If we were to hire Schellas away from SMU, do you think he would intice Ramon to come along for the ride? I think since one of the Hunt boys played under Schellas that he is the frontrunner, especially if he can talk some sense into Ramoncito. But then again I know absolutely nothing about him or any of the other morons that are in the chase.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not big fan of hiring college coaches whose teams consistently fall apart in the tournament just because they might bring along some 18-year-old phenom. I'm more a fan of the whole "hire the best coach available" philosophy.
I agree. Go for the best one out there and I'm not talking about just here in the states, but Europea as well.
I wouldn't get my hopes up about Ramon either, sure he may be great, but I don't know if he's ready to be pro yet. We may have another Eddie Johnson situation on our hands.
Arena was a college coach. Schmid was. Bradley was. Sampson was. Fitzgerald was. I know Jefe does not really care for the idea, because SMU has never won the championship. I am not pulling for him to get the job, but I think it's a serious chance because Schellas, unlike Collin, Mo, Bliss, and whoever else have not built an entire program before. True SMU has never won it all, but Schellas is the winningest NCAA coach in history, or close to it. SMU is a consistent program. And right now viewing the Burn as a building program is not a hard thing to do. Is an MLS team, at any stage, a program? Maybe not. But the Burn is a multiyear project and that is what Schellas has done for a long time. Personally I am pulling for Collin. He's got World Cup qualifying experience, high quality first division experience, head coaching somewhere, and enough time in MLS to know how it really works. Collin is continuity. Change is good, yes, but changing coaches all the time is counterproductive. this is half way; change of head coach without going to a total unknown.
Look, Joselito Vaca, two years ago, was one of the most exciting prospects in the league. The similarity to Nunez is pretty close: small, technically skilled attacking midfielders. Nunez, like any prospect, is by no means a sure thing, and, considering that there is a great deal of talent available in each draft, it's not like if we don't get Nunez, we get nothing. In fact, I think at this point, on the off chance that Chad Marshall signed with MLS, I'd take him over Nunez. Regardless, Nunez, at 18, is not going to be a savior. Dave Sarachan, Frank Yallop, and Bob Bradley have proved that in this league, it's more important to have a good coach than the most talented team (is Columbus enjoying their vacation, I wonder), especially in a league that so strongly stresses parity. It is far, far more important to get a good coach than it is to get a talented player in MLS. I would happily, happily trade our number one pick, and probably a lot more than that, to get Frank Yallop. I'd be surprised if there were many people here who wouldn't. If our new management picks our coach based on what talent he might be able to bring in, instead of who they think is the most talented coach, well, it would be a tragedy. I have no idea whether or not Hyndman would be a good MLS coach, but I know it's not worth bringing an inferior coach for any player short of Alessandro Nesta or Pavel Nedved.
Is the job of building an MLS team anything like that of building a college program, though? Hyndman's job at SMU is not so much to identify talent, as to convince them to come play at his school. There is no need for that in MLS: you draft them, they have to come (pretty much). It is a whole lot easier to pick out a player that is going to be successful at SMU than it is to pick one who is going to be the most successful in MLS. And no, if there's anything that Bill Parcells's tenure at the Cowboys has taught me (and presumably much of Dallas), it's that in leagues where parity is enormous (MLS, in my opinion, most resembles the NFL in this respect), no year is a lost cause: there is no time, or need, for rebuilding. Yes, we may not be the most talented team next year, and, obviously, we'll be playing at Southlake, but that certainly doesn't mean we have to resign ourselves to another miserable 6-19-5 season.
If the Burn are indeed a multiyear project, then someone has screwed up along the way. In MLS, there's absolute no evidence that building a winner requires "a multiyear project." Let's look the MLS Cup finalists, shall we? 1996: OK, everybody was an expansion team. 1997: DC United, defending champion. Colorado, worst in the league in '96. 1998: Chicago, expansion team. DC United, defending champion. 1999: DC United, finalist in '98. LA, conference finalist in '98. 2000: Kansas City, worst in the West in '99. Chicago, 3rd in the West in '99. 2001: San Jose, worst in the West in 2000. LA, semifinalist in 2000. 2002: LA, finalist in 2001. New England, worst in the East in 2001. Notice how many times the word "worst" appears there when describing the finalists' finish in their previous seasons? In MLS, with as much parity as exists, it's not only possible for bad teams to turn around quickly, it should be expected. San Jose, 1997-2000, and DC, 2000-2002, are more or less the exceptions that define the rule. In this league, multiyear projects are for suckers. If the Burn are not back in the playoffs next year, then next season should be considered nothing less than abject failure, even moreso than this season. After all, we didn't have an allocation and a bunch of high draft picks this season.
Well even he is an improvement over jefferies. Burn could also go from the former Millwall and Crystal Palace coaches.
Obviously, I doubt that Hoddle would be looking to find a gig in MLS, but, even if he were, I'd rather have an American, for two reasons: 1. coaches brought over from abroad, without any experience in America, seem to struggle with the peculiar restrictions they have in a league like MLS (draft instead of youth squads, trades instead of signings), and 2. Hoddle obviously doesn't do anything to help U.S. soccer. I think MLS needs to be seen not only as a place to develop American players, but also American coaches and administrators, and Hoddle doesn't fit this bill.
I'm definitely rooting against Hyndman. He has one major shortcoming in my eyes - a lack of "fire in the belly," ambition, or simple desire to succeed at a higher level. I have never so much as heard him say that he would like to coach professionally someday under some circumstances. I see him as an old coach, firmly entrenched in his comfort zone, completely happy to remain forever king of a tiny little pond at SMU. We should be able to do better than someone who has to be repeatedly begged to move up to the next level.
Just because he has not jumped at the chance to coach professional I don't think that you can say he does not have a fire in his belley. If you look at the fact that he is set at SMU with a successful team almost every year, and the fact that being a professional coach isn't usually long term I can understand why he turned down the job 3 years ago. I think that with the way the SMU team did this year and his age, I can understand why he would think that this is a right time to make the move to the professional stage. With his success at different positions, I think that he has what it takes to make the Burn successful.
Anybody who is capable of taking a kick in the balls from a punter must have a little fire in the belly.
Glen Hoddle? I think he is a great coach and player (think he might pull on a jersey?), but let's face it. How many European Champions Cup has him team won? How many UEFA Super Cups? Brain Clough is rested, ready, and has a has a shiney new liver. Let's bring Cloughie's big head to Dallas! Hyndman might be a very good MLS coach, everything we want, but as I insinuated in another post, HSG might not offer enough money for him to leave a very comfotable position. Give Colin two years. Hyndman will still be aorund.