|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 27, 2019 10:56:32 GMT -6
I am not buying the "buy low because BSU is smarter than everyone else and will find the hidden gem, or that this is the best job in the MAC so we will get the best coaches without paying them" argument.
What ? I don't see where anyone ever implied anything close to that. I argue pay well, or at least a little better than average. Make the job a good one. You seem to argue the opposite. Claim that pay is not necessary to expect success. What other explanation for that theory? Either we are smarter or luckier than the others?
Mostly the evidence presented is that in some particular case the strategy of paying poorly once worked. What I see is no mention of is how seldom it works. Many try, few succeed.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Feb 27, 2019 11:16:49 GMT -6
What ? I don't see where anyone ever implied anything close to that. I argue pay well, or at least a little better than average. Make the job a good one. You seem to argue the opposite. Claim that pay is not necessary to expect success. What other explanation for that theory? Either we are smarter or luckier than the others?
Mostly the evidence presented is that in some particular case the strategy of paying poorly once worked. What I see is no mention of is how seldom it works. Many try, few succeed.
No, to be honest you are just too stupid to follow and understand the argument being made. I am not going to discuss this any further.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Feb 27, 2019 18:26:15 GMT -6
What ? I don't see where anyone ever implied anything close to that. I argue pay well, or at least a little better than average. Make the job a good one. You seem to argue the opposite. Claim that pay is not necessary to expect success. What other explanation for that theory? Either we are smarter or luckier than the others?
Mostly the evidence presented is that in some particular case the strategy of paying poorly once worked. What I see is no mention of is how seldom it works. Many try, few succeed.
You're plans always seem to be limited to spending more money. Like your plan to have paid Whitford even more than what he was actually willing to accept for his undeserved extension. Because then we could have....INCREASED THE BUYOUT WHEN SOMEONE WANTED TO STEAL HIM! BWAAA HH A AH HA AH A HHAHAHH HAHAHAH HAHHHHHAAA! Good one!
|
|
|
Post by realitycheck on Feb 27, 2019 20:09:14 GMT -6
I thought this particular argument was about the extension? Are you saying the poor results or the sanity of that decision are because we didn't raise the salary as part of the extension? If so, that's a new level of stupidity which is saying something. Could we have a better coach today if we had at any time in the last 20 years decided to pay the best salary in the MAC? Yes, I believe that.
In that case whether the coach does well or not, it pays to make the JOB a good one.
What kind of argument is that? So if we paid the highest salary in the MAC any time in the past 20 years we could have had a better coach? Are you some kind of savant genius? I’ll bet no one even considered that! Stop the presses! The key is to find the best candidate at a competitive salary. This happens constantly in the real world in case you didn’t realize it. I’ve hired incredible talent at entry level salaries who went on to tremendous positions later. That’s what smart leaders do! And despite your droning about how lousy this job is you’ve yet to prove it’s the job versus the inept idiots who have made our hiring decisions in the past. You of all people should recognize them.
|
|
|
Post by rgmillikan on Feb 27, 2019 20:24:05 GMT -6
Well obviously a better initial hiring budget would be ideal, but the issue here is multiple coaching contract extensions going back a decade that have to this point flopped.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 27, 2019 23:47:02 GMT -6
Well obviously a better initial hiring budget would be ideal, but the issue here is multiple coaching contract extensions going back a decade that have to this point flopped. Changing that means commitment. Investment in hiring better coaches to start with. If we'd taken the chance and upgraded at any point, we likely wouldn't be complaining about that. Different hires. No Buckley, no Ronnie, no Billy. And any extensions would have not occurred or we'd have loved them. What I worry about is that the time has passed to really do well, whatever we do. But if we have the modest goal of being a MAC power we have to act like one.
