|
Post by rmcalhoun on Jan 17, 2019 11:28:45 GMT -6
Please stop saying that name. Hey I have an autographed mini ball with that name on it you want it.... Legend has it it was the last basketball in the arena... I stole that bitch blame me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2019 11:39:42 GMT -6
Lower starting salary is an issue that could readily be overcome when hiring a new coach. There are plenty of sharp young coaches around who would jump at the BSU opportunity to show what they can do. Granted you may have trouble KEEPING a coach who demonstrates success, but it would be nice to actually be in that position for a change.
BSU's biggest issue in hiring is NOT money. It's the total incompetence demonstrated by the administration in the choosing process. Just to mention a couple of extreme, but highly relevant examples;
1) How completely did Gora and crew have to bungle the hiring and vetting process to end up with puddle of diarrhea like Ronny Thompson. That guy must have left a multitude of huge red flags everywhere he went. He was a nasty, racist piece of filth and didn't put a lot of effort into hiding the fact.
2) On the other hand, how much did Barry Collier have to pay to attract Brad Stevens? He probably could have picked him up for minimum wage if he really wanted to. Seriously.
If BSU had a sharp, competent, somewhat innovative AD, who paid close attention to what it took to win in the MAC, He could offer something around the lowest current MAC coaching salary and have his pick among many eager, intelligent, young coaches to choose from. If the AD had a clear, intelligent vision and was able to form and ask perceptive questions in the interviews, he wouldn't have to rely on the resumes. Impressive resumes and experience are what cost money....not necessarily quality. Brad Stevens worked at Eli Lilly in their marketing department. He was a volunteer assistant coach at Butler while he worked at Lilly to start his career. He came on-board as a full time assistant for Lichliter. Collier did not have to offer him much to take the HC job at Butler. He was already there, and willing to take on the job. Beats doing marketing at Lilly.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 17, 2019 12:27:04 GMT -6
Lower starting salary is an issue that could readily be overcome when hiring a new coach. There are plenty of sharp young coaches around who would jump at the BSU opportunity to show what they can do. If BSU had a sharp, competent, somewhat innovative AD, who paid close attention to what it took to win in the MAC, He could offer something around the lowest current MAC coaching salary and have his pick among many eager, intelligent, young coaches to choose from.
That is our long standing theory. Hire on the cheap.
We have several things going for us today we did not have even when we hired Whitford. We should be able to do better. have better odds now hiring a little cheap than we did before.
But you want good odds. Not by paying bottom of the MAC. All that innovative vision by the AD is not going to make us favorites to do so then. You attract more possible winning coaches to winning programs (which until recently we did not offer a coach since 2004) You attract more possible winning coaches when you support your coaching staff and Program well. The rich get richer easier. Better odds to succeed.
Yes, we have bungled some choices, could easily have done better I agree. Even hiring cheap. Were lucky to do well with Ray. Not brilliant innovative AD choice that resulted in his hire.
But. Let's look at all the choices that have not worked as well as we want starting with the time Ray left. The thing in common is they were hired on the cheap and generally had little or no head coaching experience with a record of outstanding success. Those coaches we needed had better choices and were paid better elsewhere. One that treated coaches better, gave them better chance to get to the next level on the next job.
You say a brilliant AD could somehow do it. Sure, maybe. I say low odds of the kind of success you want, don't make that sucker bet.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 17, 2019 12:36:15 GMT -6
Brad Stevens worked at Eli Lilly in their marketing department. He was a volunteer assistant coach at Butler while he worked at Lilly to start his career. He came on-board as a full time assistant for Lichliter. Collier did not have to offer him much to take the HC job at Butler. He was already there, and willing to take on the job. Beats doing marketing at Lilly. That is true. They hired cheap and won. It is true also they had hired a very good AD. One with desire to be there and build something long term. Willing to give up a good job to do it. Relatively cheap. A lot of things came together. I am not willing to bet we can do that TODAY. We are not going to get a Barry Collier who wants to be here and say here to start with.
But also, notice where their salaries went after winning that fist bet with Stevens. Look at a good coach he followed. Not Ronnie Thompson. Look at Indy demographics then and since. Compare to our sinking city.
In our history, our great moment followed initial success with Rick and we actually paid pretty well at the time, had a better job to offer. Compare what followed. Did we do the same thing Butler did as Stevens then had success? Or did we try to hire cheap again and again (even with Ray who worked out well)?
Both Programs could follow that path way back in that day and win a lot easier than they could today. But ONE of the Programs abandoned that hire cheap policy rather quickly, and rode it to greater and greater success.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jan 17, 2019 12:49:53 GMT -6
Brad Stevens worked at Eli Lilly in their marketing department. He was a volunteer assistant coach at Butler while he worked at Lilly to start his career. He came on-board as a full time assistant for Lichliter. Collier did not have to offer him much to take the HC job at Butler. He was already there, and willing to take on the job. Beats doing marketing at Lilly. That is true. They hired cheap and won. It is true also they had hired a very good AD. One with desire to be there and build something long term. Willing to give up a good job to do it. Relatively cheap. A lot of things came together. I am not willing to bet we can do that TODAY. We are not going to get a Barry Collier who wants to be here and say here to start with.
