MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: ChicosBailBonds on September 29, 2013, 10:58:10 AM
-
Add another one to the ever growing list of coaches that start out great but don't make it past 5 years (including those with MU ties like Mike Deane, Kevin O'Neill)
Lane Kiffin, fired this morning in his 4th season. This after going 10-2 two years ago and ranked #1 to start last year with USC fans coronating and anointing him as Pete Carroll part deux.
Waiting 5 years is silly? Uhm, no. It is prudent. Also why giving a coach a huge reciprocal buyout is silly in my opinion.
Lane Kiffin
Charlie Weiss & Ty Willingham
Mike Deane
Bruiser Flint
Kevin O'Neill (at other programs)
Dan Hawkins
Gene Chizik
And 100's of others over the years
-
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.
-
Add another one to the ever growing list of coaches that start out great but don't make it past 5 years (including those with MU ties like Mike Deane, Kevin O'Neill)
Lane Kiffin, fired this morning in his 4th season. This after going 10-2 two years ago and ranked #1 to start last year with USC fans coronating and anointing him as Pete Carroll part deux.
Waiting 5 years is silly? Uhm, no. It is prudent. Also why giving a coach a huge reciprocal buyout is silly in my opinion.
Lane Kiffin
Charlie Weiss & Ty Willingham
Mike Deane
Bruiser Flint
Kevin O'Neill (at other programs)
Dan Hawkins
Gene Chizik
And 100's of others over the years
Just to be clear - barely anyone gives EQUAL reciprocal buyouts (can't tell if you meant reciprocal with respect to their being a buyout going both way, but perhaps different amounts.. which happens all the time.. or if you meant equal amounts, which is exceedingly rare). UCLA somehow got Alford to ink such a deal. In most cases, the school allows a relatively large buyout if they terminate the coach early whereas the coach has to pay far less (sometimes quickly amortizing down to a nominal amount or zero) if they leave early.
Crean obviously left Marquette for pennies (relatively speaking). In his current deal with Indiana, it started off (last Nov) with the school owing him twice ($16MM!) for initiating early termination as compared to what he would have to pay should he chose to leave ($8MM, or 50%!).
I understand your point and there are a million angles to it. I am merely pointing out the fact that "equal reciprocal buyouts" are incredibly rare. UCLA was able to broker such a deal with Alford though.
--------------
Anyway, back to Kiffin. If you know he's not the guy for the job, then you make the decision. The idea that you shouldn't decide on his future with your school until 5 years have past is ridiculous. There are many reasons why a coach may be fired.
If you know you don't want the guy around, firing him may be prudent (after considering other factors, of course).
With that said, I wouldn't mind Minnesota firing Kill and adding Kiffin later today.
-
Establishing a 5 year RULE to judge whether a coach, athletic director, school president, etc. is a success is stupid. Stubbornly waiting 5 years to fire a disaster or reward great success is stupid. Sometimes it takes 5 years to know, sometimes it doesn't. Smart, decisive people make the call when it's appropriate. Sheep establish and hide behind a "rule", in essence washing their hands and letting decisions make themselves. Anybody who couldn't figure out that Buzz Wiilliams was the real deal until April of this year is a moron. And, of course, anybody (was there anybody?) who declared Kiffin the second coming of John McKay, John Robinson or Pete Carrol because of one 10-2 season at a school with 10 or 11 national championships is likewise.
-
Add another one to the ever growing list of coaches that start out great but don't make it past 5 years (including those with MU ties like Mike Deane, Kevin O'Neill)
Lane Kiffin, fired this morning in his 4th season. This after going 10-2 two years ago and ranked #1 to start last year with USC fans coronating and anointing him as Pete Carroll part deux.
Waiting 5 years is silly? Uhm, no. It is prudent. Also why giving a coach a huge reciprocal buyout is silly in my opinion.
Lane Kiffin
Charlie Weiss & Ty Willingham
Mike Deane
Bruiser Flint
Kevin O'Neill (at other programs)
Dan Hawkins
Gene Chizik
And 100's of others over the years
I honestly don't understand.. did USC do the incorrect thing by not waiting 5 years?
Or are you saying you can condemn a coach before 5 years, but you can't coronate them? Because that seems pretty ridiculous to hold the standard one way but not the other.
-
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.
Chicos just got served.
-
With that said, I wouldn't mind Minnesota firing Kill and adding Kiffin later today.
Does Minnesota have a football team? I know they don't have a Little Brown Jug!
