Arguing the O hire as a reason it's okay to hire an under-qualified candidate this cycle

I find it hilarious that when guys like Mel Tucker are criticized as under-qualified and not ready for the LSU job, several idiots jump on it saying "that this criticism is just racist" and how can you say he is under-qualified when you hired O because he is one of us.

Stop with this non-sense. Most people hated the O hire at the time, and as one of the people that never believed in him long term even on the night of NC game in 2020 (2019 championship) after they won it, my opinion didn't change.

Hiring someone like Tucker would be akin to Alleva getting his ego bruised and turning around to hire O claiming he was always his choice.

Bad previous choices should have no bearing on lowering the bar for this hire or permitting hires based on anything other than qualifications.

Most of the same people that think Tucker is unqualified likely also believe that Venables is a risk not worth taking at HC despite him likely being the best DC in the country the past 10 years.

It has nothing to do with race, but their lack of success as a head coach, and a 7-game winning streak against not a single team with a winning record is not what I'd call great coach material.

Let's look at their schedule:

Northwestern = 3-3 (1-2 Big Ten) w/ 2 wins vs Ohio and FCS
YSU (FCS)
Miami (FL) = 2-4
Nebraska = 3-5
Western Kent. = 2-4 (non-P5)
Rutgers = 3-4
Indiana = 2-4

Combined FBS opponents records of 15 - 24 not even counting an FCS team. This is why people are not buying his "turn around" just yet, especially since he barely won games vs Nebraska (3 pts in OT) and Indiana (5 pts).

This is also an argument against Aranda, but he has less of a history of failure and has been more recently connected to our program.