|
|
Post by rgmillikan on Feb 2, 2019 20:18:56 GMT -6
If given 2 choices, low budget head coach hires or contract extensions after average to above average MAC seasons, which of the 2 has set the basketball program further back? I know there are many other factors at play, but these 2 are near the forefront. I believe the early extensions are a factor that's more easily controllable if a threshold for extending a coach is raised.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Feb 2, 2019 20:30:01 GMT -6
Ball State lets bad coaches hang around way too long. I think that's the bigger problem. Not sure there is really a budget issue involved, you could have handed Sandy or the JAG Clique $2,000,000 a year and they would have screwed-up the hire.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 20:35:27 GMT -6
Rolling back the clock, Whitford appeared to be a decent MAC-level hire given:
his MAC exposure
his asst. coaching pedigree
a somewhat stable environment after the Ronnie debacle
following a coach where “you couldn’t do worse”
I think if you look back at the board threads it would reflect a similar sentiment.
What mucked things up was Colonel Sandy coming in with one foot propping open the RV door to Del Boca Vista while trying not to make waves with any strategic decisions.
Pete threw him a vicious curve ball with his Mayflower departure and Sandy went off the deep end with his extendamundo shenanigan.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Feb 2, 2019 20:48:29 GMT -6
I'm telling you that the low budget was not the problem with the hires. It was the stupidity. In each case there were literally hundreds of young coaches, superior to what we hired, that could have been brought in for the same money....or less.
Problem was...who was going to identify and choose those coaches? Somebody like Tom Collins? That guy wasn't smart enough to pour piss out of his own shoes. Collins and Gora could have had Qatar's oil revenues plus Fort Knox at their disposal and still fucked up the coaching hires. Their trademarks were vanity, PC political leanings (Gora) and total incompetence (Collins). Nor do I see any significant signs that the oversight of the program has improved a whole lot.
In the case of Ronnie Thompson, we would have been better off with a name randomly picked out of the phone book. Seriously. I'm not joking. At least we could have fired that person after a year without having to chose the next coach primarily to undo the PR damage Thompson did. We could have done better paying minimum wage. You might think I'm being facetious but I'm not. All this bullshit about not being able to afford a better coach than what we have is just part of a effort to justify and excuse the failings of the current failing coach.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Feb 5, 2019 9:15:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 5, 2019 9:34:39 GMT -6
So your theory is offering higher salary and providing more money for staff can't help.
That instead we just get smarter...
What I don't get is if that hiring smart and cheap works so well, if it is so easy, why doesn't every program do it?
Why doesn't every AD with a middling program do it? (Most are in the middle)
Everybody stupid?
And at the other end of the spectrum, when I look at the good programs, I don't see many who followed this surefire easy method?
Where we agree is we've made some bad decisions. That and no real commitment to being a top program.
Those who are committed generally pay well.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Feb 5, 2019 9:42:12 GMT -6
So your theory is offering higher salary and providing more money for staff can't help. Hey dumbshit, no one ever even insinuated that. Are you seven years old ? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 5, 2019 10:45:54 GMT -6
So your theory is offering higher salary and providing more money for staff can't help. ...no one ever even insinuated that. Are you seven years old ? No? That is exactly what the theory means that low salary isn't a factor in getting good coaches. There sure is a lot of flak over my suggestion that we do it that way instead of hoping BSU administration suddenly gets lucky or smart in their next hire chosen from applicants who are expecting low pay.
But, assume I am mistaken and everybody agrees with me that higher salary would help, your answer doesn't address a few other points in my post about the theory that we really don't need to do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Feb 5, 2019 10:56:42 GMT -6
...no one ever even insinuated that. Are you seven years old ? No? That is exactly what the theory means that low salary isn't a factor in getting good coaches.
No dumbass, the theory is salary is likely not the determining factor you believe it to be. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 5, 2019 12:21:39 GMT -6
No? That is exactly what the theory means that low salary isn't a factor in getting good coaches.
... salary is likely not the determining factor you believe it to be. It is a factor that sends a signal we mean business and it will attract better coaching candidates. Our administration can still make a bad selection, true enough. but I don't see a solution offered for that. Give them more good choices and they will do a better job.
All this talk about how easy it is to find great cheap coaches fails for the reasons I mention above.
If it was so easy more would do it...and if it were the best course then the better MAC and mid major schools would be following it. Instead we see them hiring coaches with better credentials who demand higher salary, for themselves and staff.
If BSU really wants to be good, let's try that instead of hoping we get super smart (how likely is that?) and/or lucky going cheap.
Hiring cheap and churning doesn't have a great long term track record anywhere. We used up our luck hiring Ray.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Feb 5, 2019 12:55:37 GMT -6
Yes, of course, if you are searching in the same pool as the other mid-majors and want the same candidates the other mid-majors perceive as most attractive by the usual standards, then you are going to have to be the high-bidder to hire them. That's a huge flaw of your plan.
But it's really stupid to play that game....unnecessarily stupid.
And, by the way, where do you expect to get more money for a program that has been losing money for near two decades, and whose fanbase is a pathetic fraction of what it once was? You know of a money tree somewhere? Seems to me that your plan has a bigger flaws than mine. |
|
|
|
Post by realitycheck on Feb 5, 2019 14:03:59 GMT -6
Yes, of course, if you are searching in the same pool as the other mid-majors and want the same candidates the other mid-majors perceive as most attractive by the usual standards, then you are going to have to be the high-bidder to hire them. That's a huge flaw of your plan.
But it's really stupid to play that game....unnecessarily stupid.
And, by the way, where do you expect to get more money for a program that has been losing money for near two decades, and whose fanbase is a pathetic fraction of what it once was? You know of a money tree somewhere? Seems to me that your plan has a bigger flaws than mine. Careful, don't fall into his trap. It's not a plan. It's a veiled excuse that unless we pony up big bucks we will never find a good coach or it's all a lucky duck shot....therefore shouldn't we just keep going the way we are and enjoy the successes we do have occasionally because that's all our measly budget and shitty job will ever attract. I will state again. It's not either we pay big bucks or simply take a wild shot in the dark. Savvy, smart leadership will search for and find a winner. That's what winners do. I think our biggest budget concern is no what we will pay our new coach but how do we buy out the last two years of our current experiment. That would be a 700-800K hit. Thanks Sandy. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 5, 2019 17:27:43 GMT -6
Must be easy. Everybody or anybody can do it. Except everybody is too stupid I guess
|
|
