I know this is down the road, but it was something I thought about today. It seems like a decent topic for the first week game against Weber. There are several "ifs", but it seems interesting - to me at least.
If #1: Whitt leaves within 5 years and has won a PAC 12 (or even P12 South) title.
If #2: Morgan Scalley stays as DC during Whitt's time.
If #3: Jay Hill stays at Weber for the same time and keeps Weber at the level to which he brought it.
I said it was hypothetical... but if those were the two options to take over for Whitt, who would be the better option in your opinion?
Hill would have been a successful HC of a program for close to 10 years. He would have brought said program to levels it hadn't achieved before. He would know how to recruit the region as well as having coaches who also know how to do so. There are more pros and cons, but I want to leave some for the argument.
Scalley would have been a successful DC in a P5 conference with a conference (or division) title. He would have been part of taking Utah to a level in the P12 it hadn't reached before. He also, obviously, would know how to recruit to the program for maximum effect. Again, more pros and cons to be discussed.
Maybe it's only interesting to me, but I thought this might be a good week to think about this type of future. I'm not really sure. Maybe it just comes down to whether or not you think an FCS HC with years of success (Tressel - not that Hill is at that level) is better suited to be a head coach than an FBS DC who has been tutored by the person who built the P12 foundation.
If #1: Whitt leaves within 5 years and has won a PAC 12 (or even P12 South) title.
If #2: Morgan Scalley stays as DC during Whitt's time.
If #3: Jay Hill stays at Weber for the same time and keeps Weber at the level to which he brought it.
I said it was hypothetical... but if those were the two options to take over for Whitt, who would be the better option in your opinion?
Hill would have been a successful HC of a program for close to 10 years. He would have brought said program to levels it hadn't achieved before. He would know how to recruit the region as well as having coaches who also know how to do so. There are more pros and cons, but I want to leave some for the argument.
Scalley would have been a successful DC in a P5 conference with a conference (or division) title. He would have been part of taking Utah to a level in the P12 it hadn't reached before. He also, obviously, would know how to recruit to the program for maximum effect. Again, more pros and cons to be discussed.
Maybe it's only interesting to me, but I thought this might be a good week to think about this type of future. I'm not really sure. Maybe it just comes down to whether or not you think an FCS HC with years of success (Tressel - not that Hill is at that level) is better suited to be a head coach than an FBS DC who has been tutored by the person who built the P12 foundation.
