I think a large chunk of fans and alums have no idea who he is. I follow BG sports pretty closely and had never heard of him until his name began circulating. It's nice he went to BG, but, he was just a run of the mill assistant at an after thought ACC basketball school. Not saying it was a bad or wrong hire. It just is what it is. If you were to strip the fact he went to BG I would probably think this was a horrible hire.
Like JP said, I'll be more excited after I hear a press conference and get to meet him. The most surprising thing to me is that they gave him the same money as Jans. Seems like a lot for a guy who has never even been an associate head coach.
I like they brought in an alum, someone who knows the town, the fans, and everything that comes with BG. Having a coach that understands the fan base is half the battle, especially in Bowling Green. It's been a while since a basketball or football coach really connected with the town. Certain coaches just fit places.
For all of you people that are saying he "was JUST an assistant", I remember "just an assistant" wide receiver coach that turned out to be a pretty darn good football coach!
factman wrote:For all of you people that are saying he "was JUST an assistant", I remember "just an assistant" wide receiver coach that turned out to be a pretty darn good football coach!
I thought Zach was an offensive coordinator now, not a head coach.
"The name on the front of the jersey is more important than the name on the back" -Herb Brooks
I get the feeling that there is a sentiment that this guy wouldn't have even been considered if he hadn't played for BG in the past. Had he been interviewed for any Head Jobs previously?
factman wrote:For all of you people that are saying he "was JUST an assistant", I remember "just an assistant" wide receiver coach that turned out to be a pretty darn good football coach!
I thought Zach was an offensive coordinator now, not a head coach.
Zach isn't the OC either. He might be the passing game coordinator but former Lloyd Carr assistant Mike DeBord was hired after not coaching since 2008 this offseason to be Tennessee's OC.
The press release featured the return of an especially noxious trend that I thought had been extinguished but seems to be making a return: a highly competitive Division I athletic program that mentions competitive success as an afterthought, tiptoeing around the issue and almost apologetically avoiding language that suggests a commitment to win.
Why does any acknowledgement of the desire to be good have to be prefaced by a dozen solemn declarations of things that rank as a higher priority? These proclamations are wielded as evidence of some unimpeachable moral rectitude, and those that roll their eyes at this piousness are dismissed as rogues willing to condone misbehavior. They're our enlightened betters and we're incorrigible used car salesmen. They're Neal deGrasse Tyson and we're Mike Tyson. In addition to being wrong, it profoundly misunderstands our position. We don't want to "Win at all costs," but there are definite costs to be paid in the form of prioritizing certain factors and deemphasizing others: not character, ethics or morality, as is assumed, but provincialism, comfort, nostalgia and familiarity. The ability to recruit has to mean more than the opinions of ex players. The ability to make players better is more important than whether some season-ticket holders remember a name from way back when. Michael Huger needs to get the job because he helped coach George Mason to 27 wins, something meaningful and tangible, not because his buddies pushed for him. He should have gotten the job because he helped coach a middle-tier ACC program to a conference championship and Sweet 16 in 2013 based on guard play and defense, not because he happened to have played here 20 years ago. Michael Huger is a good person, something unquestionably laudable, but the other coaches in the MAC aren't exactly knocking off liquor stores. It's not either or; we can, should and deserve someone that meets a reasonable threshold for ethics and can work tenaciously at the job he's being paid a third of a million dollars to do. Yes, he was a former player here, but a man named Harold Anderson wasn't and he turned out OK. Michael Huger is a coach, and let's celebrate him for his accomplishments in coaching and what he can bring to the future of the program.
Bowling Green has never been found guilty of a major infraction by the NCAA in any sport. That's part of our brand, and I don't object to the athletic department selling that brand. We win, but we do it the right way.
Schadenfreude wrote:Bowling Green has never been found guilty of a major infraction by the NCAA in any sport. That's part of our brand, and I don't object to the athletic department selling that brand. We win, but we do it the right way.
mscarn wrote:The press release featured the return of an especially noxious trend that I thought had been extinguished but seems to be making a return: a highly competitive Division I athletic program that mentions competitive success as an afterthought, tiptoeing around the issue and almost apologetically avoiding language that suggests a commitment to win.
