Yesterday's big headline was that Will Muschamp will stay at Texas and succeed Mack Brown when he retires.  Never mind that Brown is 57 years old and could coach another ten to fifteen years, Muschamp, as the song goes, will be right there waiting for you.

So, once again we've seen the newest trend in college sports: The designated successor.  There's one at Florida State when Jimbo Fisher waits for Bobby Bowden to either walk away or be asked politely to leave.  There's one at Kentucky, where Joker Philips takes over for Rich Brooks next season.  There's also one at Purdue where Joe Tiller was, um, "persuaded" to retire and be replaced by Danny Hope.

In most of these cases, the big guy is either ready to retire or close to retirement.  You notice that there is no "designated successor" at Penn State.  That's because JoPa isn't ready to retire.

In Texas' case, it's a curious move giving Brown's young age.  It's obviously designed to keep Muschamp, a highly sought after assistant whose name comes up for every head coach job on the planet, from bolting and going something else.  But is it really doing either man any good?

In Brown's case, he now officially has one foot out the door.  If Texas has a couple of down seasons, fans, administrators and contributors will be screaming for Mack to go fishing while Muschamp sharpens his axe.  For Muschamp, the appointment grounds him at Texas for as many years as Brown decides he wants to coach when Muschamp could leave at the end of the season and be a head coach next season at a university of his choosing.  And for both men, what does it do to Muschamp's stock if Texas does have a few down years?  Instead of going in a different direction when Brown leaves, Texas would be marching to the same beat.  Ask the folks at Purdue if this is acceptable.

In addition to the tension the decision could create, there are those pesky hiring laws.  As it stands, there will be no coaching search when Brown retires and experienced coaches, both black and white will not get the opportunity to apply for and win the job.  This should be a red flag to the NCAA and Texas state legislators that this is going on at a a publicly funded university.  Hey Myles Brand, you want to enforce your beloved zero tolerance?  This would be a real opportunity to thrust it upon something where it actually matters (instead of say a head dance on a basketball coach.  Sorry, different story for a different day.)

While I am no fan of affirmative action, nor do I believe that governments or organizations should make decisions for their members, I do know that after almost thirty years in a competitive, cut throat business that there are only so many jobs to go around and even fewer really good jobs.  When men who have worked their whole adult lives trying to achieve a head coaching job and the opportunity to even discuss that job has been taken away, what's the point?

I know, things far more insidious than this go on in all walks of life and are still a problem in our society, but you have to admit this is a blatant violation that in the end may blow up in the faces of those who planned it.  We can only hope.