-
Establishing a 5 year RULE to judge whether a coach, athletic director, school president, etc. is a success is stupid. Stubbornly waiting 5 years to fire a disaster or reward great success is stupid. Sometimes it takes 5 years to know, sometimes it doesn't. Smart, decisive people make the call when it's appropriate. Sheep establish and hide behind a "rule", in essence washing their hands and letting decisions make themselves. Anybody who couldn't figure out that Buzz Wiilliams was the real deal until April of this year is a moron. And, of course, anybody (was there anybody?) who declared Kiffin the second coming of John McKay, John Robinson or Pete Carrol because of one 10-2 season at a school with 10 or 11 national championships is likewise.
Thank you Lenny - In fact, if you couldn't figure out that Buzz had "it" after just 1 year - I'd say one certainly wasn't very adept at recognizing talent.
Funny, I just said to my girlfriend last week after watching a Kiffin post game press conference - "Wow, how un-inspiring is that guy?" Just totally flat. Perhaps he was just worn out from things at USC, but it is clear they guy doesn't have "it."
-
Add another one to the ever growing list of coaches that start out great but don't make it past 5 years (including those with MU ties like Mike Deane, Kevin O'Neill)
Lane Kiffin, fired this morning in his 4th season. This after going 10-2 two years ago and ranked #1 to start last year with USC fans coronating and anointing him as Pete Carroll part deux.
Waiting 5 years is silly? Uhm, no. It is prudent. Also why giving a coach a huge reciprocal buyout is silly in my opinion.
Lane Kiffin
Charlie Weiss & Ty Willingham
Mike Deane
Bruiser Flint
Kevin O'Neill (at other programs)
Dan Hawkins
Gene Chizik
And 100's of others over the years
He is 28-15. Pretty poor record and not what is expected at SC. More importantly, you have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. Kiffin was a dead man walking barring a stellar season. Losing at home to Wash St then getting 61 points rung up on you last night sealed the deal.
Perhaps his bailing out on Tenn a few years back was a huge career mistake for him. He is clearly not ready to run a Top 10 program.
-
Isn't this the second or third time Kiffen been fired before completing contract, but leaving with all his cash? I wonder if another heag coaching job is in his future or does he moves to a coordinator.
-
Does Minnesota have a football team? I know they don't have a Little Brown Jug!
They will next Saturday!
I'll watch the Gophers get demolished at Michigan on TV, then trot down the block to the Northwestern vs. Ohio State game. Should be a good atmosphere there... better than yesterday's game at TCF Bank Stadium.
-
They will next Saturday!
I'll watch the Gophers get demolished at Michigan on TV, then trot down the block to the Northwestern vs. Ohio State game. Should be a good atmosphere there... better than yesterday's game at TCF Bank Stadium.
I read that next Saturday is the 100th meeting between the two schools. We may take the piss out of the B1G but they have some awesome traditions. The Little Brown Jug is certainly one of the best.
"Yost left his Yug!"
-
Isn't this the second or third time Kiffen been fired before completing contract, but leaving with all his cash? I wonder if another heag coaching job is in his future or does he moves to a coordinator.
He has shown no ability to coach whatsoever.
-
He has shown no ability to coach whatsoever.
he can recruit tho. He will get a job on a staff somewhere.
UConn will be next to fire their coach. Maybe the Kitty can hide out in the AAC for a few years.
-
Add another one to the ever growing list of coaches that start out great but don't make it past 5 years (including those with MU ties like Mike Deane, Kevin O'Neill)
Lane Kiffin, fired this morning in his 4th season. This after going 10-2 two years ago and ranked #1 to start last year with USC fans coronating and anointing him as Pete Carroll part deux.
Waiting 5 years is silly? Uhm, no. It is prudent. Also why giving a coach a huge reciprocal buyout is silly in my opinion.
Lane Kiffin
Charlie Weiss & Ty Willingham
Mike Deane
Bruiser Flint
Kevin O'Neill (at other programs)
Dan Hawkins
Gene Chizik
And 100's of others over the years
Most of your examples on the prudence of waiting 5 years before "coronating" (sic) a coach are what's silly here.
Bruiser Flint - took over a program that had gone 35-2 (final four) 29-5 (elite eight) and 28-7, 24-7, 30-5 (all three sweet 16s) in the previous 5 years and went 19-14, 21-11, 14-16, 17-16, 15-15 with zero NCAA wins. In short, a failure from the start. Nobody ever anointed this guy anything - he should have been gone after year 3.