Why does any acknowledgement of the desire to be good have to be prefaced by a dozen solemn declarations of things that rank as a higher priority? These proclamations are wielded as evidence of some unimpeachable moral rectitude, and those that roll their eyes at this piousness are dismissed as rogues willing to condone misbehavior. They're our enlightened betters and we're incorrigible used car salesmen. They're Neal deGrasse Tyson and we're Mike Tyson. In addition to being wrong, it profoundly misunderstands our position. We don't want to "Win at all costs," but there are definite costs to be paid in the form of prioritizing certain factors and deemphasizing others: not character, ethics or morality, as is assumed, but provincialism, comfort, nostalgia and familiarity. The ability to recruit has to mean more than the opinions of ex players. The ability to make players better is more important than whether some season-ticket holders remember a name from way back when. Michael Huger needs to get the job because he helped coach George Mason to 27 wins, something meaningful and tangible, not because his buddies pushed for him. He should have gotten the job because he helped coach a middle-tier ACC program to a conference championship and Sweet 16 in 2013 based on guard play and defense, not because he happened to have played here 20 years ago. Michael Huger is a good person, something unquestionably laudable, but the other coaches in the MAC aren't exactly knocking off liquor stores. It's not either or; we can, should and deserve someone that meets a reasonable threshold for ethics and can work tenaciously at the job he's being paid a third of a million dollars to do. Yes, he was a former player here, but a man named Harold Anderson wasn't and he turned out OK. Michael Huger is a coach, and let's celebrate him for his accomplishments in coaching and what he can bring to the future of the program.
Yik yik yik...yak yak yak....the bottm line is this. No one cares how the sausage got made, they just want it to be good. I don't how they present Huger, I just want him to win.
It's not the fall that hurts...it's when you hit the ground.
mscarn wrote:The press release featured the return of an especially noxious trend that I thought had been extinguished but seems to be making a return: a highly competitive Division I athletic program that mentions competitive success as an afterthought, tiptoeing around the issue and almost apologetically avoiding language that suggests a commitment to win.
Why does any acknowledgement of the desire to be good have to be prefaced by a dozen solemn declarations of things that rank as a higher priority? These proclamations are wielded as evidence of some unimpeachable moral rectitude, and those that roll their eyes at this piousness are dismissed as rogues willing to condone misbehavior. They're our enlightened betters and we're incorrigible used car salesmen. They're Neal deGrasse Tyson and we're Mike Tyson. In addition to being wrong, it profoundly misunderstands our position. We don't want to "Win at all costs," but there are definite costs to be paid in the form of prioritizing certain factors and deemphasizing others: not character, ethics or morality, as is assumed, but provincialism, comfort, nostalgia and familiarity. The ability to recruit has to mean more than the opinions of ex players. The ability to make players better is more important than whether some season-ticket holders remember a name from way back when. Michael Huger needs to get the job because he helped coach George Mason to 27 wins, something meaningful and tangible, not because his buddies pushed for him. He should have gotten the job because he helped coach a middle-tier ACC program to a conference championship and Sweet 16 in 2013 based on guard play and defense, not because he happened to have played here 20 years ago. Michael Huger is a good person, something unquestionably laudable, but the other coaches in the MAC aren't exactly knocking off liquor stores. It's not either or; we can, should and deserve someone that meets a reasonable threshold for ethics and can work tenaciously at the job he's being paid a third of a million dollars to do. Yes, he was a former player here, but a man named Harold Anderson wasn't and he turned out OK. Michael Huger is a coach, and let's celebrate him for his accomplishments in coaching and what he can bring to the future of the program.
Yik yik yik...yak yak yak....the bottm line is this. No one cares how the sausage got made, they just want it to be good. I don't how they present Huger, I just want him to win.
I think the gap in his teeth has some marketing potential. Kind of like the unibrow on Anthony Davis in New Orleans.
"Windows are for cheaters, chimneys for the poor.
Closets are for hangers, winners use the door."
Flipper wrote:You're kind of insulting Huger with the Davis comp. AD is so ugly Chloe Kardashian would pass on him...
The genetic lottery often forces ya to give something up to get something else. Davis is probably the best young player in the NBA, and has a shot at being the best big man since Shaq.
I'm glad he's fugly. If he also looked good, I'd think he made some sort of deal with the devil.
