Toledo looking at former BG coaches

JoeFalcon · Post by **JoeFalcon** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:55 am

Names that continue to come up in discussions concerning the Toledo job include two familiar faces: Dan Mullen (former BG quarterbacks coach/current OC at Florida) and Tim Beckman (former BG defensive coordinator/current DC at OKlahoma State).

Either would be nice choice, but the problem for Toledo is that they're both a bit pricey. Mullen makes over 200K at Florida while Beckman rakes in over 300K at Oklahoma State. The offensive line coach at Florida is also a serious candidate for the Syracuse job, and Mullen might be holding out for a BCS-level opening himself. If hired, they'd also both probably follow the prededent of their former boss and bolt after the first bit of success.

Missouri's Matt Eberflus would be the logical "bring the community together" pick to assuage the old timers upset over Amstutz, but based on the recent basketball hires, I don't think their AD has that at the top of his priority list.

IMO, Grand Valley State coach Chuck Martin would be the best hire for them. He knows the recruiting region, knows how to run a successful program and runs an exciting offense.

h2oville rocket · Post by **h2oville rocket** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:02 am

Don't know if Martin is on anybody else's radar but I like him. I doubt that a BCS level school would pick him up so we have a good shot. Eberflus is a dark horse, IMO. He makes good money already and MOB wants to make his own mark on hiring- bringing another former Rocket in would be seen as just what you said JF- appeasing Amstutz fans. On the other hand I think Eberflus would be a good hire but I don't see it happening.

Falcon137 · Post by **Falcon137** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:45 pm

The offensive coordinator at Florida makes less than the defensive coordinator at Ok. State? I would have never guessed that.

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:44 pm

Falcon137 wrote:The offensive coordinator at Florida makes less than the defensive coordinator at Ok. State? I would have never guessed that.

Most likely, because of this man

factman · Post by **factman** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:01 pm

I would absolutly love for them to hire Mullen! They deserve each other!!!

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:06 am

I didn't know that Beckman left Ohio State. When did that happen?

factman · Post by **factman** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:06 pm

a couple years ago. I believe this is his 2nd season at Cowboy OSU!!

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:15 pm

Who and for how much UT hires their next coach, is going to be a major sign of what is in the heads of its administration.

If they pay somebody solid money, you know they don't intend to run the program on the cheap....as might be the case, say, in BG.

They are building out their athletic facilities, they have stripped down how many teams they have to the bone, and frankly, they may want a more academically and nationally successful program to match their improved self-image.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:25 am

NWLB wrote:Who and for how much UT hires their next coach, is going to be a major sign of what is in the heads of its administration.

If they pay somebody solid money, you know they don't intend to run the program on the cheap....as might be the case, say, in BG.

They are building out their athletic facilities, they have stripped down how many teams they have to the bone, and frankly, they may want a more academically and nationally successful program to match their improved self-image.

Nathan ... Spot on. So if I'm reading your last paragraph correctly, your assesment is that the university is "pruning the tree," so to speak, cutting back on the number of teams and focusing on quality and, we presume, high-visibility quality with their football team.

h2oville rocket · Post by **h2oville rocket** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:56 am

1987alum wrote:Nathan ... Spot on. So if I'm reading your last paragraph correctly, your assesment is that the university is "pruning the tree," so to speak, cutting back on the number of teams and focusing on quality and, we presume, high-visibility quality with their football team.

Agree to some extent. UT has had the same number of athletic teams for several years I believe, before the current administration. More of a nod to cost of running athletics. I won't even mention the travesty of cutting men's track. Nevertheless, the pres surprised us all by being pretty pro athletics when he was advertised as neutral at best. I suspect within the next 2 to 25 years you will see a MAC championship from us in football.

VDub26Falcon · Post by **VDub26Falcon** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:18 am

That's quite a range there H20...I can do better though...BG will win a MAC Championship between next year and 47 years from now.

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:29 am

As noted, UT has held the line on the number of the teams they have. My point was to note they are already at the bare bones with no room to cut. Yet they still have the cheapest athletics program in the MAC overall. BGSU by comparison, still has a number of teams you could by the numbers say are "surplus."

Why I like UT's prexy is that he seems to have a bigger vision of the future which in some cases does not sync with that of the present reality within the old main campus culture. And he is skilled enough to push ahead even when some resistance is encountered. I think he knows the best way for UT to thrive is to hotly focus on the medical, law, and engineering/tech schools. And he wants the entire school, medical to athletics, to improve substantially in quality.