|
Post by UHaveCardinalNv on Dec 25, 2019 10:56:40 GMT -6
With this schedule and in year 7??? of Whit, we should legitimately expect to be 10-2 or 11-1 (Washington and maybe Evansville losses). IMO that is not asking anything unrealistic or unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Dec 25, 2019 11:24:48 GMT -6
How does a program fall from consistent success to 20 years of failure? but because nobody who could really recover on court was willing to fight that headwind and come at the salary we offered.
Wrong. There were and are any number of candidates willing to fight for excellence. But if your stuck in the mindset of outbidding everyone for candidates from the standard "qualified" pool, then you will be perpetually stuck with Taylors and Whitfords. And, of course, you have to also allow them to fail for 6 or 8 years instead of 2 or 3 because.....well, you just do. You can rest assured that your way of thinking will be applied to the program for the foreseeable future, and probably beyond, as it has for the last two decades. And with much the same results. Congratulations.
|
|
|
UTEP
Dec 25, 2019 12:17:52 GMT -6
Post by 00hmh on Dec 25, 2019 12:17:52 GMT -6
but because nobody who could really recover on court was willing to fight that headwind and come at the salary we offered.
Wrong. There were and are any number of candidates willing to fight for excellence. But if your stuck in the mindset of outbidding everyone for candidates from the standard "qualified" pool, then you will be perpetually stuck with Taylors and Whitfords. And, of course, you have to also allow them to fail for 6 or 8 years instead of 2 or 3 because.....well, you just do. You can rest assured that your way of thinking will be applied to the program for the foreseeable future, and probably beyond, as it has for the last two decades. And with much the same results. Congratulations. So your theory is that the coaches we interview somehow aren't fighting to be the best they can, and if only we spotted the "many" we miss, all is well and we can turn the clock back to the 90's?
With the corollary that when you hire you must let coaches go after 2 or 3 years?
Old argument. But I am game.
I've heard your theory that if we just somehow recruited in an entirely different market in a "different" way than the teams we compete with we can easily spot the brilliant undiscovered coach. I don't buy that. Of course, you have never really explained how to define that market or technique, saying only we much be creative. You have never cited a convincing instance of this either.
I tend to look at that and think if it worked, why exactly doesn't someone else do it that way? And of course this wonder boy who you hire has to be so confident of success to gladly take a 2 or 3 year contract.
I don't see it, you will not find good coaches so easily and unless it truly is a miracle a good coach with that potential is never a sure thing and knows he may need time, he is not going to be willing to take anything less than a 5 year contract. We cannot pay them cheap enough to make the buyout practical to test your fire'em unless they instantly succeed theory.
You are absolutely right that extensions are risky. I understand both sides of that argument though. Failing to extend and leaving a lame duck coach has risks as well, and paying buy out is tougher than you think. There are reasons programs with limited means often are more willing than you to extend.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Dec 26, 2019 22:41:07 GMT -6
I've actually made quite a number of suggestions on how to find a coach outside the standard "qualified" pool for whom you have to be the highest bidder among the other programs at your general level. The most serious suggestion I made was to look into the HS coaching ranks. But the key is really to find coaches who are dying to try out their ideas and talent, rather than coaches who figure they have "paid their dues" or "earned their opportunity" through the usual assistant coaching or small college coaching candidate channel. the coaches who are dying to try out their ideas will certainly take a two year contract, because they have no doubt in their minds that they will succeed and earn more years.
But there IS a huge problem with this whole concept. That being that you need a competent administrator heading up the search. You need a Barry Collier, rather than an Andi Seger or a JoAnne Gora.
It's funny how some people get so wedded to the standard, familiar way of doing things that they can't wrap their minds around any alternative methods, even when their comfortable, normal ways fail dismally for 20 years running.
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Dec 27, 2019 0:07:20 GMT -6
The old saying: "If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've alway gotten" comes to mind.
Hell, human history is filled with people trudging along doing the same thing year after year, decade after decade before someone comes along and figures out a way to do it differently/better. Now, all ideas are not good, but to dismiss an idea with a "well if it was a good idea surely someone other than YOU would have already done it" is not only dismissive of the person making the suggestion but possibly also indicates a lack of vision or an inability to open one's mind to new possibilities.
I think most people are somewhat comfortable in their misery.
A few mavericks push the envelope and the world moves forward.
A larger percentage of those so-called mavericks push the envelope and win those coveted Darwin Awards.
I'm not sure which category of mavericks the General fits into, but I'm willing to let him push the envelope and find out.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Dec 27, 2019 9:32:32 GMT -6
I'm trying to remember any other ideas I've suggested. the ones I could come up with are
1) find a coach in Europe. I freely admit I know little about this situation and maybe there are some factors that would torpedo the whole idea. But I imagine there are people employed in the athletic department who are spending days doing not much of anything at all leading to any tangible improvements. If they were to spend a week with a phone and an internet connection investigating this possibility, I wonder what they would find.
2) Involve teenage boys in the hiring process. Getting teenage boys excited about your program is, by far, the number one separator between winning and losing coaches. Teenage boys are not scarce, and often have a lot of time on their hands. I think just about anyone could easily think of various schemes involving a focus group of teenage boys to evaluate and give input on presentations by the coaching candidates.
3) We can all sit around and whine about the fact that no huge amount of money is falling from the sky to allow BSU basketball to outbid other schools for proven, top flight coaching candidates. Surely if we all whine loudly and long enough, the money will start raining down. OK, this is not actually my idea, it is someone else's, but I thought I would throw it out there anyway.
|
|
|
UTEP
Dec 27, 2019 10:03:02 GMT -6
Post by 00hmh on Dec 27, 2019 10:03:02 GMT -6
We agree on one thing. Money is tight and we are in a bind without it.
Not sure we need that much more money, though.
Unless of course we are buying out coaches every 2 or 3 years.
|
|