Enhance
Administrator
This is all because I used the word 'proven' instead of 'evidence'? :blink: Seems like a silly thing to get bogged down in the weeds about when the point, ultimately, is they should be targeting a qualified candidate who knows what he/she is doing with a football program.If you used the word 'evidence', then we're in agreement. The word 'proof' is used wrongly way too often. It sets a standard that often can't be met. "Scientifically proven", for instance, can't even exist due to the nature of science . If I say something is proven to work, I'm not saying the same thing as it works more than 50% of the time. To use that phrase implies at or near 100%.
Im not going to post anymore, I've made the point. I dont think it's fair to any hire to use the "proven" as a qualification because it sets an unfair expectation. Anyone we hire for the job of selecting a new head coach may not hit a home run. It may be prudent to expect that contingency.
Last edited by a moderator: