The CheckerBoard

It has been widely reported that if UT wants to hire Gruden, it will have to give him an unprecedented level of control over the program. As Wes said in today's VIP room, Gruden is a "great coach with a bit of an ego," and he has all kinds of leverage at the negotiating table.

Kevin said yesterday that "If Gruden were to come to Tennessee he would demand a lot of $ and a lot of control over the program. In terms of 'control' it means things like reporting to one person only - anybody else is simply there to facilitate the needs of the coach. They aren’t there to tell him 'no.'"

Here's my question: Can UT afford to give that kind of control to its head coach?

I'm looking at this issue through the prism of UT's recent experience. One of Dooley's biggest issues was his tendency to micromanage every aspect of the program, to the detriment of the team. He assumed a great deal of control over operations that had little to do with on-field success, such as public relations and turf management. Allowing Dooley to have such power over areas beyond his expertise distracted the coach from more important duties and alienated people working under him. The members of UT's support staff are experts in their respective fields and have those jobs for a reason. Allowing the head coach to undermine their work damaged the UT program. Can UT afford to let that happen again?

I'm not suggesting Gruden would mismanage the program. But I am raising the question -- does giving almost total control to a coach who has been out of the college game for 20 years put UT in an unnecessarily vulnerable position? Or is it safer for UT to hire a coach with experience managing a college program and willingness to put up with normal departmental checks and balances?

UT won't hire Gruden unless it promises to give him a larger level of control than most coaches usually have. After being burned by Kiffin and failed by Dooley, I'm wondering if that's a wise move to make.