But also, notice where their salaries went after winning that fist bet with Stevens. Look at a good coach he followed. Not Ronnie Thompson. Look at Indy demographics then and since. Compare to our sinking city.
In our history, our great moment followed initial success with Rick and we actually paid pretty well at the time, had a better job to offer. Compare what followed. Did we do the same thing Butler did as Stevens then had success? Or did we try to hire cheap again and again (even with Ray who worked out well)?
Both Programs could follow that path way back in that day and win a lot easier than they could today. But ONE of the Programs abandoned that hire cheap policy rather quickly, and rode it to greater and greater success. Blah......Blah......Blah......Sheesh....... Butler did it one way, Valpo did it a different way, Xavier had their way of doing it, Gonzaga had yet a different strategy, What exactly is your point ? No one is saying there is single blueprint.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 17, 2019 12:57:26 GMT -6
Yes. But it is a real factor. Not at IU. But they have a lot of other things going for them there, too. It takes a colossal series of mistakes to run IU basketball into the cellar. The AD's there certainly have proved that. Oh I see, so now you are arguing the opposite side. No.
Bad AD's can sink even good programs. Nobody says different.
We have been killed because we don't have the other things IU has. They have not gone to the cellar of the B10. They survived bad administration. But lost great performance.
Paying well does not guarantee good performance, nobody said that. But, it increases the odds. As do the other things I mention.
We have neither resources or great administration historically, and if you keep doing the same thing there are long odds at possible success.
You should actually read the posts.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jan 17, 2019 13:02:34 GMT -6
Oh I see, so now you are arguing the opposite side. No.
Bad AD's can sink even good programs. Nobody says different.
We have been killed because we don't have the other things IU has. They have not gone to the cellar of the B10. They survived bad administration. But lost great performance.
Paying well does not guarantee good performance, nobody said that. But, it increases the odds. As do the other things I mention.
We have neither resources or great administration historically, and if you keep doing the same thing there are long odds at possible success.
You should actually read the posts.
Oh please first you claim it's not feasible to hire a quality coach without massive resources, then you claim it's about the person doing the hiring and not the resources that is the determining factor. That's what we have been telling you all along. As an example, we could give a guy like you a budget of $3 million a year to hire a coach and you would still screw it up.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 17, 2019 15:01:18 GMT -6
No.
Bad AD's can sink even good programs. Nobody says different.
We have been killed because we don't have the other things IU has. They have not gone to the cellar of the B10. They survived bad administration. But lost great performance.
Paying well does not guarantee good performance, nobody said that. But, it increases the odds. As do the other things I mention.
We have neither resources or great administration historically, and if you keep doing the same thing there are long odds at possible success.
You should actually read the posts.
Oh please first you claim it's not feasible to hire a quality coach without massive resources, then you claim it's about the person doing the hiring and not the resources that is the determining factor. That's what we have been telling you all along. As an example, we could give a guy like you a budget of $3 million a year to hire a coach and you would still screw it up. NO.
I said a bad decision with bad resources will almost certainly kill you.
An AD without resources who makes a very good decision (or has some luck) can do well, but it is not likely he can.
A good AD with good resources can much more likely do very well. Reasonably likely to do so.
What I said about IU is that they have unreal resources and bad decision(s) which hurt. (But in relative terms they are still in good shape. Just no longer a top NATIONAL program.)
Give IU a great AD with their BB resources they likely do very very well. Not just good. Unless they invest too much in FB.
Do you see the moral of the story for BSU? It is not to claim hiring cheap is likely to work.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Jan 17, 2019 15:05:35 GMT -6
Ok I saw lots of words would someone please paraphrase todays arguments
|
|
|
Post by realitycheck on Jan 17, 2019 15:10:21 GMT -6
Ok I saw lots of words would someone please paraphrase todays arguments 00hmh said Blah. Sweep called bullsh*t. The end.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Jan 17, 2019 15:11:09 GMT -6
Ok I saw lots of words would someone please paraphrase todays arguments 10 - 00 said something non-committal 20 - Sweep called him an idiot 30 - Goto 10
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Jan 17, 2019 15:27:00 GMT -6
It is indeed a looped program.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jan 17, 2019 15:31:33 GMT -6
a looped program with multiple errors.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 17, 2019 18:26:04 GMT -6
The sweep function is right out of the outdated, error prone halftime 1.0 operating system which was obseleted.
Memory errors due to overwrite of inadequate cache, but also no error checking functions.
|
|
|
Post by universityjim on Jan 17, 2019 19:49:51 GMT -6
"puddle of diarrhea" is too kind.
|
|