Dan Hawkins was at Colorado for 5 seasons, too. All losing ones - again, never anointed anything, probably should have been canned sooner.
Kevin O'Neill (after Marquette) had three losing seasons at Tennessee, then two of three losing seasons at Northwestern (15-14 in his "winning season). Again never anointed anything post Marquette.
It took Notre Dame only three years to bounce Willingham, not your requisite 5.
Chizik had two terrible seasons as a head coach at Iowa State (3-9, 2-10) before getting the Auburn job. They bought Cam Newton, won a national championship, then faded into oblivion, gone after four years.
Deane and Weiss (along with Flint and Hawkins) are the only guys in your group who got what you consider a fair shot (5 years). Mike was a good guy and a good coach who was never viewed as any more than that. In the end he was a victim of his own expectations.
Charlie W. is the only guy of all those you brought up who fills the bill as possible savior who turned into a bust, but many of those in the know at ND saw him for what he was (egotistical dick who was a "genius" only with Tom Brady throwing it and Bill Bellichek running things) right from the jump.
So anyone paying attention knew who these guys were before year 5. Same with today's young stars in the profession. Nobody except the most stubborn needed 5 years to figure Urban Meyer, Shaka Smart, Brad Stevens, Buzz Williams, etc. had "it".
-
he can recruit tho. He will get a job on a staff somewhere.
UConn will be next to fire their coach. Maybe the Kitty can hide out in the AAC for a few years.
No doubt...but he wasn't much of an offensive coordinator though.
-
If Chip Kelly flames out as an NFL coach, no prudent college football program will touch him because he was only head coach for four years. Yeah, I mean he won four conference championships and was national runner up one year. But still...
-
BTW, this is the quintessential Chicos argument. A long, long time ago, he made this 5 year statement to underpin one of his arguments. And because he can never admit to be wrong, he will constantly bring this argument up, otherwise he will simply be shown to be wrong.
The fact is that there have been plenty of coaches that haven't needed five years to show they are high quality....and low quality. Have there been some that started slow only to show their quality later on? (Coach K) Of course. Have there been some that have started fast only shown to be poor? (Weis) Sure.
But the idea that some sort of "five year rule" is "prudent" is absurd. And just remember, Chicos will never admit that no matter the evidence. Because in so doing, he will have to admit he was wrong.
-
I had to read a lot of this thread before I realized Lane Kiffen was the football coach at USC.
Now my only question is, who the unnatural carnal knowledge cares about the football coach at USC?
-
Isn't this the second or third time Kiffen been fired before completing contract, but leaving with all his cash? I wonder if another heag coaching job is in his future or does he moves to a coordinator.
He quit on Tennessee after one season to take the SC job.
-
BTW, this is the quintessential Chicos argument. A long, long time ago, he made this 5 year statement to underpin one of his arguments. And because he can never admit to be wrong, he will constantly bring this argument up, otherwise he will simply be shown to be wrong.
The fact is that there have been plenty of coaches that haven't needed five years to show they are high quality....and low quality. Have there been some that started slow only to show their quality later on? (Coach K) Of course. Have there been some that have started fast only shown to be poor? (Weis) Sure.
But the idea that some sort of "five year rule" is "prudent" is absurd. And just remember, Chicos will never admit that no matter the evidence. Because in so doing, he will have to admit he was wrong.
Nailed it.
-
Establishing a 5 year RULE to judge whether a coach, athletic director, school president, etc. is a success is stupid. Stubbornly waiting 5 years to fire a disaster or reward great success is stupid. Sometimes it takes 5 years to know, sometimes it doesn't. Smart, decisive people make the call when it's appropriate. Sheep establish and hide behind a "rule", in essence washing their hands and letting decisions make themselves. Anybody who couldn't figure out that Buzz Wiilliams was the real deal until April of this year is a moron. And, of course, anybody (was there anybody?) who declared Kiffin the second coming of John McKay, John Robinson or Pete Carrol because of one 10-2 season at a school with 10 or 11 national championships is likewise.
I think you nailed it on the head here.
I'm a "5 year guy" because I think it takes some time to eliminate the variables and accurately evaluate the coach.
With this said, an AD and school President are much closer to the day to day operations, and often can see things before fans can.
I don't think AD's should have a "5 year rule", but I do think fans are far too reactionary, especially at the college level. Sometimes AD's have to act for PR purposes rather than good business decisions.
