• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

DT Luke Fickell (HC Wisconsin Badgers)

This. In my job I have ONE Base Commander, ONE Group Commander, ONE Unit Commander, ONE Position Leader, ONE direct supervisor.

This isn't hard to understand. You have leaders, and then you have assistants. IMO, a Coordinator is a position which requires leadership, not assistance. You get one man to do the job and shoulder the load. Under him are position coaches that assist him. This makes for ownership of a unit and a clean chain of command that the players can take their instructions from.

Having two coordinators muddles everything. You have two different guys with two different backgrounds, leadership approaches, and personalities.

As a Vet, I know for a fact most people deal with multiple Chains of Command.
For example... you laid out NCOIC (E8) -> Successive Unit COs (O3 -> O5 -> O6 etc.)
But if you're maintenance, there is simultaneously also Maintenance NCOIC (E8) -> Maintenance Officer (CWO), and successive Maintenance Officers at higher unit levels (O4 -> 05 etc.)
If you're on the operations side, there is a simultaneous Duty Officer at the Battalion or Squadron level (O4) who will intercede on the CO's behalf and handle matters in a more hands-on approach. Often accompanied by his own hand-picked SNCO.

It's not always clear what falls to which chain either. Most decisions, regardless of context, in my first unit were handled as a committee by "The Four Tops" as we called them. Two E8s, a CWO4 and O3.
For about 3 months, the O3 would only come to work in the afternoons to rubber stamp paperwork; otherwise taking phone calls from the golf course. At times the two E8s would take turns on who would show up for the day and either of them would put their John Hancock to the paperwork. This might seem irresponsible, but it was during this period that the unit was most efficient, contributed significantly to the larger unit earning a NUC, and after 9/11 earned the first opportunity for our type of unit to deploy in Operations since Vietnam -- on the basis of that efficiency, and earned a MUC for that deployment.

In other instances I've encountered on the Operations side, the NCOIC and CO are practically cut out of the chain by other Officers who are more hands-on. In an Operations environment with an Officer-heavy duty roster (previous situation had 70 enlisted to 1 CWO and 1 CO... and this one had 50 Enlisted to 25 Officers), there's often no rank considerations at all. Orders come down the pipeline and could be disseminated by any number of Officers; often leading to situations of conflicting orders from people far above your pay grade. You work for different Officers every week, and while your evaluation paperwork may be filled out by 1 SNCO every time -- it'll be heavily influenced by the impressions fed to him by those Officers b/c he's not present to know what did or didn't happen himself.

And then even if we cut those out, all the extracurricular stuff have Chains of their own. There's another Chain for the Base itself; independent of your unit's command structure. There's another Chain in the Barracks. And another for PT. And another for Training. And another for COMSEC. etc. etc. etc.
Even at the top end, it's often muddled. You've got a General for the MEF containing a Wing and a Division, and his direct boss is theoretically MARFORCOM or MARFORPAC. However, if you deploy you'll generally find yourself really under a designated Theater Commander; likely via a Liaison from your Service. While simultaneously being held responsible to FORCOM or FORPAC dependent on your unit's home location. Then there's often positions for forces within a given country; which includes only part of a MEF and has no direct command over the MEF -- but to which those portions of the MEF do answer to.

TL;DR The military is far from being a straight up-and-down Hierarchical structure. Unless you're a non-rate answering to an NCO directly above you; there's another boss in every direction. And commonly these bosses hold power over people of lower rank due to the Billet. ie: Base CO being a Colonel holding sway over a Brig. Gen., whose unit resides on that base, on certain matters.

When we deployed, the Chair Force and Army had a power struggle over the base. On paper it was an Army base, with the Base Commander starting off as a Colonel. However, the importance and relevance of the base was undoubtedly tied to the Air Force. The Army merely had HQ sections for 10th Mountain and 82nd Airborne there. The actual combat elements were elsewhere. Whereas the Air Force operated out of this base providing CAS and AMC to various combat elements throughout the theater (not just the 10th or 82nd.)
Fed up with some of the asinine Army bs, the Air Force brought in a Star who promptly told the Army to shove it. The Army then brought in their own Brig. Gen.; and made even more asinine rules such as mandating that kevlars and flak jacket must be worn for "safety" while operating a Gator and limiting base-wide speed limit to 5mph
Best part is, our CWO (with only the backing of a Captain on the bring of derangement) told all of them to take a hike. And when General Pace (then Vice Chairmain JCOS) arrived, and they apparently complained, he had our backs and the CWO3 became a CWO4 within the month.
 
