|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 16, 2019 21:39:53 GMT -6
Either sport, no AD will take chances as easily as Sherman.
If you fail will the next position be easy to find?
Will your current President and BOT buy this?
Well maybe a visionary like JAG and Roy might do something this risky.
Oh, wait they did.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 16, 2019 21:51:11 GMT -6
In FB it's far worse idea. New recruits take longer to come on line, even if this unknown can immediately transition to D1 recruiting and find them. And. Recruits are willing to gamble on this unknown quantity, too.
You're betting you find not just a genius HC but a genius staff. Like magic it all comes together.
Maybe in a movie.
In BB, the idea there is a genius easy way to find and hire good coaches in some "different pool" that nobody else has identified is also a movie fantasy.
Slightly more believable fantasy though.
|
|
|
Post by rgmillikan on Sept 17, 2019 5:07:13 GMT -6
When I put what I put, it was just an alternative. I don't sign the checks. Was Schudel (before my time) the last coach everyone thought was successful? Lembo is not a head coach anymore for good reason. Stan Parrish. Brady Hoke was probably not going to coach much longer if not for 2008. Bill Lynch. We're all relying on the Ball State powers that be to make a great coaching hire. Good luck with that. Although that is true i feel that should not be a reason to extend Neu out of fear of having to replace him if justified after 2019, which judging by comments I believe some our fans are mortified of the idea of a new hc in 2020. Look how many failures Eastern MI had to run through after Jim Harkema before they found their guy. Imagine if they never fired their last coach because "We always are losers anyways at EMU so the next hire will fail anyways."
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 17, 2019 5:55:24 GMT -6
Isn't it more a case of whether there is buyout money and also budget for a good hire for 2020?
Besides, I would not hold EMU up as a model for running an athletic program.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Sept 17, 2019 6:03:16 GMT -6
So your solution is? Just continue to be bad because we can’t hope for anything better?
|
|
|
Post by Hoopsmith on Sept 17, 2019 6:47:47 GMT -6
Yeah, best just to sit around and wait for that magic money shower, rather than try something new and innovative.
Seems to sum it up...
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 17, 2019 7:11:15 GMT -6
So your solution is? Just continue to be bad because we can’t hope for anything better? Solution? You think there is an easy quick solution? This next year? Hire a HS coach and staff after paying the buyout? The only other "solution" I am seeing discussed in FB depends on raising money for a buyout and gambling on another cheap hire. I suggested a better gamble for FB, surely better than a 2 year HS coach contract, all assuming we can and should raise buyout money to throw into the program this year. Use it to upgrade staff. Gamble that way instead. I seriously doubt the money is there though. Or the priority.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Sept 17, 2019 7:17:55 GMT -6
No easy solution, but simply saying there’s no money so nothing can/will happen isn’t great either.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Sept 17, 2019 7:42:39 GMT -6
Why do the most basic conversations have to have straw men?
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 17, 2019 8:08:32 GMT -6
No easy solution, but simply saying there’s no money so nothing can/will happen isn’t great either. No it's not great. Might be real. If depressing.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Sept 17, 2019 8:53:00 GMT -6
You can call my ideas a "gamble". And they are in the sense that there is no guarantee of success. But everything is a gamble. Picking from the same standard pool that brought us Buckley/Thompson/Taylor/Whitford with the limited amount of money we realistically have is certainly a gamble.....and a rather stupid one given our repeated lack of success. Sitting around and whining about the lack of money is also a gamble. Granted, not much is risked, but the chances for success are effectively zero.
This reminds me of the idiot TV announcer for the Colts/Titans game Sunday. When Reich elected to go for in on fourth down and inches with around 2:30 or so left, they guy was against it. He kept referring to it as a risky "gamble". As if punting the ball over to Tenn with over two minutes left, several time outs and the 2 min warning, and needing only a field goal to win is NOT a gamble? Thank goodness Reich was not as much of a pussy as that guy.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Sept 17, 2019 9:09:42 GMT -6
I think you've misunderstood the argument, and moving it from football (85 scholarships) to basketball (13 scholarships) does it a disservice. I don't think anyone is arguing that the coaching quality is amazingly going to turn around with the extension and some type of recruiting boost. I do think that if you extend, the roster the next coach inherits likely will be of a better quality and hopefully not require a better coach 2 seasons of recruiting to rebuild. And that's different for football and basketball. Whitford could not recruit anybody for the next two years and the coach you replace him with is still going to inherit Thomas, Huggins, Hendriks, Acree, Bumbalough, Kroft and Coleman. Hell, that's seven players, which is all some teams will play 95% of the time anyway. And as you've noted before, it shouldn't take a good basketball coach long to pump up a sub-par roster. Do you think the same holds true for football? What do you think the football roster would look like if Neu doesn't recruit anyone for 2 years? Not sure I am understanding....maybe because I don't know (or care) what Neu's contract situation is. I take it you ARE advocating extending Neu for recruiting purposes? Are you suggesting to extend with the idea it might later be bought out? Or are you accepting additional years of Neu? Or what?
Explain to me the type of recruit and his mindset that he would have in order to be influenced by the extension to sign with Neu/BSU. It seems to me, for the extension to be relevant in his decision, that he must be expecting Neu to continue to underperform. Otherwise the extension is irrelevant....if Neu starts having success, he would be retained based on the success....he wouldn't need the extension to be retained.
So, in my thinking, the only additional recruits you pick up with the extension are ones who kind of think Neu will continue to underperform, but they still want him around for their 4/5 years, and the extension gives them that assurance. How many recruits are in this category? Personally I think very few teenage boys would think this way. I think it's more likely that you sign kids who either 1) think Neu IS going to start succeeding, or 2) don't care that much about Neu one way or another and just like the BSU scholarship.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 9:25:57 GMT -6
No easy solution, but simply saying there’s no money so nothing can/will happen isn’t great either. If your product is unacceptable and you don’t have money to make it better, you stop offering the product. Obviously, from attendance numbers, folks aren’t buying the product. Heck, hardly any school in the MAC is offering a football product that consumers want to buy.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Sept 17, 2019 9:40:20 GMT -6
No easy solution, but simply saying there’s no money so nothing can/will happen isn’t great either. If your product is unacceptable and you don’t have money to make it better, you stop offering the product. Obviously, from attendance numbers, folks aren’t buying the product. Heck, hardly any school in the MAC is offering a football product that consumers want to buy. No, No, you are confused. BSU is only losing $5 to $10 million a year on football and is therefore not making a "commitment" to football. Some day real soon, there is going to be a magic multi-million dollar money rain from the sky and then BSU will be able to make the commitment that is the only thing lacking for D1 football success.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 17, 2019 10:30:39 GMT -6
No easy solution, but simply saying there’s no money so nothing can/will happen isn’t great either. If your product is unacceptable and you don’t have money to make it better, you stop offering the product. Heck, hardly any school in the MAC is offering a football product that consumers want to buy. Yes. You have to justify FB for reasons that include other benefits, not as a product line directly making money. Mostly Presidents consider it as advertising expense, good will with alumni, and as necessary part of student Life. Unfortunately, maintaining FB is pretty expensive, and those reasons not too convincing at the cost.
|
|