-
I honestly don't understand.. did USC do the incorrect thing by not waiting 5 years?
Or are you saying you can condemn a coach before 5 years, but you can't coronate them? Because that seems pretty ridiculous to hold the standard one way but not the other.
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.
-
I think you nailed it on the head here.
I'm a "5 year guy" because I think it takes some time to eliminate the variables and accurately evaluate the coach.
With this said, an AD and school President are much closer to the day to day operations, and often can see things before fans can.
I don't think AD's should have a "5 year rule", but I do think fans are far too reactionary, especially at the college level. Sometimes AD's have to act for PR purposes rather than good business decisions.
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'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.
I took his argument to be: A school should put a blindfold on for 5 years and make no judgment until that time has elapsed. They can't possibly have a clue until precisely 5 years have gone by.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 :-).
-
Serious question... is Chicos just trolling us with this thread?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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)
-
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?
-
Obama's been at the helm for close to 5 years. Shoulda cut that sucker loose earlier, hey?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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 . . .
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
no. no no no. It has everything to do with judging a coach before the 5 year mark. Aside from some big scandal or rule/law breaking, you've gotta wait 5 years, according to Chicos' theory. If you can't crown a coach, you can't condemn a coach before the 5 year mark.
-
This is the first thread I can remember that is Crean-oriented where Chicos apparently has been made silence.
-
I don't think you can judge coaches before they've passed away. Until then they might still eff up on you.
-
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.
Here's the list of coaching changes from 2011. These coaches all have 3 years of peformance.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4980452
Think you can get anywhere near 100% if you guessed today who is still on the job at the start of the 2015-16 season?
Lets just start with the 4 big east coaches on the lst--can you, right now, claim with any sense of certainy, whether these four hires are here for the long term--say past the 2016 season?
Kevin Willard: No NCAA tournament, best finish was 10th place. He hasn't had success yet, but he's shown promise. Is that enough time? Should Willard be shown the door? I don't think so--I think everyone would acknowledge that he needs more time. But two more lower-division finishes? Probably time to make a change.
Oliver Purnell: Purnell hasn't improved EePaul--they were dreadful when he came in, and still a last place team. No progress yet. But I don't think you can judge Purnell right now--he inherited a very bad situation. but deserves a chance to recruit now that their stadium situation has been resolved. If he still can't pull in top Chicago recruits, you'll know.
Steve Lavin: Yes, he's vastly improved recruiting, but the w/l record vastly underperfoming the talent, and harkens back to his teams' chronic underperformance at UCLA. Jury is definitely still out.
Greg McDermott: Pro--strong performance last several years: Con--is success all because of Doug? Worst incoming recruiting class in NBE. McDermott is probably safe . . . but can you really say you know that the success was because of him? Until Creighton wins without Doug, the jury will be out on Greg.
So there you have four out of four Big East coaches with 3 years experience where you really do need at least two more years (five total) before passing judgement.
-
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.
More hyperbole from the Cisco Kid's loyal Poncho. I didn't make Buzz out to be a "god" after year one. I said (quite accurately) that he coached Crean's players better than Crean ever did. Anybody not you, Chicos or Joani who watched any games would have figured that out. Our final record was 25-10, but we were what, 21-2 and ranked #8 when DJ got hurt? As to your claim that I ever said Crean would be out within 3 (or any amount of) years? Total lie on your part.
-
Here's the list of coaching changes from 2011. These coaches all have 3 years of peformance.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4980452
Think you can get anywhere near 100% if you guessed today who is still on the job at the start of the 2015-16 season?
I don't know anywhere near enough about their programs to make such a judgement. On the outside, with a limited knowledge, it looks like a few guys are clearly in good positions (Altman, Hoiberg), a couple that clearly aren't (Bzdelik), and a bunch I know nothing about.
I bet you that if you picked one random program on that list, and followed it closely enough, I would have a pretty damn good reading on where it was heading.
And that really is the point. You didn't need five years to judge Buzz. I could tell he was a good coach in year one...could tell that he could change his coaching depending on the style of the team in year two...and that he could coach his own guys in year three.
-
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.
Nothing wrong with Chicos approach or yours. In fact, I appreciate it, as it's always good to know there are personality types out there who will only buy at the 52-week high. Would be fun to evaluate your guys portfolio holdings. ;D
-
I don't think you can judge coaches before they've passed away. Until then they might still eff up on you.
Wait until 5 years after the funeral to avoid the possibility of posthumous eff up.
