|
Post by sweep on Feb 4, 2019 12:49:54 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.
I think you're going too soft on 00. You don't necessarily get better job applicants by offering more money.
You are correct, opportunity is always a factor, especially if there is potential for a life altering payoff.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Feb 4, 2019 12:52:22 GMT -6
So successful mid-major programs just got lucky. I don't doubt managing and capitalizing risk is foreign to you. I am expert at managing risk. Yeah right, that's why you gravitated into teaching college.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 4, 2019 13:07:53 GMT -6
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. Not ALWAYS a bidding war. Yes.
Smart leadership can do more with less. I am not at all sure our leadership is smart enough to beat the other MAC programs paying less though.
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. We had plenty of good applicants and plenty turned us down when they found out what we were willing to pay them. And when they considered what they had to work with. Our hiring has made mistakes. Arguably we made our biggest by not upgrading when we decided for very poor reasons Hunsaker had to be fired. The problem there was that we did get a good cheap coach and our leadership decided that was the way to go when they hired the next one. And the next. And the next. Instead of upgrading.
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. It is a very average comp package at best. The other factors are a plus. But with all that rainbow you are selling, there is also the fact we have every B10 program and others competing for the good Indiana talent. At least 1/2 MAC programs are in the same or better recruiting footprints.
I am pleased you didn't try to sell our tradition which is ancient history to recruits.
The best programs in terms of recent success also have good recruiting potential, oddly enough do not hire on the cheap. You want to sell vision and Worthen Arena. That's not easy.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 4, 2019 13:12:12 GMT -6
I think you're going too soft on 00. You don't necessarily get better job applicants by offering more money.
You are correct, opportunity is always a factor, especially if there is potential for a life altering payoff. I agree it is a factor. I disagree it means we can depend on that to have a high probability of finding a great coach.
We will get some good coaches apply. Not as many though. Some might win, most risky candidates do not.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 4, 2019 13:38:51 GMT -6
I am expert at managing risk. Yeah right, that's why you gravitated into teaching college. Objectively, that is where experts after all are quite often found.
Good thing for their students those idiot professors value what they do.
The guy who claims his life is meaningful because he can devote himself to playing 100 rounds of golf a year, and generally avoid doing anything useful shouldn't be throwing stones.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Feb 4, 2019 13:39:20 GMT -6
You want to talk about risk? You know what a risky candidate is? One who is chosen by people who have no real idea what they are doing. The risk is compounded when the same people have the power to offer multi-year extensions. BSU has been running exactly these risks and has paid the price.
The risk of trying a coaching candidate who is willing to accept a modest salary is relatively small. Especially if you are prepared to cut him loose promptly if he demonstrates failure.
it's funny how some people perceive trying something different as "risky", and prefer to say with familiar methods that have consistently failed.
|
|
|
Post by realitycheck on Feb 4, 2019 13:51:38 GMT -6
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. Not ALWAYS a bidding war. Yes.
Smart leadership can do more with less. I am not at all sure our leadership is smart enough to beat the other MAC programs paying less though.
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. We had plenty of good applicants and plenty turned us down when they found out what we were willing to pay them. And when they considered what they had to work with. Our hiring has made mistakes. Arguably we made our biggest by not upgrading when we decided for very poor reasons Hunsaker had to be fired. The problem there was that we did get a good cheap coach and our leadership decided that was the way to go when they hired the next one. And the next. And the next. Instead of upgrading.
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. It is a very average comp package at best. The other factors are a plus. But with all that rainbow you are selling, there is also the fact we have every B10 program and others competing for the good Indiana talent. At least 1/2 MAC programs are in the same or better recruiting footprints.
I am pleased you didn't try to sell our tradition which is ancient history to recruits.
The best programs in terms of recent success also have good recruiting potential, oddly enough do not hire on the cheap. You want to sell vision and Worthen Arena. That's not easy.
We have a new President and AD. Both appear to be upgrades over their predecessors. We won't know if they are better at attracting, evaluating and WINNING better coaching talent until we jettison this loser strategy of yours to stay the course because we can't possibly do better. I'm not selling any rainbows. We aren't Duke or even Butler but we're not NIU or Eastern or some of the other schools in our league who play in cracker boxes in the middle of no where either. For the right hire, this is a tremendous opportunity. And our recruiting challenges are no worse than any other MAC school. You claim, "plenty turned us down when they found out what we were willing to pay them. And when they considered what they had to work with." Were you on the last two search committees? I wasn't aware of that? If so, I stand corrected. I've been part of many recruiting and hiring decisions in my career for positions that have been very competitive. Dollars are always important but so are many other factors, especially for young talent on the climb. Great hires happen because of great leadership. Again, same as recruiting. Accepting mediocre results is a hallmark of mediocrity. You can quote me on that if you like.
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Feb 4, 2019 13:57:25 GMT -6
I have always said we need to pay more to attract and secure a quality coach. That means that the administration needs to take a risk that a better/best candidate will attract more fans. We used to average over 6,000 fans versus the 3250 we get now. Increase tickets $2, increase attendance by 2000/game, pay $1million. If we don’t take a chance, we will never reach our potential. I have argued this point on this board for more than a decade! Our administration has never had the Ball State to take the challenge. They spent all the millions to build a great house and tried to go on the cheap for a coach every since Ray. You get what you pay for. I feel Whit has improved recruitment and has had better results versus other recent coaches. But, as I have said before, we should expect one MAC title every four year, a few repeats, and always be in the hunt for a MAC title. It could happen, but the Adminustration needs to grow a set!
