Parrish: Coaches Shouldn't Stay Too Long

[GoldenWarrior11]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/25528050/jamie-dixon-is-the-latest-to-recognize-its-no-good-to-stay-one-place-too-long

"Because, basically, here's how college coaching works: when you're hired you are asked to be better than the guy before you if the guy before you was fired, and at least as good as the guy before you if the guy before you left on his own terms and for a better opportunity. That's Step 1. If you don't meet that criteria, you're fired in three or four or five years. But if you do meet that criteria, then you start to coach against your own record, and if your second five years aren't better than your first five years, for the most part, fans start to think you're taking them nowhere, and they begin to envision and want something new."

I thought this passage was very insightful into how we have viewed, and currently view, Wojo's tenure.  It certainly attributes to Buzz's tenure, who is mentioned in the article - as most Parrish articles are.  Personally, I think it's good that programs get more coaches in today's climate of sports.  While it puts more added pressure on leadership to continue to find the right guy and right fit to build upon success, it allows programs to be built on the program (and not one coach or one tenure).

[tower912]

The supply of good coaches is not limitless.    Much like talented 6'10 players, you can't just go pick one up at the CVS.    A few coaches stay one place forever and become icons.    Most icons started somewhere else.   Knight, McGuire, K.     Most icons struggled at some point.   Wojo is our coach, I support him and will continue to do so.   I don't expect him to spend his entire career at Marquette, I would be stunned if he won a national championship at Marquette.     I want him to learn, grow, and improve.   

[HoopsterBC]

Coaches should stay a minimum of 5 or 6 years, much like Buzz but they should leave the program in good shape if they do.  TC did, Buzz did not.  Coaches can tell
the future as they know how recruits think when they are sophomores, so coaches can see if it is worth it or not.  Wojo got Ellenson, not sure Buzz would have and for
sure would not have gotten Stone.  The recruits that left MU after Buzz left have not been overly impressive..   I believe the writing was on the wall when he was not
able to keep McKay.  McKay is a difference maker.  He made a big mistake on that one.  McKay did not want to play center, the big joke here, is that is exactly the position he played at Iowa St.  He plays like a center, has no outside game.  The redshirt year or transfer year did not change his game at all.

[Nukem2]

Coaches should stay a minimum of 5 or 6 years, much like Buzz but they should leave the program in good shape if they do.  TC did, Buzz did not.  Coaches can tell
the future as they know how recruits think when they are sophomores, so coaches can see if it is worth it or not.  Wojo got Ellenson, not sure Buzz would have and for
sure would not have gotten Stone.  The recruits that left MU after Buzz left have not been overly impressive..   I believe the writing was on the wall when he was not
able to keep McKay.  McKay is a difference maker.  He made a big mistake on that one.  McKay did not want to play center, the big joke here, is that is exactly the position he played at Iowa St.  He plays like a center, has no outside game.  The redshirt year or transfer year did not change his game at all.

And, he lost a semester of PT as well.

[4everwarriors]

Reserve judgment for 5 years on coaches, ai na?

[Goose]

Hate to say it but I think a coach, unless special ties to school, probably wear out their welcome after 5-7 years. It is very hard to stay focused and motivated for these guys and I did get it. When a coach you have to play a lot of games and suck up to a lot of different people and it has to get old. In addition, it gets old for the folks being sucked up to. Always nice to see new faces.

[Mods, Delete me please. 8/26/2020]

But if you do meet that criteria, then you start to coach against your own record, and if your second five years aren't better than your first five years, for the most part, fans start to think you're taking them nowhere, and they begin to envision and want something new."


See Ben Howland

[vogue65]

And in todays American culture the world loyalty has lost it's meaning.

There is very little loyalty between workers and management,consumers and brands, corporations and employees, citizens and politicians or patients and doctors.

So why would we expect loyalty between players and their coaches, institutions and their coaches or fans and their coaches?  It is just the exception that proves the rule.

[wildbillsb]

A few more exceptions?
     
      Mike Brey
      Bo Ryan
      Tom Izzo
      Bill Self

[LAZER]

A few more exceptions?
     
      Mike Brey
      Bo Ryan
      Tom Izzo
      Bill Self

Self spent 4 years at Oral Roberts, 3 at Tulsa, and 3 at Illinois before landing at KU.

[GGGG]

And in todays American culture the world loyalty has lost it's meaning.

There is very little loyalty between workers and management,consumers and brands, corporations and employees, citizens and politicians or patients and doctors.

So why would we expect loyalty between players and their coaches, institutions and their coaches or fans and their coaches?  It is just the exception that proves the rule.

"Loyalty" hasn't lost its meaning.

The concept of loyalty has been inappropriately applied to situations like "workers and management,consumers and brands, corporations and employees, citizens and politicians or patients and doctors."

[Galway Eagle]

It would seem to me that there is a pretty direct correlation to staying longer and having more success.

[GGGG]

It would seem to me that there is a pretty direct correlation to staying longer and having more success.

Probably because coaches who have more success aren't fired and don't wear out their welcome.

[MerrittsMustache]

And in todays American culture the world loyalty has lost it's meaning.

There is very little loyalty between workers and management,consumers and brands, corporations and employees, citizens and politicians or patients and doctors.

So why would we expect loyalty between players and their coaches, institutions and their coaches or fans and their coaches?  It is just the exception that proves the rule.

