|
Post by cardfan on Mar 28, 2019 10:16:16 GMT -6
Ray was a good recruiter who had studs that could win games. I think he was an average head coach. Did nothing at Houston or Detroit.
|
|
|
Post by bsu0 on Mar 28, 2019 10:25:19 GMT -6
I was in Houston when Ray was hired there. He quite frankly was a terrible fit. The community never embraced either him or his program. It was a debacle from the beginning to the end.
|
|
|
Post by redbirdman on Mar 28, 2019 11:45:04 GMT -6
Best thing he did at Detroit was bring Ray, Jr. But I still won't be surprised if he takes Ga State job just because I feel his wife may prefer it than moving to NO with Hunter but that is only if its offered which is questionable.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Mar 28, 2019 12:09:56 GMT -6
Best thing he did at Detroit was bring Ray, Jr. But I still won't be surprised if he takes Ga State job just because I feel his wife may prefer it than moving to NO with Hunter but that is only if its offered which is questionable. I don't think Georgia State wants him as a head coach. He is almost 60 years old and isn't a name guy.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 28, 2019 12:25:44 GMT -6
It would be pretty sweet to work at Tulane and live somewhere off St. Charles Ave.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 28, 2019 14:00:54 GMT -6
Buffalo gets more back from Oates with the extension. They knew they’d lose him anyway. A good strategy if you are betting a coach will be successful. Just his new base salary on the books means they are in the market for good coaches to replace him. Let's see if their administration can make that commitment. We did not when we lost Majerus/Humsaker who took us to the top of the MAC.
Ray was a lucky gambel, but eventually they paid hm too little even when they won the gamble and he kept us there. Unlike what UB did with Oates who could recruit, they did not give him a big bump. He left when a penny pinching unwise administration thought anybody could win at BSU because...well just because we are BSU. They hired a low budget replacement after that choice, doubling down on that theory. Every decision since then. A lot of people seem to think that way will work.
Where are your examples of MAC basketball success through out-bidding everyone for the most sought-after coach? After asking for them multiple times without response, one might almost think you don't have any.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 28, 2019 14:44:15 GMT -6
A good strategy if you are betting a coach will be successful. Just his new base salary on the books means they are in the market for good coaches to replace him. Let's see if their administration can make that commitment. We did not when we lost Majerus/Humsaker who took us to the top of the MAC.
Ray was a lucky gambel, but eventually they paid hm too little even when they won the gamble and he kept us there. Unlike what UB did with Oates who could recruit, they did not give him a big bump. He left when a penny pinching unwise administration thought anybody could win at BSU because...well just because we are BSU. They hired a low budget replacement after that choice, doubling down on that theory. Every decision since then. A lot of people seem to think that way will work.
Where are your examples of MAC basketball success through out-bidding everyone for the most sought-after coach? After asking for them multiple times without response, one might almost think you don't have any. I am not going to waste time proving that markets work. Take all the coaches in the NCAA who were hired cheap, below average in their conference, in the last 10 years or 15 years. Compare their results with all who were hired at the average, and all those who were hired above the average.
Do you seriously expect to see the cheap hires outperform the high priced ones? If a coach succeeds under that theory, how many stay, how well does it work with the next coach?
Look at what the smart successful programs do when they have a vacancy. How do they handle success? In the MAC, Akron, Ohio, and the other beasts in the other division. Do they hire cheap when their high paid coach leaves? Gee why not? You say it is the best bet.
What I know is we have not done very well paying average or below over the last 15 years. The change you suggest to turn the tide? Don't pay more you say. Our best bet is that we "get smart" and find bargains and continue following that losing pay theory?
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 28, 2019 14:49:04 GMT -6
By the way Sherm, I am not suggesting a monumentally huge difference, but enough to make our job look like one of the best in the MAC. Pay well. Outbid MAC programs.
Your theory that specifically asking for a coach who cannot get paid well works because he is going to get a chance to try something unorthodox, that will mean someone who couldn't get a good salary trying that idea, and couldn't convince anybody else about the idea elsewhere couldn't get a good salary, that's the guy you want. They will have their big chance here, and rush in where only fools dare. Which assumes it can happen, and that from all those wild ideas, we'll easily pick the best one. I don't think that is a good idea.
