Of course, that does not mean that Clawson would never take another job; if one came calling, begging, and it was the kind of school Clawson prefers and in the right location, with the right goodies promised, he might. But this deal means that Wake knows real coaching talent, the kind that can win at the places expected always to lose, and will do whatever it takes to keep it.
Clawson and Mack are nearly opposite in their coaching philosophies/approaches. Clawson is the cerebral version of the very old fashioned coach for whom everything ultimately is about coaches demanding that players master their positions and act always as a team unit. Clawson expects position coaches to make certain that their players are drilled on how to do things correctly, and then how to play within the context of a game plan and individual play calls.
For Mack, it's all about recruiting. Mack knows that if only he can get the most top recruits, he can beat anybody. His assistants will reflect that: they are much more likely to be top recruiters than be top teachers of the fundamentals of playing the position they coach.
A coach like Mack can win big, and consistently, only at schools at which it is rather easily possible to amass the most talent in the conference and even nation: Texas. for example. Mack never could have accomplished at Wake what Grobe did, much less what Clawson has. Mack never could have rebuilt TCU the way Gary Patterson did. And If Kansas State, perhaps then the worst Major Conference program in history, had hired Mack instead of Bill Snyder, K-St likely still would be nothing but a joke.
I more than doubt that Mack could have accomplished what Bill Dooley did at UNC when he did it. Why? Dooley took over a UNC program that had not known more than 1 year in a row of fairly big success in nearly 2 decades. And in the late 1960s, NC produced much, much less football talent that it did in 1990. I have the same doubts that Mack could have accomplished what Crum did when Crum did it (UNC's last ACC Championship along with winning 4 consecutive bowls against Major Conference foes), because NC produced less football talent in 1980 than it did in 1990, which was a bit less than in 1995, which was less than in 2020.
If the team next year fails to be better than 7-5, of what value is all that superb recruiting? If Mr February can't deliver better than mediocrity during the Fall, of what value is he?
There is an obvious answer to Mack's weaknesses as HC: if instead of hiring assistants who like him tend to be best at recruiting, Mack were to hire position coaches who are best at instilling and demanding fundamentals, perhaps the program would have the right mix of recruiting and actual coaching. Right now, what we see over and over is stuff like the DBs going brain dead at key moments, allowing a long TD pass to a guy like Emezie, turning a sure W into a collapse.
Poor position coaches have hurt this program badly over the past 3 seasons.
Clawson and Mack are nearly opposite in their coaching philosophies/approaches. Clawson is the cerebral version of the very old fashioned coach for whom everything ultimately is about coaches demanding that players master their positions and act always as a team unit. Clawson expects position coaches to make certain that their players are drilled on how to do things correctly, and then how to play within the context of a game plan and individual play calls.
For Mack, it's all about recruiting. Mack knows that if only he can get the most top recruits, he can beat anybody. His assistants will reflect that: they are much more likely to be top recruiters than be top teachers of the fundamentals of playing the position they coach.
A coach like Mack can win big, and consistently, only at schools at which it is rather easily possible to amass the most talent in the conference and even nation: Texas. for example. Mack never could have accomplished at Wake what Grobe did, much less what Clawson has. Mack never could have rebuilt TCU the way Gary Patterson did. And If Kansas State, perhaps then the worst Major Conference program in history, had hired Mack instead of Bill Snyder, K-St likely still would be nothing but a joke.
I more than doubt that Mack could have accomplished what Bill Dooley did at UNC when he did it. Why? Dooley took over a UNC program that had not known more than 1 year in a row of fairly big success in nearly 2 decades. And in the late 1960s, NC produced much, much less football talent that it did in 1990. I have the same doubts that Mack could have accomplished what Crum did when Crum did it (UNC's last ACC Championship along with winning 4 consecutive bowls against Major Conference foes), because NC produced less football talent in 1980 than it did in 1990, which was a bit less than in 1995, which was less than in 2020.
If the team next year fails to be better than 7-5, of what value is all that superb recruiting? If Mr February can't deliver better than mediocrity during the Fall, of what value is he?
There is an obvious answer to Mack's weaknesses as HC: if instead of hiring assistants who like him tend to be best at recruiting, Mack were to hire position coaches who are best at instilling and demanding fundamentals, perhaps the program would have the right mix of recruiting and actual coaching. Right now, what we see over and over is stuff like the DBs going brain dead at key moments, allowing a long TD pass to a guy like Emezie, turning a sure W into a collapse.
Poor position coaches have hurt this program badly over the past 3 seasons.