-
So there you have four out of four Big East coaches with 3 years experience where you really do need at least two more years (five total) before passing judgement.
ok. that's fine. but the example in the original post is of a coach fired prior to 5 years. if you're going to state you have to wait 5 years to judge a coach, then you have to wait 5 years to judge them as either bad or good.
-
Nothing wrong with Chicos approach or yours. In fact, I appreciate it, as it's always good to know there are personality types out there who will only buy at the 52-week high. Would be fun to evaluate your guys portfolio holdings. ;D
Well, I appreciate the types like you that buy Enron or Worldcom because one good quarter is more than enough to make a long-term judgement. I'm sure your portfolio would be equally fun to evaluate. ;D
-
Well, I appreciate the types like you that buy Enron or Worldcom because one good quarter is more than enough to make a long-term judgement. I'm sure your portfolio would be equally fun to evaluate. ;D
Good point - there are a lot of people who made a lot of money on Enron and Worldcom - who were early to the party. Those who took the wait and see approach and bought on the high got burned. Basically, just like Chicos has gotten burned on this whole wait 5 year concept.
Yet since you support his position of waiting 5 years, can you please go ahead and give us your assessment of Buzz's first 5 years, and based on the complexion of the roster, go ahead and give us your take on the next 5?
-
Well, I appreciate the types like you that buy Enron or Worldcom because one good quarter is more than enough to make a long-term judgement. I'm sure your portfolio would be equally fun to evaluate. ;D
Fine. Then you/he has to amend the theory: you wait 5 years to judge if a coach is a success, but you can judge him to be a failure before that.
-
I don't know anywhere near enough about their programs to make such a judgement.
I'll accept that.
But by definition, if you don't know anywhere near enough about any individual situation, how do you know enough to support the collective claim that oftentimes (or most of the time) you don't need five years. To me, that suggests you know enough about 70 to 90% of the situations AND could make a fair assessment in only a few years.
I bet you that if you picked one random program on that list, and followed it closely enough, I would have a pretty damn good reading on where it was heading.
I'd bet otherwise. Most of them are still early enough in their tenure that they've either won with inherited players, or they have just started rebuilding programs and haven't had enough time to make a fair assessment.
For example, you claim Bzedelik isn't in a good place--yet a cursory glance at his roster shows that it is mostly frosh and sophs. First year with inherited players he went 1-15 in conference. By his third year, with his players (but still only frosh and sophs), they were 6-12. They're young, improving, but still not a tournment team. I say jury is still out.
But thats one of your examples of a team you supposedly know well enough to make a judgement.
Wouldn't you admit he is a textbook example of a case where 3 years isn't enough?
Meanwhile, I singled out the 4 Big East Programs---so you can't get away with claming ingornace about their programs. And your "damn good reading" on where they're heading is what, exactly? Or did I nail the uncertainty spot on?
And that really is the point. You didn't need five years to judge Buzz. I could tell he was a good coach in year one...could tell that he could change his coaching depending on the style of the team in year two...and that he could coach his own guys in year three.
First, keep in mind that the comment was originally made when Buzz only had one year of experience--and it was mostly with inherited players.
Second, I think the 3rd year wasn't as decisive as you suggest. We finished 9th place in the Big East--after never finishing worst than a tie for 5th. And as you said, it was mostly with Buzz's players, and because he brought in Jucos, they were mostly upperclassmen. We could have just as easily finished 10th or 11th.
Third, even if Buzz won more games in his third season and widely considered beyond reproach after only three years, he would still be a rare exception--not the rule. Common sense dictates that you don't evaluate based on inhertied players, and you need to give a coach time to get his own recruits in the pipeline and playing.
-
Third, even if Buzz won more games in his third season and widely considered beyond reproach after only three years, he would still be a rare exception--not the rule. Common sense dictates that you don't evaluate based on inhertied players, and you need to give a coach time to get his own recruits in the pipeline and playing.
Ergo, Kiffin should still be at USC, correct?
-
Second, I think the 3rd year wasn't as decisive as you suggest. We finished 9th place in the Big East--after never finishing worst than a tie for 5th. And as you said, it was mostly with Buzz's players, and because he brought in Jucos, they were mostly upperclassmen. We could have just as easily finished 10th or 11th.
Third, even if Buzz won more games in his third season and widely considered beyond reproach after only three years, he would still be a rare exception--not the rule. Common sense dictates that you don't evaluate based on inhertied players, and you need to give a coach time to get his own recruits in the pipeline and playing.