Raise a modest amount of money. Make upgrade quality a policy, pay for it, and bet on that. I say a better bet.
I agree with getting smarter, but if we are offering higher salaries and show we are committed to winning that will be a hell of a lot easier since more and better coaches will be interested. Our mistakes will work out better and we have higher chances to succeed. We have lost any number of good candidates in the last 15 years where we were just not paying enough.
Can it work out in a particular hire to pay low? Sure. How likely is the question. Let's look at Oates if that is your proof. They knew what he could do from watching him up close, they knew he had an advantage of knowing the players and their knowing him. They knew others did not have that information or reason to offer him more money. That does NOT prove anything for the typical case. It is an outlier. We don't have that information. We don't have the synergy of keeping an assistant who fits. We are hiring presumably a new unknown coach who convinces our smart AD to gamble on his "better idea" that hasn't got him a good job elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 28, 2019 14:55:22 GMT -6
Ray was a lucky gambel, but eventually they paid hm too little even when they won the gamble and he kept us there.
Ummmmmmm...................You would have to convince a lot of college basketball people Ray was good head coach. I agree. But he did get a better job and moved on, and we did nickel and dime him and his staff, or we might have held on to him and his good recruiting. Was his successor a real upgrade?
Maybe it is sacrilege, but it is fair to say Ray succeeded here without being a great coach. He was maybe a lucky gamble. He could recruit. I don't think we can duplicate that unless we have a Majerus/Hunsaker to build a program, which helps with that, to make sure they hire a recruiter loved by players. Then, maybe the guy can then add as a recruit a kid who he knew his whole life who turns into our best player in history. Could happen...I don't bet on it.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 28, 2019 14:56:40 GMT -6
Ray was a good recruiter who had studs that could win games. I think he was an average head coach. Did nothing at Houston or Detroit. Good enough coach to get those jobs. We would have been better off to keep him than to hire Buckley. Or another cheap coach.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Mar 28, 2019 15:04:58 GMT -6
Where are your examples of MAC basketball success through out-bidding everyone for the most sought-after coach? After asking for them multiple times without response, one might almost think you don't have any. I am not going to waste time proving that markets work.
This from the guy who believes paying more for something than it is worth in the open market, is an efficient use of capital.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Mar 28, 2019 15:08:23 GMT -6
Ray was a good recruiter who had studs that could win games. I think he was an average head coach. Did nothing at Houston or Detroit. Good enough coach to get those jobs. We would have been better off to keep him than to hire Buckley. Or another cheap coach. Good enough to get them, not good enough to not fail in those jobs. But I would have preferred we not make him a ridiculously low offer to run him off. I’d have fought to keep him. For our job he was getting it done.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 28, 2019 15:14:21 GMT -6
Good enough coach to get those jobs. We would have been better off to keep him than to hire Buckley. Or another cheap coach. Good enough to get them, not good enough to not fail in those jobs. But I would have preferred we not make him a ridiculously low offer to run him off. I’d have fought to keep him. For our job he was getting it done. At the end, he had decided he couldn't get it done, and there was reason to think he was not a good fit. But, then look what we got, trusting the administration to boldly go where no man would go.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 28, 2019 15:17:13 GMT -6
I am not going to waste time proving that markets work. This from the guy who believes paying more for something, than it is worth in the open market, is an efficient use of capital. Huh? I say pay more for the next hire than the last. Not pay more than they are worth. I am arguing to get us to a salary level where we can have some money to play with. And if our AD goes wrong paying somebody too much, we then at least we can get an upgrade more easily.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 28, 2019 18:20:31 GMT -6
Of course I'm not going to sit and read through all that. I just scanned to look for names, and didn't see any.
Not all markets are particularly efficient, especially smaller ones. The market for MAC basketball coaches is a good example. If it were, the most expensively bought MAC coaches would be the most successful. And here we have a proponent for the strategy of out-bidding everyone for the most expensive coach possible is not able to name a single example of an expensively acquired coach out-perform the others.
No examples and also no suggestions as to where the money would come from....not a very effective way to advocate for a policy, I have to say. Maybe the idea is...you know...stupid.
|
|