|
|
|
Post by realitycheck on Feb 28, 2019 6:49:55 GMT -6
Well obviously a better initial hiring budget would be ideal, but the issue here is multiple coaching contract extensions going back a decade that have to this point flopped. What I worry about is that the time has passed to really do well, whatever we do. That is why you fail.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Feb 28, 2019 8:25:10 GMT -6
Well obviously a better initial hiring budget would be ideal, but the issue here is multiple coaching contract extensions going back a decade that have to this point flopped. Changing that means commitment. Investment in hiring better coaches to start with. If we'd taken the chance and upgraded at any point, we likely wouldn't be complaining about that. Different hires. No Buckley, no Ronnie, no Billy. And any extensions would have not occurred or we'd have loved them. What I worry about is that the time has passed to really do well, whatever we do. But if we have the modest goal of being a MAC power we have to act like one. There were plenty of very good coaches available for the salaries we paid our recent and current coaches. But our administration was unable to recognize them. There were also many poor to mediocre coaches we could have chosen if we had paid more money. Would these same people and same methods, with just more money to throw around, have been able to avoid these expensive but poor coaches? More money is going to make our administrators smarter? Your plan seems to me like an excellent way to throw away a lot of money. And where does that money come from, by the way?
We need to change the method of choosing....not just throw more money into a bad method. That's stupid. Thinking like that is how you came up with the genius plan of paying Whitford even more than he actually accepted.
I outlined a plan with a different method. A secondary benefit of it was that it would be quite likely to cost less, although actually that's not even the critical part of my plan. And, by the way, seeing how your "throw money at Whiford" plan would have turned out, I'm not inclined to worry too much about you not liking my plan.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Feb 28, 2019 14:45:56 GMT -6
To save me some time. Did 00 admit his total failure or did he explain it away?
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Feb 28, 2019 14:51:51 GMT -6
To save me some time. Did 00 admit his total failure or did he explain it away? He created a straw-man and moved the goal posts.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Feb 28, 2019 14:57:55 GMT -6
To save me some time. Did 00 admit his total failure or did he explain it away? He created a straw-man and moved the goal posts. That seems like an unfair way to argue.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Feb 28, 2019 15:07:52 GMT -6
To save me some time. Did 00 admit his total failure or did he explain it away? You could have saved yourself the time. You already know the answer to that question.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 6, 2019 11:57:48 GMT -6
A necessary moveSandy is right. But if I were going to do it, I'd have paid him more, something like what we want to pay a coach with the next hire. If he is a success over next 2 years he goes anyway and we get a better buyout.
With Whitford being on the verge of clinching a top 10 MAC finish, we may soon regret that we didn't follow this very prophetic advice.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 6, 2019 12:16:47 GMT -6
A necessary moveSandy is right. But if I were going to do it, I'd have paid him more, something like what we want to pay a coach with the next hire. If he is a success over next 2 years he goes anyway and we get a better buyout.
With Whitford being on the verge of clinching a top 10 MAC finish, we may soon regret that we didn't follow this very prophetic advice.
You cannot assume the extension is bad...20-20 hindsight makes it clear.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 6, 2019 13:30:27 GMT -6
WRONG. Completely wrong.
I saw very clearly, at the time it was made, that the extension was a terrible idea. In fact, I was so irate that I quit the board for a few months. It did NOT take hindsight to see how bad of an idea it was. You merely had to have your eyes open to what was happening, and a little knowledge of recent history. It was plainly stupid and short-sighted and I'm not the only one who realized it. It was stupid for all the reasons that I, and others, had been posting incessantly on this very board.
And your idea that we should have given Whitford an even bigger raise along with the extension is likely the single worst idea ever seen on this board. Just in case you are under any illusions, you WILL be reminded of this with great regularity going forward.
What is particularly apt and amusing is that your idiotic idea is an unholy offspring or your two favorite themes that you are endlessly promoting around here: acceptance of mediocrity and a compulsion to spend money. The "give Whitford a bigger raise" post perfectly and wonderfully encapsulates your thinking and it's consequences.
|
|