Upvote 0
As a Vet, I know for a fact most people deal with multiple Chains of Command.
For example... you laid out NCOIC (E8) -> Successive Unit COs (O3 -> O5 -> O6 etc.)
But if you're maintenance, there is simultaneously also Maintenance NCOIC (E8) -> Maintenance Officer (CWO), and successive Maintenance Officers at higher unit levels (O4 -> 05 etc.)
If you're on the operations side, there is a simultaneous Duty Officer at the Battalion or Squadron level (O4) who will intercede on the CO's behalf and handle matters in a more hands-on approach. Often accompanied by his own hand-picked SNCO.

It's not always clear what falls to which chain either. Most decisions, regardless of context, in my first unit were handled as a committee by "The Four Tops" as we called them. Two E8s, a CWO4 and O3.
For about 3 months, the O3 would only come to work in the afternoons to rubber stamp paperwork; otherwise taking phone calls from the golf course. At times the two E8s would take turns on who would show up for the day and either of them would put their John Hancock to the paperwork. This might seem irresponsible, but it was during this period that the unit was most efficient, contributed significantly to the larger unit earning a NUC, and after 9/11 earned the first opportunity for our type of unit to deploy in Operations since Vietnam -- on the basis of that efficiency, and earned a MUC for that deployment.

In other instances I've encountered on the Operations side, the NCOIC and CO are practically cut out of the chain by other Officers who are more hands-on. In an Operations environment with an Officer-heavy duty roster (previous situation had 70 enlisted to 1 CWO and 1 CO... and this one had 50 Enlisted to 25 Officers), there's often no rank considerations at all. Orders come down the pipeline and could be disseminated by any number of Officers; often leading to situations of conflicting orders from people far above your pay grade. You work for different Officers every week, and while your evaluation paperwork may be filled out by 1 SNCO every time -- it'll be heavily influenced by the impressions fed to him by those Officers b/c he's not present to know what did or didn't happen himself.

And then even if we cut those out, all the extracurricular stuff have Chains of their own. There's another Chain for the Base itself; independent of your unit's command structure. There's another Chain in the Barracks. And another for PT. And another for Training. And another for COMSEC. etc. etc. etc.
Even at the top end, it's often muddled. You've got a General for the MEF containing a Wing and a Division, and his direct boss is theoretically MARFORCOM or MARFORPAC. However, if you deploy you'll generally find yourself really under a designated Theater Commander; likely via a Liaison from your Service. While simultaneously being held responsible to FORCOM or FORPAC dependent on your unit's home location. Then there's often positions for forces within a given country; which includes only part of a MEF and has no direct command over the MEF -- but to which those portions of the MEF do answer to.

TL;DR The military is far from being a straight up-and-down Hierarchical structure. Unless you're a non-rate answering to an NCO directly above you; there's another boss in every direction. And commonly these bosses hold power over people of lower rank due to the Billet. ie: Base CO being a Colonel holding sway over a Brig. Gen., whose unit resides on that base, on certain matters.

When we deployed, the Chair Force and Army had a power struggle over the base. On paper it was an Army base, with the Base Commander starting off as a Colonel. However, the importance and relevance of the base was undoubtedly tied to the Air Force. The Army merely had HQ sections for 10th Mountain and 82nd Airborne there. The actual combat elements were elsewhere. Whereas the Air Force operated out of this base providing CAS and AMC to various combat elements throughout the theater (not just the 10th or 82nd.)
Fed up with some of the asinine Army bs, the Air Force brought in a Star who promptly told the Army to shove it. The Army then brought in their own Brig. Gen.; and made even more asinine rules such as mandating that kevlars and flak jacket must be worn for "safety" while operating a Gator and limiting base-wide speed limit to 5mph
Best part is, our CWO (with only the backing of a Captain on the bring of derangement) told all of them to take a hike. And when General Pace (then Vice Chairmain JCOS) arrived, and they apparently complained, he had our backs and the CWO3 became a CWO4 within the month.
That's nice but I think we are drifting off topic here. Lets focus on what we see that needs corrected and how Luke fits into this. :wink:
 
Upvote 0
They both are Assistant HC's, I believe. But I get what you are saying, and I agree. Withers and Coombs are just as (if not more) responsible as Luke.

