Why waiting 5 years to completely judge is just prudent

[GGGG]

Paul Pasqualoni fired after going 10-18, and regressing badly four games into his third season at UConn.  Very imprudent.  He deserved not only to finish this year, but to get two additional seasons so we could have accurately judged his abilities.

[CAGASS24]

This argument is stronger if on field success is your only worry; but not with folks like kiffin; he's jerk that treats others like crap shouldn't be afforded the luxury of a longer evaluation

[GGGG]

So if you were a USC fan you would have been hoping that Kiffin be given another 2.7 years to further prove his inability to do the job?

I think what he meant is that fans can be reactionary, but that we should trust ADs to make decisions before a five year timeframe because they have access to more information.  Does that mean they are perfect?  (Like in the Weis case?)  No.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

So if you were a USC fan you would have been hoping that Kiffin be given another 2.7 years to further prove his inability to do the job?

No, not necessarily. You nailed it in your first comment, that I highlighted in RED.

"Smart, decisive people make the call when it's appropriate."

I've generally said "5 years", because I think fans are too impatient and reactionary, and 5 years gives you a good idea on who the coach really is, and where the program is headed. If a coach is good in the first 2 years, a lot of people say "SIGN HIM!", and if he's bad, they say "FIRE HIM!". Fans are stupid. (including me).

The AD and school President are far closer to these programs, so they will always have a better inside view than the fans. A smart AD should be able to make the call before the fans because he/she sees a lot of things we don't.

With this said, AD's aren't perfect either.

Oh, also, I think it depends on the school/job as well. A school like MN might have to wait and be more patient than a school like USC. USC is make or break. It's a premium job, and they can afford to be like that. MN isn't a premium job, and therefore should be more patient.
 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I think what he meant is that fans can be reactionary, but that we should trust ADs to make decisions before a five year timeframe because they have access to more information.  Does that mean they are perfect?  (Like in the Weis case?)  No.

Actually, the Weis thing is an interesting comparison.

Did the AD REALLY want to sign Charlie to a huge deal, or was there a lot of pressure from big time donors/boosters because they liked what they saw in the first couple of years?

We know that private schools feel a lot of pressure to cater to their biggest supporters. The AD might have wanted to be more cautious, but we know how this stuff can go.

[Lennys Tap]

No, not necessarily. You nailed it in your first comment, that I highlighted in RED.

"Smart, decisive people make the call when it's appropriate."

I've generally said "5 years", because I think fans are too impatient and reactionary, and 5 years gives you a good idea on who the coach really is, and where the program is headed. If a coach is good in the first 2 years, a lot of people say "SIGN HIM!", and if he's bad, they say "FIRE HIM!". Fans are stupid. (including me).

The AD and school President are far closer to these programs, so they will always have a better inside view than the fans. A smart AD should be able to make the call before the fans because he/she sees a lot of things we don't.

With this said, AD's aren't perfect either.

Oh, also, I think it depends on the school/job as well. A school like MN might have to wait and be more patient than a school like USC. USC is make or break. It's a premium job, and they can afford to be like that. MN isn't a premium job, and therefore should be more patient.
 

I agree with everything you've written. That said, most guys who have the "it" factor show it in less than 5 years and most guys who are total busts do the same. Chicos is using guys like Kiffin, Flint, KO at Tennessee and Northwestern, etc as guys who were great successes and heralded as the second coming for it but who then fizzled. He's rewriting history.

Oh, and by smart, decisive people I didn't just mean ADs and school presidents. Some fans fit that description too

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

I'd love some sort of response to this. Having read the original post a few times, and I honestly have no idea what point he is trying to make.

+1!! It was a bad idea to fire these people, or what?

[CTWarrior]

The 5 year rule is arbitrary.  It fits one group really well.  That group consists of the guys who do well with the previous guy's players.  Mike Deane/Hank Raymonds are examples of guys who could coach as long as they had good players but weren't effective at bringing in good players.  Those are the guys that sometimes you can't figure out for 5 years.  It is harder to see with those guys at first because they started out winning as much as you would hope, so then you feel like you owe it to them to stick with them until they start losing.

In pretty much all other scenarios, you should have a strong idea by year 3 of what you have.  But in any case, a one-size-fits-all time frame may be a rule of thumb, but not a real rule.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Oh, and by smart, decisive people I didn't just mean ADs and school presidents. Some fans fit that description too

Ehhh.

I think fans make some decisions and guesses based off of what we see and hear.

But, fans are RARELY close enough to the program to see the whole picture, and really make an accurate evaluation.

I know, I know, some coaches have "it"... but I think there are so many variables that we just don't see. "It" can be disguised or faked if you don't know the whole story.  

But, you know I'm conservative like that :-).

[jesmu84]

Serious question... is Chicos just trolling us with this thread?

[GGGG]

Actually, the Weis thing is an interesting comparison.

Did the AD REALLY want to sign Charlie to a huge deal, or was there a lot of pressure from big time donors/boosters because they liked what they saw in the first couple of years?