I'd also suggest Year 3 was quite an anomaly in that I believe UCONN, like us, was also 9-9 in the Big East - yet ended up winning the whole NCAA tourney, and if memory serves correctly, there were also 3 Big East teams in the Final Four that year, and I know this much is correct with regard to my memory - Buzz took us to the Sweet 16 in Year 3 - someplace we had only been 2 times (1994 and 2003) since Al left in 1977.
But of course the narrative of you and Chicos generally has always been to diminish the accomplishments of Buzz, while championing those of his predecessor who chose to leave MU. What never gets through to you two is that most here are grateful for what Tom Crean did at MU results-wise....yet the constant belittling of the current coach is what is ridiculous to try to prop up a guy who chose to leave MU. Should Buzz leave MU and his replacement come in and do a great/comparable job - I'm not going to bash the new guy, just because I have a man crush on Buzz - as you and Chicos do Crean!
-
Perhaps they have a point. Coach Crean peaked in year 4. NIT, NIT, First round NCAA, First Round NCAA, Second Round NCAA during his last 5 years at MU. 107-55 Record. 1 NCAA tourney win. Embarrassing losses to WMU in the NIT and MSU in the NCAA. Most thought he was awesome after year 4, but I think an argument could be made that he underachieved 4 of his next 5 years. 05-06 was a very good coaching job.
-
Here's the list of coaching changes from 2011. These coaches all have 3 years of peformance.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4980452
Think you can get anywhere near 100% if you guessed today who is still on the job at the start of the 2015-16 season?
Willard and Purnell will not turn those programs around. As long as Lavin stays healthy and isn't involved in a scandal (which is true for everybody, I guess), he'll be there as long as he wants. Don't follow Creighton enough to have an opinion about McDermott, and there are extenuating circumstances since his son is a major factor in his success thus far, it is probably fair to say the jury is out on him. I'll add one more and say that Cooley is the real deal (after two seasons) at Providence.
-
I'd also suggest Year 3 was quite an anomaly in that I believe UCONN, like us, was also 9-9 in the Big East - yet ended up winning the whole NCAA tourney, and if memory serves correctly, there were also 3 Big East teams in the Final Four that year, and I know this much is correct with regard to my memory - Buzz took us to the Sweet 16 in Year 3 - someplace we had only been 2 times (1994 and 2003) since Al left in 1977.
I don't say this often, but you're dead on here, Ners.
The fact that this guy trots out the 9-9 conference record - ignoring that it may have been the most competitive conference of all time that year - as a negative while "forgetting" to mention the team's postseason accomplishments tells us all we know about the disingenuity on display here.
-
I'd also suggest Year 3 was quite an anomaly in that I believe UCONN, like us, was also 9-9 in the Big East - yet ended up winning the whole NCAA tourney, and if memory serves correctly, there were also 3 Big East teams in the Final Four that year, and I know this much is correct with regard to my memory - Buzz took us to the Sweet 16 in Year 3 - someplace we had only been 2 times (1994 and 2003) since Al left in 1977.
The difference is Calhoun was in his 25th season at UConn with 2 prior championships under his belt. Buzz had 2 seasons at MU, and for those he relied heavily on holdover players for success in those years. His third season (first with mostly his own players) resulted in a 9th place peformance.
As for your memory, there was only one Big East team in the final four (UConn). Butler, VCU and Kentucky were the other three teams.
But of course the narrative of you and Chicos generally has always been to diminish the accomplishments of Buzz, while championing those of his predecessor who chose to leave MU. What never gets through to you two is that most here are grateful for what Tom Crean did at MU results-wise....yet the constant belittling of the current coach is what is ridiculous to try to prop up a guy who chose to leave MU. Should Buzz leave MU and his replacement come in and do a great/comparable job - I'm not going to bash the new guy, just because I have a man crush on Buzz - as you and Chicos do Crean!
Because I don't share your man crush, you continue to interpret anything less as "belitting" or "diminishing accomplishment."
I've long said that I think Buzz has done a great job to maintain us at the level of success that Crean brought us to. I don't like Crean any better than Buzz over vice versa. I just see two very equivalent coaches--each with his own style, each with simillar levels of success.
I'm sorry, but Buzz has been about the same--results wise--as Crean.
Crean as his best (2003) is a little bit better than Buzz at his (2013).
Crean at this worst (2004) is a little worse than Buzz at his (2010).