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Feb 4, 2019 13:57:30 GMT -6
Hey I will hire somebody I got this
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 4, 2019 14:02:58 GMT -6
You want to talk about risk? You know what a risky candidate is? One who is chosen by people who have no real idea what they are doing. The risk is compounded when the same people have the power to offer multi-year extensions. BSU has been running exactly these risks and has paid the price.
The risk of trying a coaching candidate who is willing to accept a modest salary is relatively small. Especially if you are prepared to cut him loose promptly if he demonstrates failure. I agree with you about bad management being costly. We have made more than few bad choices since we hired Hunsaker, starting with firing him. No argument here.
But the idea you can cheaply hire risky coaches as long as you don't extend them seems problematic, those contracts are always multiyear and buyout is always expensive given our budget.
And, Ronnie Thompson wasn't here very long and we paid him off and got rid of him quickly.
1. Aren't you arguing that because we are so bad at hiring we should do more of it and maybe get lucky?
2. Aren't you arguing something that just isn't true about a bad choice having little risk as long as you can reverse it?
Hiring cheap makes disasters more likely. As I said above. 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. Why are you not arguing we do what the winning programs do? Not what we have been doing? Let's try something else.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 4, 2019 14:15:10 GMT -6
We have a new President and AD. Both appear to be upgrades over their predecessors. We won't know if they are better at attracting, evaluating and WINNING better coaching talent until we jettison this loser strategy of yours to stay the course because we can't possibly do better. I'm not selling any rainbows.....Dollars are always important but so are many other factors, especially for young talent on the climb. Great hires happen because of great leadership. Again, same as recruiting. Accepting mediocre results is a hallmark of mediocrity. I agree with our having better leadership now. Except. That good leadership has some of the same problems with budgets and really doesn't want to do what is logical because of that, maybe can't.
I am not advocating staying the course. I am advocating a new idea at BSU. We need to pay the next coach (when we can actually avoid a buyout expense we can't afford) as much as other leading MAC programs pay their coach.
Selling vision and Worthen Arena will not likely cut it. That's the losing strategy I am hearing too much of. Let's have that new leadership decide it's important enough to win that we go out and raise the money and we spend it to win.
Finding the young talent on the climb will happen a lot more often if we pay enough to compete for the young talent on the climb that other programs also want.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 4, 2019 14:17:16 GMT -6
I have always said we need to pay more to attract and secure a quality coach. That means that the administration needs to take a risk that a better/best candidate will attract more fans. We used to average over 6,000 fans versus the 3250 we get now. Increase tickets $2, increase attendance by 2000/game, pay $1million. If we don’t take a chance, we will never reach our potential. I have argued this point on this board for more than a decade! Our administration has never had the Ball State to take the challenge. They spent all the millions to build a great house and tried to go on the cheap for a coach every since Ray. You get what you pay for. I feel Whit has improved recruitment and has had better results versus other recent coaches. But, as I have said before, we should expect one MAC title every four year, a few repeats, and always be in the hunt for a MAC title. It could happen, but the Adminustration needs to grow a set! You are right. All the cry to take a risk ignores the obvious risk we should take. Raise money and make the controversial decisions to spend some money, and put our money where our mouth is.
|
|
|
Post by bsu0 on Feb 4, 2019 14:33:42 GMT -6
What did Dad say in the past?...Oh yea, ''you get what you pay for.'' This is not a new idea unless you hire coaches at Ball State apparently.
|
|
|
Post by realitycheck on Feb 4, 2019 15:09:59 GMT -6
We have a new President and AD. Both appear to be upgrades over their predecessors. We won't know if they are better at attracting, evaluating and WINNING better coaching talent until we jettison this loser strategy of yours to stay the course because we can't possibly do better. I'm not selling any rainbows.....Dollars are always important but so are many other factors, especially for young talent on the climb. Great hires happen because of great leadership. Again, same as recruiting. Accepting mediocre results is a hallmark of mediocrity. I agree with our having better leadership now. Except. That good leadership has some of the same problems with budgets and really doesn't want to do what is logical because of that, maybe can't.
I am not advocating staying the course. I am advocating a new idea at BSU. We need to pay the next coach (when we can actually avoid a buyout expense we can't afford) as much as other leading MAC programs pay their coach.
Selling vision and Worthen Arena will not likely cut it. That's the losing strategy I am hearing too much of. Let's have that new leadership decide it's important enough to win that we go out and raise the money and we spend it to win.
Finding the young talent on the climb will happen a lot more often if we pay enough to compete for the young talent on the climb that other programs also want.
That is a better strategy, I would agree, but I am not in favor of waiting until or if that happens. We have peaked under this coach unless we make some miraculous run after our wounded return which I am not counting on. I have seen enough of this show and barring a miracle we need to cut bait after next season.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 4, 2019 15:30:30 GMT -6
I agree with our having better leadership now. Except. That good leadership has some of the same problems with budgets and really doesn't want to do what is logical because of that, maybe can't.
I am not advocating staying the course. I am advocating a new idea at BSU. We need to pay the next coach (when we can actually avoid a buyout expense we can't afford) as much as other leading MAC programs pay their coach. That is a better strategy, I would agree, but I am not in favor of waiting until or if that happens. We have peaked under this coach unless we make some miraculous run after our wounded return which I am not counting on. I have seen enough of this show and barring a miracle we need to cut bait after next season. , Two things you say there. One is frustration at the results. The other is what will happen.
I don't want to be frustrated, but I'll still with this team, and next years' team. I think they care and are working hard, think people saying they don't is wrong.
Don't really know how much is possible, so maybe you are right it won't get better. But being frustrated makes it seem that way even more, for you and for me.
Hope you are wrong about that and will enjoy the team more than you think you will.
|
|