Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 9:14:20 GMT -6
Every year it’s something. It’s ALWAYS something. I’m saying Ronnie is still carrying around a Charlie Cardinal doll and a pocket full of pins.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 4, 2019 9:19:24 GMT -6
Pay well by MAC standards. Ummmmmmmmm...................Our coaches are free to leave if they get better offers. There's a great strategy. Mistreat them from the start and encourage them to leave when successful...
But the point is you lower the odds greatly that you get a successful coach when you are not recruiting to a winning program and paying well.
If you don't pay well you don't get the best candidates. If you don't have a great job to offer you need to pay more.
Every coach since Majerus has been hired on the cheap. It worked fine for Hunsaker, and Ray, who both inherited great players and a winning program, and at that time we had great fan support and were an attractive school for recruits (several things changed).
Didn't work so well after that. Hiring cheap coaches is not the way to get the most successful coaches.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 4, 2019 9:20:30 GMT -6
I guess we don’t want winning? Not based on our hiring strategy of not paying the way winning coaches are paid.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Feb 4, 2019 9:46:18 GMT -6
Ummmmmmmmm...................Our coaches are free to leave if they get better offers. There's a great strategy. Mistreat them from the start and encourage them to leave when successful...
Hey dumbass, paying a lousy employee more money doesn't make him a better employee. Also no one ever suggested mistreating anyone at any time during their employment. Quit using straw man arguments. I didn't past your first sentence.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Feb 4, 2019 9:49:07 GMT -6
I guess we don’t want winning? Not based on our hiring strategy of not paying the way winning coaches are paid. Hey dumbshit, if Whitford were a winning coach he likely would have received a nice raise. Duh...............My name is 00, the real world is foreign to me..................Duh..................
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 4, 2019 10:17:29 GMT -6
There's a great strategy. Mistreat them from the start and encourage them to leave when successful... ,,,paying a lousy employee more money doesn't make him a better employee. Also no one ever suggested mistreating anyone at any time during their employment. No. But offering higher salaries to start means you get better job applicants and more of them. Means you have a much better chance to hire better employees.
And there was a suggestion "we make life a living hell" for an employee. That is what I objected to above and would be mistreating an employee.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 4, 2019 10:33:18 GMT -6
Not based on our hiring strategy of not paying the way winning coaches are paid. the real world is foreign to me..................Duh.................. In the real world markets work. If you want a product in high demand by others you need to outbid them.
Yes. Gamblers can try taking chances on unknown quantities and finding bargains and avoid bidding on proven products. To great degree MAC schools have to do that. Not Ohio, Akron, not the most successful ones. We have not had very much luck with that strategy since Ray. Yet you expect to get great success paying average or below. Why?
Or. You could just come out and say we are a likely loser, have no great chance of success, so we are going to gamble repeatedly and whine when we don't get the jackpot. Maybe you are right that is the real world. If so, that attitude is foreign to me.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Feb 4, 2019 10:56:51 GMT -6
,,,paying a lousy employee more money doesn't make him a better employee. Also no one ever suggested mistreating anyone at any time during their employment. But offering higher salaries to start means you get better job applicants.
Yes, but if the person doing the hiring is as dumb as Jo Ann Gora, Tom Collins, or yourself, what difference does it make ? It's going to get all f'ed up anyway.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Feb 4, 2019 11:08:03 GMT -6
the real world is foreign to me..................Duh.................. In the real world markets work. If you want a product in high demand by others you need to outbid them.
So in your bizarro world, there is a high demand for schlubs like Jim Whitford. No one is arguing a higher salary might not produce better results, our point is it's a combination of the hiring manager and the potential candidates that produce a successful hire. You can't hand a moron more money and expect better results.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Feb 4, 2019 11:13:55 GMT -6
Or. You could just come out and say we are a likely loser, have no great chance of success, so we are going to gamble repeatedly and whine when we don't get the jackpot. Maybe you are right that is the real world. If so, that attitude is foreign to me.
So successful mid-major programs just got lucky. I don't doubt managing and capitalizing risk is foreign to you, it's why you teach Business Law for a living.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 4, 2019 12:14:56 GMT -6
But offering higher salaries to start means you get better job applicants.
Yes, but if the person doing the hiring is as dumb as Jo Ann Gora, Tom Collins, or yourself, what difference does it make ? It's going to get all f'ed up anyway. Could be. Even somebody with your vast experience hiring at this level makes mistakes. But if I give you high quality applicants who can command high salary in a market, have proved it earning high salary elsewhere for example, NOT just those willing to work cheap, with no history of success, the odds of your picking a good one is greater, aren't they?
|
|
|
Post by realitycheck on Feb 4, 2019 12:20:24 GMT -6
the real world is foreign to me..................Duh.................. In the real world markets work. If you want a product in high demand by others you need to outbid them.