That's it. I thought Crean did a great job. I think Buzz is doing a great job as well.
That having been said, I still think in general, its only common sense to give a new coach a few years (and five seems better than three) to make a rational evaluation.
-
Crean at this worst (2004) is a little worse than Buzz at his (2010).
Today I learned:
19 wins, 7-9 in CUSA and an embarrassing double-digit loss at home to Western Michigan in the NIT is only "a little worse" than 22 wins, 11-7 in the Big East and a last-second loss in the NCAA tournament to an eventual Sweet Sixteen team.
-
I don't say this often, but you're dead on here, Ners.
The fact that this guy trots out the 9-9 conference record - ignoring that it may have been the most competitive conference of all time that year - as a negative while "forgetting" to mention the team's postseason accomplishments tells us all we know about the disingenuity on display here.
And yet you ignore that in that very same competitive conference that very same year, St. Johns managed to find a way to improve from 6-12 the year before all the way to 12-6. Cincinnnati managed to improve from 7-11 to 11-7. Georgetown at least maintained a 10-8 record. Notre Dame improved from 10-8 to 14-4. UConn improved from 7-11 to 9-9.
Wasn't it the very same competitive situation for those teams? Did they get to play in a difference conference?
How do you figure that in a year when Lavin, Brey, and Cronin can post big improvments that it was just too competitive for Buzz to maintain or improve on MU's 11-7 record.
-
Today I learned:
19 wins, 7-9 in CUSA and a embarrassing humiliating double-digit loss at home to Western Michigan in the NIT is only "a little worse" than 22 wins, 11-7 in the Big East and a last-second loss in the NCAA tournament to an eventual Sweet Sixteen team.
-
Today I learned:
19 wins, 7-9 in CUSA and an embarrassing double-digit loss at home to Western Michigan in the NIT is only "a little worse" than 22 wins, 11-7 in the Big East and a last-second loss in the NCAA tournament to an eventual Sweet Sixteen team.
And I wouldn't call that Buzz's worst effort either. That team had a 6'6" center, midgets in the backcourt, lost its top recruit before Christmas to transfer and lost Otule and Fulce to injury.
If anything, that year showed that Buzz could coach his ass off.
-
And I wouldn't call that Buzz's worst effort either. That team had a 6'6" center, midgets in the backcourt, lost its top recruit before Christmas to transfer and lost Otule and Fulce to injury.
If anything, that year showed that Buzz could coach his ass off.
Yep, it was a difficult year due to size disadvantage. But, Buzz did an admirable job getting the best out of his team. I'll take that anytime over that Western Michigan NIT season.......
-
And yet you ignore that in that very same competitive conference that very same year, St. Johns managed to find a way to improve from 6-12 the year before all the way to 12-6. Cincinnnati managed to improve from 7-11 to 11-7. Georgetown at least maintained a 10-8 record. Notre Dame improved from 10-8 to 14-4. UConn improved from 7-11 to 9-9.
Ummm, yeah. Teams got better, added talent, improved coaching. Hence, the conference became more competitive.
No conference has ever had more NCAA bids than the 2011 Big East. If that's not a reflection on the quality of the conference, I'm not sure what is.
-
Today I learned:
19 wins, 7-9 in CUSA and an embarrassing double-digit loss at home to Western Michigan in the NIT is only "a little worse" than 22 wins, 11-7 in the Big East and a last-second loss in the NCAA tournament to an eventual Sweet Sixteen team.
This thread has a winner. Everyone can move on now.
-
And I wouldn't call that Buzz's worst effort either. That team had a 6'6" center, midgets in the backcourt, lost its top recruit before Christmas to transfer and lost Otule and Fulce to injury.
If anything, that year showed that Buzz could coach his ass off.
Hey, we agree on something! Bloody hell!
-
Crean at this worst (2004) is a little worse than Buzz at his (2010).
So Crean's 2004, where we we were humiliated at home in the NIT by a MAC team was "a little worse" than 2010, the year even Chico said Buzz deserved national COY if he got a 12 seed in the NCAAs (he got a 6)? Well, that certainly establishes you as a fair minded, no agenda guy. LOL
-
Ummm, yeah. Teams got better, added talent, improved coaching. Hence, the conference became more competitive. No conference has ever had more NCAA bids than the 2011 Big East. If that's not a reflection on the quality of the conference, I'm not sure what is.
I'm not disputing that the league was more competitive.
