|
Post by rmcalhoun on May 16, 2016 18:53:51 GMT -6
Im kinda surprised that now that the extension has happened that most are saying it seems odd and probably should have happened next year. That's what we "naysayers,cynics miscreants, assholes and haters" have been saying all along. I expected a party but that's not the vibe I am getting. This ends that argument and we are in for the long haul boys. Lets hope its the right decision
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 16, 2016 18:55:57 GMT -6
Not what I would have done but this is why Sandy gets paid so hopefully its the right decision, if not were screwed again. Only if we aren't willing to buy out and pay a good salary for the replacement. I was going to throw in an "extend Whitford" suggestion in the midst of the Whitford recruits thread. I always considered this a fairly strong possibility for the AD to do, but I thought such a comment would be a little too over the top and cause incendiary meltdown response. The reality actually occurring brings a little milder reaction than I expected. It is a rational move to improve odds recruiting. I want his mind mostly on that, and on planning on at least two more good years, before he is in the market. We don't have that much margin for error that he isn't 100% committed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2016 19:13:00 GMT -6
I smell a buyout....or maybe it was the bacon-wrapped jalapeño chilli dogs we grilled for dinner ?
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on May 16, 2016 19:20:36 GMT -6
Bacon wrapped jalapeño chili dogs-- grilled? That sounds brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on May 16, 2016 19:23:30 GMT -6
Like many I initially thought this was a year premature. Upon further consideration, I think maybe it had to be now.
If you think about it we are now focused on the 2017 recruiting class, and we've talked about how the kids we've offered for that class have a lot of promise. They will sign in the fall, hopefully, but they won't step on campus until what would have been the final year of Whit's contract.
I'm going to assume kids do want to know that the coach they're signing with will be around for their entire college career. Although we know that many things can happen to change that, this at least gives the appearance that Whit will be there. Before this we were asking the kids to sign on to play for a lame-duck coach. Now are are not.
It probably did have to be now.
I just hope it pays off in the fall.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on May 16, 2016 19:25:05 GMT -6
I had a bacon wrapped hotdog at the Hartford city civil war fest yesterday. I was so excited till I got it and the bacon was raw.. Must stop ADD and Bacon. Whitford extension Whitford Extension
|
|
|
Post by BSU Card Fan in AZ on May 16, 2016 19:25:42 GMT -6
Agree with lmills logic.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on May 16, 2016 19:27:57 GMT -6
Like many I initially thought this was a year premature. Upon further consideration, I think maybe it had to be now. If you think about it we are now focused on the 2017 recruiting class, and we've talked about how the kids we've offered for that class have a lot of promise. They will sign in the fall, hopefully, but they won't step on campus until what would have been the final year of Whit's contract. I'm going to assume kids do want to know that the coach they're signing with will be around for their entire college career. Although we know that many things can happen to change that, this at least gives the appearance that Whit will be there. Before this we were asking the kids to sign on to play for a lame-duck coach. Now are are not. It probably did have to be now. I just hope it pays off in the fall. Fair point and it makes next years class even more critical than it already was. If Whit stinks it up next year recruiting well you know, its going to be a meltdown and a lot of I told you so's
|
|
|
Post by reevo on May 16, 2016 20:13:52 GMT -6
Wow! You have a record that is 31-58 and your MAC record is 13-37, no wins in the MAC tournament and you get a 3 year extension. And we wonder why we have not won a championship in 16 years? Unbelievable. Good for Whit but this is comical.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 16, 2016 20:25:25 GMT -6
Before this we were asking the kids to sign on to play for a lame-duck coach. Now are are not. It probably did have to be now. Yes, good logic. Oddly enough, if Whitford had signed a great class this year, it would not have been as critical. Of course then he's be a hotter coaching prospect and harder for us to get him to extend in year 4, why not just go on the job market then! But, assuming we could keep him, with a great class in the bank, if he did have any trouble with 2017, no big problem, he has enough talent and loads up in year 5 the first year of his extension.
|
|
|
Post by bsu0 on May 16, 2016 20:37:00 GMT -6
If you ate bacon wrapped jalapeno chilli dogs you will be smelling MORE than a buy out soon my friend.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 16, 2016 20:37:51 GMT -6
The worst case in all this extension game comes if you decide to make a coach a lame duck after 4 years and choose to have him play out the string, which we have done 2 out of 3 last coaches.
Playing out the contract is terrible. You have to either fire or extend or you risk hurting that "4th year" class as mills argues above, but risk the next two recruiting classes, also. The last one by the lame duck coach could be really worthless and the first one under the new coach in trouble, since he has no long term relationship with recruits and has to start on the run. Maybe he could get some JUCOs and somehow sign a last minute recruit, but it is hard unless you are big name coach and have a lot of credibility and success to sell, a lot of contacts.
You can make that prospect even worse by hiring a low budget coach without a name and without recent experience recruiting in the area (the BSU method). That will work especially badly, as you have to rely on the lame duck recruiting even more. We didn't do as badly as it could have been, since Bo and Franko both worked out well, but we lost recruits as you would expect from a class that was not that strong from Taylor's efforts.
Of course Ronnie Thompson avoided any such problems with his brilliance, he wanted to dump all our players and get all East coast city players, anyway. I guess the quality of Buckley's last classes was irrelevant. Gee, look at that, a bright spot in Ronnie's hiring!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2016 20:43:30 GMT -6
The worst case in all this extension game comes if you decide to make a coach a lame duck after 4 years and choose to have him play out the string, which we have done 2 out of 3 last coaches. Playing out the contract is terrible. You have to either fire or extend or you risk hurting that "4th year" class as mills argues above, but risk the next two recruiting classes, also. The last one by the lame duck coach could be really worthless and the first one under the new coach in trouble, since he has no long term relationship with recruits and has to start on the run. Maybe he could get some JUCOs and somehow sign a last minute recruit, but it is hard unless you are big name coach and have a lot of credibility and success to sell, a lot of contacts. You can make that prospect even worse by hiring a low budget coach without a name and without recent experience recruiting in the area (the BSU method). That will work especially badly, as you have to rely on the lame duck recruiting even more. We didn't do as badly as it could have been, since Bo and Franko both worked out well, but we lost recruits as you would expect from a class that was not that strong from Taylor's efforts. Of course Ronnie Thompson avoided any such problems with his brilliance, he wanted to dump all our players and get all East coast city players, anyway. I guess the quality of Buckley's last classes was irrelevant. Gee, look at that, a bright spot in Ronnie's hiring! This is logical, but why did Colonel Sandy wait until the end of the current recruiting period to address the issue?
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on May 16, 2016 21:17:46 GMT -6
Basically my answer is I don't think whether we did this a little earlier or a little later changes much. This late recruiting was the not the big issue. It would be a real shame short run though if we did get so close on Hazen or somebody else important and it would have made a difference. I don't see that, I guess.
It is paradoxical. If he had closed out this class big we wouldn't need the extension as much, but then if he had we would want him even more, and also have a harder time getting him next year.
I am sure 20-20 hindsight in 2 years will make it all clear.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on May 16, 2016 21:34:34 GMT -6
This really is big for Sandy as well its these decisions that get AD's fired. Now Im not sure the BOT cares enough about athletics to fire an AD but at other schools its a real possibility. When was the last time BSU fired an AD? Several have left but with Sandy's age I don't see that happening
|
|