We know that private schools feel a lot of pressure to cater to their biggest supporters. The AD might have wanted to be more cautious, but we know how this stuff can go.

I think his agent may have been talking NFL leverage as well.  Here is the problem though...Kevin White (the AD at the time) should probably not have been in the position to make hires of football coaches.  He screwed up royally with O'Leary (who is a damn good coach), Willingham and Weis.  

He should have stuck up for O'Leary.  He should have never touched Willingham.  He should have never given Weis the extension he did.

[Lennys Tap]

The 5 year rule is arbitrary.  It fits one group really well.  That group consists of the guys who do well with the previous guy's players.  Mike Deane/Hank Raymonds are examples of guys who could coach as long as they had good players but weren't effective at bringing in good players.  Those are the guys that sometimes you can't figure out for 5 years.  It is harder to see with those guys at first because they started out winning as much as you would hope, so then you feel like you owe it to them to stick with them until they start losing.

In pretty much all other scenarios, you should have a strong idea by year 3 of what you have.  But in any case, a one-size-fits-all time frame may be a rule of thumb, but not a real rule.

Agree 100%. Mike Deane had three good classes in the pipeline from KO. He proved early he could coach those guys, but could he, would he recruit at a high level? Buzz was different. Almost nothing in the pipeline past year one. Chicos himself went on record as saying Buzz should be National Coach of the Year if he snuck into the NCAA (12 seed?) in year two. We easily surpassed that with a 6 seed. And by the end of year two he had signed Jimmy Butler, DJO, Jeronne Maymon, Dwight Buycks, Vander Blue, etc. The handwriting was on the wall, but those demanding orthodoxy to an arbitrary, one size fits all 5 year "rule" couldn't or wouldn't read it. Those who could and did get put down by Chicos. LOL

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, it's pretty obvious USC and Haden acted capriciously here, and should have kept Kiffin at least another year and half before prematurely judging him a failure.
Right?
I hope you're over on the USC boards telling them their team pulled the trigger too soon because Kiffin should have had five years before being judged.

I applaud USC for their decision, never would have hired the cheater to begin with.  The point was after season 2, he was god.  Preseason last year, the man.  Lass than 14 months later, he's out of a job. 

For all the jockularity around the idea of waiting 5 years to fully judge (that doesn't mean you can't judge along the way) a coach, this is just one more example of the 100's or 1000's of coaches that have crapped their wardrobe after just a few, short years.  A guy needs to go through his recruiting class, test a little difficulty, see how he responds when things aren't going well.  5 years

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I applaud USC for their decision, never would have hired the cheater to begin with.  The point was after season 2, he was god.  Preseason last year, the man.  Lass than 14 months later, he's out of a job. 

For all the jockularity around the idea of waiting 5 years to fully judge (that doesn't mean you can't judge along the way) a coach, this is just one more example of the 100's or 1000's of coaches that have crapped their wardrobe after just a few, short years.  A guy needs to go through his recruiting class, test a little difficulty, see how he responds when things aren't going well.  5 years

Honest question: are you saying that you can only be judged a success after five years, but be called a failure any time prior to that? 

[jesmu84]

I applaud USC for their decision, never would have hired the cheater to begin with.  The point was after season 2, he was god.  Preseason last year, the man.  Lass than 14 months later, he's out of a job. 

For all the jockularity around the idea of waiting 5 years to fully judge (that doesn't mean you can't judge along the way) a coach, this is just one more example of the 100's or 1000's of coaches that have crapped their wardrobe after just a few, short years.  A guy needs to go through his recruiting class, test a little difficulty, see how he responds when things aren't going well.  5 years

Again though, it sounds like you're saying you can condemn (judge) a coach before 5 years, but you can't crown (judge) a coach before 5 years. Why can you use one type of judgement but not the other? (at least without some type of scandal, etc)

[keefe]

I applaud USC for their decision, never would have hired the cheater to begin with.  The point was after season 2, he was god.  Preseason last year, the man.  Lass than 14 months later, he's out of a job. 

For all the jockularity around the idea of waiting 5 years to fully judge (that doesn't mean you can't judge along the way) a coach, this is just one more example of the 100's or 1000's of coaches that have crapped their wardrobe after just a few, short years.  A guy needs to go through his recruiting class, test a little difficulty, see how he responds when things aren't going well.  5 years

Chico

You have greater insight to USC than any of us. I am curious what you and people down there think of Haden. It doesn't seem everything is working out. I worked at PepsiCo with Kevin Bruce. Kevin ran our restaurant equipment business. He was an All American LB and co-Captain with Haden on some great teams. Kevin always said Pat Haden was the finest leader he ever met but things are slipping in SoCal. Thoughts?  

[4everwarriors]

Obama's been at the helm for close to 5 years. Shoulda cut that sucker loose earlier, hey?

[Lennys Tap]

I applaud USC for their decision, never would have hired the cheater to begin with.  The point was after season 2, he was god.  Preseason last year, the man.  Lass than 14 months later, he's out of a job. 