[bilsu]

Did Buzz leave the program in bad shape or was the program in bad shape, because Buzz left. Like Crean he had a very good recruiting class signed for MU. Like Crean he poached some of the recruits, which I still think there should be an NCAA rule that signed recruits cannot follow a coach to a new school. Buzz's last year was disappointing, but I do believe had he stayed, MU would of done significantly better than 13-19. I of course fill jilted when coaches leave. I understand that recruits might want to change their mine. However, it makes me angry when the coaches who were paid to recruit these kids for the school they signed with have no morals in trying to take them away. I am sure someone will disagree with me on this, but I do not care. That is how I feel.

[CTWarrior]

... I still think there should be an NCAA rule that signed recruits cannot follow a coach to a new school. ... However, it makes me angry when the coaches who were paid to recruit these kids for the school they signed with have no morals in trying to take them away. I am sure someone will disagree with me on this, but I do not care. That is how I feel.

I agree with this 100%.  Should the coach that recruited them leave, incoming kids should automatically be let out of their LOI, but they should not be allowed to follow the coach that recruited them to a new school without having to sit out a year like a transfer.  A coach that used the resources of one institution should not be allowed to take the fruit of those resources somewhere else.

[MerrittsMustache]

I agree with this 100%.  Should the coach that recruited them leave, incoming kids should automatically be let out of their LOI, but they should not be allowed to follow the coach that recruited them to a new school without having to sit out a year like a transfer.  A coach that used the resources of one institution should not be allowed to take the fruit of those resources somewhere else.

What if a coach is fired and finds another job elsewhere? Could a player follow him then? What if a Duke recruit wanted to follow Wojo when he left his assistant position to become a head coach? What if an assistant leaves to be an assistant elsewhere and a recruit wants to follow him? 

Sounds good in theory but in practice...

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I agree with this 100%.  Should the coach that recruited them leave, incoming kids should automatically be let out of their LOI, but they should not be allowed to follow the coach that recruited them to a new school without having to sit out a year like a transfer.  A coach that used the resources of one institution should not be allowed to take the fruit of those resources somewhere else.

I understand the argument, but I don't think that's fair to the kids. A majority of recruits commit to coaches, not to schools.

[CTWarrior]

What if a coach is fired and finds another job elsewhere? Could a player follow him then? What if a Duke recruit wanted to follow Wojo when he left his assistant position to become a head coach? What if an assistant leaves to be an assistant elsewhere and a recruit wants to follow him? 

Sounds good in theory but in practice...

It's pretty simple.  No in all three of those cases.

[GGGG]

It's pretty simple.  No in all three of those cases.

I think that is pretty ridiculous.  Schools can be harmed by a departing coach that used their resources, but can also benefit from the coach they hire that used another schools resources. 

Pretty much everyone who switches jobs uses resources paid by a previous employer to benefit them in one way or another.  That's just the nature of the workplace.

[CTWarrior]

I understand the argument, but I don't think that's fair to the kids. A majority of recruits commit to coaches, not to schools.

I understand that and it is certainly not ideal for the kid (my proposed rule somewhat balances that out by giving the kid an automatic release from his LOI (ONLY if he wants it) with no restrictions other than to any coach that was with the original signed school the previous season), and its not like they don't have 300+ other potential options, not to mention that they could follow the coach they want to play for if they sit out a year.

[MerrittsMustache]

It's pretty simple.  No in all three of those cases.

That's ridiculous.

Let's say that an engineering student plans to attend University A because he really wants to study under Dr. Engineer. Two months prior to the student's high school graduation, Dr. Engineer accepts a similar position at University B. Should Univ A's engineering department block the student from following Dr. Engineer to attend Univ B? I mean, the student had committed to the university, not the professor, right?

[CTWarrior]

That's ridiculous.

Let's say that an engineering student plans to attend University A because he really wants to study under Dr. Engineer. Two months prior to the student's high school graduation, Dr. Engineer accepts a similar position at University B. Should Univ A's engineering department block the student from following Dr. Engineer to attend Univ B? I mean, the student had committed to the university, not the professor, right?

Yup, but he is also likely paying his own way and the school he has decided not to attend and the school he is switching to aren't using him to make money other than tuition, not to mention that the professor in question did not use the school's money and resources to entice the student or the fact that if he applied for early acceptance he would have to eat whatever money he paid for that, so not remotely an apples to apples comparison. 

[MerrittsMustache]

Yup, but he is also likely paying his own way and the school he has decided not to attend and the school he is switching to aren't using him to make money other than tuition, not to mention that the professor in question did not use the school's money and resources to entice the student or the fact that if he applied for early acceptance he would have to eat whatever money he paid for that, so not remotely an apples to apples comparison.

So basically students have no value to a university if they aren't an athlete. Good point 

The professor would have most definitely used the school's money and resources to entice the student. It likely wouldn't have been directly in a recruiting process but the professor's work which drew the student's attention was done at the school with its resources.

I assume that you're still working at the same company where you started out of college and plan to retire from there, correct?

[CTWarrior]

So basically students have no value to a university if they aren't an athlete. Good point 

The professor would have most definitely used the school's money and resources to entice the student. It likely wouldn't have been directly in a recruiting process but the professor's work which drew the student's attention was done at the school with its resources.

I assume that you're still working at the same company where you started out of college and plan to retire from there, correct?

You assume correctly.  32 years and going strong and doing well, despite having worked for some 20 different bosses as I worked my way up. 

All of which is besides the point.  Where did I say there was no value to a student if they weren't an athlete?  I said it is an entirely different dynamic for an athlete.  A student who is paying his own way is a much different case than one who is not.  A good chemistry student does not have a professor flying out to see him on multiple occasions on the school's dime (and assistant professors doing the same also on the school's dime) to entice him to go to the school for free.  Comparing the two situations doesn't make sense.