Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2019 23:56:11 GMT -6
Standings after Saturday's games (if the tournament were to start now):
1. Bowling Green-10-2 2. Buffalo-10-2 3. Kent State-8-4 4. Toledo-8-4 5. Akron-6-6 6. Central Michigan-6-6 7. Miami-5-7 8. Eastern Michigan-5-7 9. Ball State-5-7 10. Northern Illinois-5-8 11. Ohio-3-9 12. Western Michigan-2-11
I wasn't able to attach the composite remaining schedules, however, Kent, Miami, and Akron seem to have difficult remaining schedules with games including Buffalo and BG, which could potentially open the door for Ball State to move to a higher seed, assuming they take care of business. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Feb 18, 2019 0:32:51 GMT -6
Buffalo's last MAC game is against Bowling Green and it's a home game for Buffalo. Buffalo should win that and move into the #1 seed. I don't think it's realistic for BSU to win-out and finish in the 4th seed. Probably don't want that anyway as it would mean playing a third game (assuming we got that far) against the #1 seed which I still think will be Buffalo. You want to be a 6 or 7 seed to get that first round home game and then if you win, play the #2 (going to be BG) or #3 seed (Kent State or Toledo) in the second round in Cleveland. Definitely don't want to be the 8th or 9th seed as that winner plays the #1 seed (going to be Buffalo) in round #2.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Feb 18, 2019 8:46:18 GMT -6
How the hell did we get swept by Ohio?
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Feb 18, 2019 9:32:32 GMT -6
How the hell did we get swept by Ohio? Why, injuries and bad luck of course.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Feb 18, 2019 10:09:59 GMT -6
How the hell did we get swept by Ohio? Why, injuries and bad luck of course. Ah yes. And if we'd only given Whitford a raise he would have won those games. That's right.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 18, 2019 11:50:16 GMT -6
Why, injuries and bad luck of course. Ah yes. And if we'd only given Whitford a raise he would have won those games. That's right. I believe the idea is that you pay better when you hire and make each hire an upgrade instead of going back to the well where you hire assistants at or below the MAC average salary, then you do better. Might try the radical idea to hire a coach with experience and track record.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Feb 18, 2019 13:09:52 GMT -6
Ah yes. And if we'd only given Whitford a raise he would have won those games. That's right. I believe the idea is that you pay better when you hire............ See IU and Archie Miller as an example. Or instead you could compare Brad Stevens beginning salary to Todd Lickliter's when he bolted for Iowa. One of those worked out really well. So maybe it has as much to do with the person doing the hiring as it has to do with salary.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 18, 2019 15:02:54 GMT -6
I believe the idea is that you pay better when you hire............ See IU and Archie Miller as an example. Or instead you could compare Brad Stevens beginning salary to Todd Lickliter's when he bolted for Iowa. One of those worked out really well. So maybe it has as much to do with the person doing the hiring as it has to do with salary. So your plan is to count on a long shot? How is that different from what we have been trying? Who hires is important, but give a savvy AD a good budget and you are a favorite.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Feb 18, 2019 15:20:40 GMT -6
See IU and Archie Miller as an example. Or instead you could compare Brad Stevens beginning salary to Todd Lickliter's when he bolted for Iowa. One of those worked out really well. So maybe it has as much to do with the person doing the hiring as it has to do with salary. So your plan is to count on a long shot? How is that different from what we have been trying? Who hires is important, but give a savvy AD a good budget and you are a favorite. You don't have to be a favorite or a savvy AD to avoid lazy bullshit artists like James Whitford. I posted the day after we hired him "he is a guy, whom under an ideal situation, can get you to twenty wins, but that's it". I am not an AD, but I do know a jackball when I see one.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 18, 2019 15:33:37 GMT -6
So your plan is to count on a long shot? How is that different from what we have been trying? Who hires is important, but give a savvy AD a good budget and you are a favorite. You don't have to be a favorite or a savvy AD to avoid bullshit artists like James Whitford. I posted the day after we hired him "he is a guy, whom under an ideal situation, can get you to twenty wins, but that's it". I am not an AD, but I do know a clown when I see one. 20 wins is a clown?
