connected in the state.
So who would you pick? I would feel more comfortable short term with Taggart, and more scared that our admin would keep strong closer to his coaching floor than his ceiling.
Taggart
Basically the big shot on Taggart is his 7-6 record at Oregon after a year there, and its senseless to force that on him because hes not even playing with his players or fully integrated his system at this point. This is his record:
In 2010 he took over WKU who had a 26 game losing streak. He only one 2 games his first season (but that broke the streak), then had two seven win seasons after which he accepted the USF job.
USF won 2 games his first season (they only won 3 the year before he got there). His second year they only went 4-8 and underwent major personnel changes while bringing in improved recruiting classes. HE DID A FULL REBUILD (key point). So, in 2015 they went 8-5 and to a bowl for the first time in half a decade, and then went 10-2, winning their conference division and having the first double digit win in USF history . . . then Taggert went to Oregon. Keep in mind his turn around at USF took 3 years to show up.
At Oregon this is his first season and he has gone 7-5 after they went 4-8 the year before he got there.
Taggart clearly excels in recruiting, as you can see his programs take off as he gets his system and plan in place. At oregon where the cupboard was depleted but not empty he improved their record his first year. So thats not a case of "he only went 7-5", thats a case of, "with only his coaching he made an improvement at a declining school in one year." One can only imagine what he would do back in his main recruiting grounds in florida, with so much built up recruiting talent WKU and USF cry about it.
Strong - In 2010 Strong took over a louisville team that had had 2 consecutive losing seasons. He had immediate success winning 7 games his first year, 7 his second year, and then once his system was in place went 11-2 and 12-1. Note he didn't have to rebuild but he had a similar effect as Taggart in Oregon.
In 2014 charlie took over for Mack Brown in a texas program in dysfunction. They won 8 games the previous year but had had lacking recruiting classes and multiple issues which needed to be addressed. Charlie GUTTED the program his first year and still managed to win 6 games. The next two years he only won 5 games . . . but was already having to fight administration his second year in (in fact before he even got on campus some administrators were protesting him as a coach).
Compared to the rebuild Taggart did at USF, STrong had to do a more extensive rebuild and had to compete with several rising star in state rivals.
At FSU Strong would have less of a rebuild than ever before and more talent available. He would possibly be an even better recruiter than Taggart. Hermann at texas essentially inherited Strong's completed rebuild and went a much more competitive 6-6. However one has to wonder where Strong would have been? Perhaps 8 and 4? After 4 years? And with penny pinching counterproductive support from admin like he would face at FSU as well?
SUMMARY: Given the two, Taggart looks like he would thrive as he has been shown to turn programs around and responded favorably to the expanded funds and exposure at Oregon. Taggart seems to take 2 years to get his program in place, but may be able to improve in his first year.
Strong on the other hand takes longer to get his system in place and has not shown to excel at Texas, he would be the riskier hire.
Both would recruit well, both are well connected in the state.
So who would you pick? I would feel more comfortable short term with Taggart, and more scared that our admin would keep strong closer to his coaching floor than his ceiling.