C'mon, Chico. Please don't insult our intelligence. One 10-2 season at a powerhouse like USC does not make a guy a god except with the brain dead. Your hyperbole is off the charts.

[forgetful]

The 5 year rule is arbitrary.  It fits one group really well.  That group consists of the guys who do well with the previous guy's players.  Mike Deane/Hank Raymonds are examples of guys who could coach as long as they had good players but weren't effective at bringing in good players.  Those are the guys that sometimes you can't figure out for 5 years.  It is harder to see with those guys at first because they started out winning as much as you would hope, so then you feel like you owe it to them to stick with them until they start losing.

In pretty much all other scenarios, you should have a strong idea by year 3 of what you have.  But in any case, a one-size-fits-all time frame may be a rule of thumb, but not a real rule.

I think this is a very cogent analysis.  In a 3 year window you can start to see if their work ethic/approach has a chance at success if they are allowed to fully implement their system.  So at this point (3 years) you can fish or cut bait (if it is clear the system will never work).

You then need to allow 5-6 years total to see if they are capable of fully implementing their vision/system.  If they can't, you have to either accept what state they are able to achieve or let them go.

I think you also then need to re-evaluate every 5 years, make sure they still have the passion to push the system or if instead they coast or regress.

[The Equalizer]

C'mon, Chico. Please don't insult our intelligence. One 10-2 season at a powerhouse like USC does not make a guy a god except with the brain dead. Your hyperbole is off the charts.

So after his first year, when you were making Buzz out to be a god, were you brain dead?

Let's just call this what it is . . .

When you and others were running around here declaring that Buzz was a god because the first season he took the Amigos and went 25-10, and at the same time declaring that Crean was a failure and would be out within three years because he went 6-25, Chicos at the time provided a voice of reason on the topic which was that you have to wait to see what a coach can do with his own recruits.

Now the arguments against him have boiled down to this:

1.  False precision--he initially said five years, thus any example where a trend is exposed in three or four years "proves" him wrong.

2.  False use of examples using hindsight--Brad Stevens and Shaka Smart were oustanding their first year, and since turned out to be good beyond that you don't need to see their subsequent performance.

Its time for everyone to admit that Chicos' comment was a comment sense and normal approach for evaluating ANY coach.

What you're really objecting to here is that Chicos made it . . . not that the comment has no validity.

[ATL MU Warrior]

So after his first year, when you were making Buzz out to be a god, were you brain dead?

Let's just call this what it is . . .

When you and others were running around here declaring that Buzz was a god because the first season he took the Amigos and went 25-10, and at the same time declaring that Crean was a failure and would be out within three years because he went 6-25, Chicos at the time provided a voice of reason on the topic which was that you have to wait to see what a coach can do with his own recruits.

Now the arguments against him have boiled down to this:

1.  False precision--he initially said five years, thus any example where a trend is exposed in three or four years "proves" him wrong.

2.  False use of examples using hindsight--Brad Stevens and Shaka Smart were oustanding their first year, and since turned out to be good beyond that you don't need to see their subsequent performance.

Its time for everyone to admit that Chicos' comment was a comment sense and normal approach for evaluating ANY coach.

What you're really objecting to here is that Chicos made it . . . not that the comment has no validity.

it is amazing you can type so accurately with your nose so far up Chicos nether regions...

[The Equalizer]

it is amazing you can type so accurately with your nose so far up Chicos nether regions...

As they say, when you can't find fault in the argument, go after the person . . .

[GGGG]

1.  False precision--he initially said five years, thus any example where a trend is exposed in three or four years "proves" him wrong.

Exactly.  That is exactly the point.  You oftentimes don't need five years....in fact most of the time you don't.  

That's why the comment was wrong to begin with.

[Pakuni]

Exactly.  That is exactly the point.  You oftentimes don't need five years....in fact most of the time you don't.  

That's why the comment was wrong to begin with.

Correct.
Chico's set forth a completely arbitrary "5-year" standard for something that almost by necessity is determined on a case-by-case basis. I'm sure there are instances in which five years is exactly the right amount of time needed to property evaluate a coach. And there are many others where a fair judgment can come much sooner.
I don't recall many people suggesting we needed to give Bob Dukiet a couple more years to show he was in way over his head.
Reality is Chico's invented the five-year rule to delay having to admit he was wrong when he (and he was far from alone here) shredded the powers that be over Buzz's hire.

[tower912]

pretty sure Chico's '5-year' statement came as a reaction to the early success Buzz had.   He was so (completely, utterly) torqued about the hiring process that he needed something as an excuse to not be as excited as most about how MU was flourishing while Crean was struggling early. ....  Yeah, Buzz is succeeding with Crean's players but you really need 5 years to judge a coach.   Yeah, Crean has the worst team in the B10 this year, but you can't really judge him with the situation he inherited for 5 years.....   He made the statement, and then built a theory around it.   It's a weak theory, but there is no crime in that.