I'm less confident he'll coach the bowl game every day. Scott made a point of saying he wants to do what's 'right' by the players and, in some ways, doing the right thing may mean not coaching in the bowl game.Sounds like coaching the bowl game hasn't been completely worked out.
I would bet he will not coach them. It is just so tough to coach them while offering the same recruits and gutting their staff.I'm less confident he'll coach the bowl game every day. Scott made a point of saying he wants to do what's 'right' by the players and, in some ways, doing the right thing may mean not coaching in the bowl game.
One thing UCF fans and players need to keep in mind. He is the play caller on offense. It's not like a CEO type of head coach left and the coordinators are still in place. He is the brain child of the offense and they won because of that offense.
Their best chance to win is to have him on the sidelines calling plays. If people think that's too weird down there, then they're not really wanting the best chance to win.
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned and I missed it, but, apparently there are also some negotiations right now based on his assistants' bonuses. Something along the lines of if he goes back to coach then all of the assistants get their bonuses. If he doesn't and someone like Troy Walters goes then all of the assistants wouldn't get their bonuses.Agree with @Enhance and @teachercd -- things seem to have gone a little sour. I hope he still does, but would not shock me in the least if UCF said "thanks, but no thanks".
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned and I missed it, but, apparently there are also some negotiations right now based on his assistants' bonuses. Something along the lines of if he goes back to coach then all of the assistants get their bonuses. If he doesn't and someone like Troy Walters goes then all of the assistants wouldn't get their bonuses.
I heard this second hand but, if true, money could be a reason UCF says thanks, but no thanks.