Yes. Gamblers can try taking chances on unknown quantities and finding bargains and avoid bidding on proven products. To great degree MAC schools have to do that. Not Ohio, Akron, not the most successful ones. We have not had very much luck with that strategy since Ray. Yet you expect to get great success paying average or below. Why?
Or. You could just come out and say we are a likely loser, have no great chance of success, so we are going to gamble repeatedly and whine when we don't get the jackpot. Maybe you are right that is the real world. If so, that attitude is foreign to me.
You devote a lot of time and energy and ten times as many words as the rest of the Board combined claiming that our expectations are unrealistic, that we don't pay enough to expect better unless we just get lucky and a host of other theories that don't pass muster, IMO. You speak of coaches as "a product in high demand" and we must outbid others to get "proven products". Otherwise, we must be "gamblers" on unknown quantities. In the real world, it's not always a bidding war, it's about having smart leadership making the hire. Smart leaders know their brand and the strengths of their institution. They can sell their vision and opportunity. They are great evaluators of talent. Funny how those are also attributes of coaches who are great recruiters. No MAC coach worth his salt plans to come here and stay. They want to win as fast as possible so they can move up! Virtually all the coaches who matriculate through the MAC are either climbers or fallers. They're assistants at bigger programs or HC's at smaller schools or they're former coaches who got whacked for lack of success at a bigger program. Either way, there are a finite number of these D-1 Mid-Major jobs and plenty of good candidates, some better than others. We pay competitively, have GREAT facilities in a basketball-rich community and State and we're an hour from the 17th biggest city in America. We're a 6 hour drive from half a dozen states with lots of talent if Indiana isn't enough. You paint a picture that our comp package and job are not desirable. That's just not true. By all accounts, when we've done a coaching search for men's basketball in the past, including our current coach, we did not lack for quality applicants and the pool of candidates was deep for a MAC school. I'm confident the same would be true today. Weak leaders take a stab and hope for the best. Smart leaders are savvy and skilled at what they do and they sift through the contenders and pretenders to uncover the best candidate. And then they sell them on the incredible opportunity here. So, if you believe our current coach is doing fine or has been hindered by too many bad breaks or injuries and deserves more time, so be it. That is an opinion I don't share but at least it's centric on him and not the job. I think the job is a damn good one and don't buy that this is the best we can do, or that he hasn't had ample time or that our comp package combined with our facilities is just too much to overcome and only luck or tons of money will save us. That is a loser, status quo mentality.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Feb 4, 2019 12:26:52 GMT -6
But offering higher salaries to start means you get better job applicants.
Yes, but if the person doing the hiring is as dumb as Jo Ann Gora, Tom Collins, or yourself, what difference does it make ? It's going to get all f'ed up anyway.
I think you're going too soft on 00. You don't necessarily get better job applicants by offering more money.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 4, 2019 12:37:28 GMT -6
Or. You could just come out and say we are a likely loser, have no great chance of success, so we are going to gamble repeatedly and whine when we don't get the jackpot. Maybe you are right that is the real world. If so, that attitude is foreign to me.
So successful mid-major programs just got lucky. I don't doubt managing and capitalizing risk is foreign to you. I am expert enough at managing risk. That's probably why I don't make doubtful statements like yours. This is PROBABILITY. Low probability bets pay off less often. Not never. I can see taking risk, nearly every small business client is taking high risk, but can fail despite good decisions. Losing low probability bets is what you expect. Why? Risky bets should have high return, that's the nature of risk-return, but that doesn't mean high risk strategy is always a winner. It's after all LESS likely to pay off. The problem here is also that you make a risky hire, you're stuck with a high buyout cost too. That can cripple your program. Some mid majors do that, and sometimes win risky bets. You can win. Just aren't as likely to. The winners and most successful programs over time have been are winning programs who pay higher salary, who offer the better chances for a coach to do well and therefore attract better qualified applicants. How much risk compared to BSU are the leading MAC programs taking? You see them hiring cheap? Not very often, not most of them.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 4, 2019 12:41:54 GMT -6
Yes, but if the person doing the hiring is as dumb as Jo Ann Gora, Tom Collins, or yourself, what difference does it make ? It's going to get all f'ed up anyway.
You don't necessarily get better job applicants by offering more money.
Of course not. Not always. But more often. In fact if you have a great program, which we have not had, you have more than just money to attract a good candidate. You think BSU looked like a great opportunity in any coaching search we have made since Ray left?
|
|