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Feb 18, 2019 15:43:27 GMT -6
See IU and Archie Miller as an example. Or instead you could compare Brad Stevens beginning salary to Todd Lickliter's when he bolted for Iowa. One of those worked out really well. So maybe it has as much to do with the person doing the hiring as it has to do with salary. So your plan is to count on a long shot? How is that different from what we have been trying? Who hires is important, but give a savvy AD a good budget and you are a favorite.
Your idea is to try to outbid everyone for our next coach. Still haven't told us where the untapped, secret stash of cash will be found.
And apparently you plan to look in the exact same pool as every other school, at our approximate level, that is looking for a coach. (By the way, this is also the exact same pool we pulled Taylor and Whitford from) And from this pool, you will want the choice most popular with the other suitors. That will serve to make sure we have to lay out the maximum amount of money to outbid the rest.
You are not advocating anything substantially different than the most recent hires....just throwing more money into the usual method. Anything else you call a "long shot".
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 18, 2019 16:06:25 GMT -6
So your plan is to count on a long shot? How is that different from what we have been trying? Who hires is important, but give a savvy AD a good budget and you are a favorite. You are not advocating anything substantially different than the most recent hires....just throwing more money into the usual method. Anything else you call a "long shot". Hiring at or above MAC average and looking for a coach who doesn't require OJT is certainly something different. When did we try that? Last and only time time was Rick Majerus actually. We went up a notch in hiring higher quality credentials.
If you want the best in the MAC we have a better chance to get it that way. The cost is more than we have been willing to pay, that is true. We have not been committed to winning and to excellence. The whole idea of wanting to prioritize success means making a commitment. Paying the coach we hire is worth it.
It's not a fortune. Cheaper than the solution you have advocated of buying out 2 years of a contract every time we hire an unsuccessful coach and "insisting" on something we didn't have much chance of getting.
Your method is to advertise as we have and be "smarter" how is that different than the other MAC schools? Why would we be likely to accomplish that, assuming it is possible?
If we are in fact smart enough to do that, we will really will get a good coach with a higher salary to attract even better candidates. REALLY worth the extra money.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Feb 18, 2019 16:28:22 GMT -6
You are not advocating anything substantially different than the most recent hires....just throwing more money into the usual method. Anything else you call a "long shot".
Cheaper than the solution you have advocated of buying out 2 years of a contract every time we hire an unsuccessful coach
Yet you were all for giving both Whitford and Taylor multiple extensions. We wouldn't be in this mess if we had the same elevated expectations you dismiss as unrealistic. Sort of giant hole in your latest dumb argument isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 18, 2019 16:58:08 GMT -6
Cheaper than the solution you have advocated of buying out 2 years of a contract every time we hire an unsuccessful coach
Yet you were all for giving both Whitford and Taylor multiple extensions. We wouldn't be in this mess if we had the same elevated expectations that you dismiss as unrealistic. Sort of giant hole in your latest dumb argument isn't it. I was neutral on Taylor's extensions, had no strong opinion although I hated Billy ball. I supported it after the decision was made as defensible. Taylor was extended partly due to financial concerns, partly due to a perception we had to be fair to a black coach. Both counts there were good arguments both ways.
Whitford I thought deserved an extension, had now the benefit of OJT, and it depended on whether you expected him to do better. He actually has done better, although we can debate whether that has been good enough. The choice was buy him out or extend, I thought. If we had the money to buy him out, you should not argue about paying a higher salary to the next coach.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Feb 18, 2019 17:00:36 GMT -6
Cheaper than the solution you have advocated of buying out 2 years of a contract every time we hire an unsuccessful coach
Yet you were all for giving both Whitford and Taylor multiple extensions. We wouldn't be in this mess if we had the same elevated expectations that you dismiss as unrealistic. You assume buying out and hiring cheap would have worked.
And the "mess" we are in could be a lot worse if we had missed on that hiring decision or even just made a mediocre choice, since it would be more costly to buy out and replace than staying the course.
|
|