At the end of the year, I agree. I think as a position coach, Luke has done all he can. The fact is that aside from Shazier, we just aren't that good at LB and that is where attrition/recruiting misses has really decimated us. Now if I don't see development from C. Williams, Perry, T. Johnson, Mitchell, Hubbard, Berger, Booker, etc. into a great LB corps, I will be singing a much different tune. As for the DBs, I really do think the talent was there and regardless of talent, fundamentals often translate into making a tackle. The fundamentals (and I'm not even going into the terrible scheme) simply aren't there. If I'm UFM, I tell Withers and Coombs that changes will be made unless there is vast improvement in the Orange.
 
Upvote 0
I think you need to remember that Withers is also the Assistant HC in addition to being co-defensive coordinator. I do not know if that was just about money to get him on staff or if he has more responsibility than Luke.
He is also in charge of safeties. This makes him more of a liability than Luke.

I do not know this for a fact but I doubt if Urban would let Luke or Withers go. The only way they leave is if they get a HC at another school IMO
Also, I think the reason that Luke gets most of the blame for our defense is because he is more visible on the sidelines plus he is a guy that is always talking to the media. I have never seen a quote from Withers regarding game planning or anything else.
I think about a month ago i saw an interview with him, and it did nothing to make me like the guy.
 
Upvote 0
I was hardly impressed with Withers and his defenses at North Carolina. I think too many people look at Meyer and think he's invincible with "his guys." I keep hearing people say "wait till Urban gets his guys here" for both staff and players and I just shake my head. It makes it seem like the cupboard was bare here when Tressel left and that our team was in horrible shape. Tressell/Fickell hit the jackpot if you ask me with staff hires in the 2011 offseason with Drayton and Vrabel. Fickell had a good track record here both as LB coach and co-DC with Heacock. Kerry Coombs honestly seems to be good for nothing other than running up and down the sidelines and getting in people's faces (maybe recruiting too). Our DB's were better 2 years ago than they were now, and they were going up against guys like Kirk Cousins and Russell Wilson that season. We made every Big Ten QB sans Purdue and maybe Indiana look good.

I'd love to see Withers get a job somewhere else and let Fickell run the show how he really wants to, maybe even bringing Heacock back in to a more formal role.
 
Upvote 0
I was hardly impressed with Withers and his defenses at North Carolina. I think too many people look at Meyer and think he's invincible with "his guys." I keep hearing people say "wait till Urban gets his guys here" for both staff and players and I just shake my head. It makes it seem like the cupboard was bare here when Tressel left and that our team was in horrible shape. Tressell/Fickell hit the jackpot if you ask me with staff hires in the 2011 offseason with Drayton and Vrabel. Fickell had a good track record here both as LB coach and co-DC with Heacock. Kerry Coombs honestly seems to be good for nothing other than running up and down the sidelines and getting in people's faces (maybe recruiting too). Our DB's were better 2 years ago than they were now, and they were going up against guys like Kirk Cousins and Russell Wilson that season. We made every Big Ten QB sans Purdue and maybe Indiana look good.

I'd love to see Withers get a job somewhere else and let Fickell run the show how he really wants to, maybe even bringing Heacock back in to a more formal role.

I think you're being a bit too harsh on Withers in favor of Fickell. It seems to me that Luke's star was brightest when he was a position coach. So, I'd like to see him back to having a position coach status only. I'd say give Withers the reigns by himself as DC for a year; if things don't work out, send him packing. I'd just like to see Luke remain in the scarlet and gray, but doing so in a capacity where he fits the best.
 
Upvote 0
Maybe we are being harsh on Withers, but his year at Minnesota and his 4 years at UNC leave a lot to be desired...I'm a bit disappointed with Fickell myself but I can't help but look at our position coaches and see safety is Withers and CB is Coombs. We've been getting burned there all year long.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top