I'm questioning why you believe a more competitive league is a valid excuse for lowered performance when so many other teams/coaches were not only able to adapt, but thive in the very same competitive environment.
-
I'm not disputing that the league was more competitive.
I'm questioning why you believe a more competitive league is a valid excuse for lowered performance when so many other teams/coaches were not only able to adapt, but thive in the very same competitive environment.
I'm questioning why you keep ignoring the fact that this all was started with USC firing its coach before the 5 year judgement mark that Chicos started and you agree with?
-
Establishing a 5 year RULE to judge whether a coach, athletic director, school president, etc. is a success is stupid. Stubbornly waiting 5 years to fire a disaster or reward great success is stupid. Sometimes it takes 5 years to know, sometimes it doesn't. Smart, decisive people make the call when it's appropriate. Sheep establish and hide behind a "rule", in essence washing their hands and letting decisions make themselves. Anybody who couldn't figure out that Buzz Wiilliams was the real deal until April of this year is a moron. And, of course, anybody (was there anybody?) who declared Kiffin the second coming of John McKay, John Robinson or Pete Carrol because of one 10-2 season at a school with 10 or 11 national championships is likewise.
The idea that you would equate presidents with coaches is just wrong. Coaches need to recruit classes, and classes take time to matriculate. This is why you have to let time do its thing, let kids move from Freshmen to Sophomores to Juniors, etc.
Who declared Kiffin the second coming of Robinson, Carroll, McKay...oh, that's right, you don't live in Los Angeles so you aren't here. Go back and read stories, blogs, "experts", fan sites, etc, during USC's second year and a 10-2 finish. They didn't like him (cuz he is a douche), but he was doing the incredible, despite being on probation, yada yada. So much so, that the next year his team was preseason #1. When the losing started, then everyone got religion that he couldn't coach, not before it.
Ironic you bring up Carroll...why don't you go read the articles about Petey and the fans reactions to his initial year, how he was a retread, couldn't recruit, couldn't coach.....oops. Widely panned.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/16/sports/sp-904
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/16/sports/sp-901
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/16/sports/sp-938
There are literally THOUSANDS of examples of coaches that have been fired over the years who were thought to be great hires (why would they hire them if they weren't considered to be strong hires), or guys that started out very well only to bottom out soon thereafter. 1000's of examples. This is not about evaluating a president, a CEO, a strength coach. It's a totally different situation with college coaches who have to recruit talent, let them mature and ultimatel let them perform, and that happens over time.
-
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.
Yup, goes both ways, that's why smart people kept saying SO FAR SO GOOD, but would render full judgment with time. Meet Bill McCartney, head coach at Colorado
2-8-1
4-7
1-10
GETTING WORSE....regressing badly...they decided to let him stick around a little longer
5 years later 11-1. A year later, national champions
The point is and shall remain, no one knows what they have early on. It takes time. Look at Buzz Williams at New Orleans...should that be the sole judgment? No. You need time to assess. Classes to matriculate, etc.
-
Yup, goes both ways, that's why smart people kept saying SO FAR SO GOOD, but would render full judgment with time. Meet Bill McCartney, head coach at Colorado
2-8-1
4-7
1-10
GETTING WORSE....regressing badly...they decided to let him stick around a little longer
5 years later 11-1. A year later, national champions
The point is and shall remain, no one knows what they have early on. It takes time. Look at Buzz Williams at New Orleans...should that be the sole judgment? No. You need time to assess. Classes to matriculate, etc.
Oh I am so glad you brought up McCartney...oh so glad.
The differences between McCartney and Pasqualoni are EXACTLY why a five year rule DOESN'T make sense. McCartney struggled, but was killing it on the recruiting trail. Absolutely killing it. He brought in some big classes that paved the way for his success afterwards. In fact, his AD gave him an extension after the 1-10 year because of the work he had been doing to upgrade the talent in the program.
Pasqualoni has been a dumpster fire at UConn. Can't really coach. The recruiting has been horrendous.
But see, that is why you have to *know* what is going on with the programs. This is why a hard-and-fast rule makes no sense. The job a coach is doing can't simply be based on objective matters, like a won and loss record, but subjectively. Colorado and UConn both did that...and made the correct decisions.
Guns was spot on this...and it why your point is foolish. Oftentimes you can make such a judgement sooner than year five.
-
Yup, goes both ways, that's why smart people kept saying SO FAR SO GOOD, but would render full judgment with time. Meet Bill McCartney, head coach at Colorado
2-8-1
4-7
1-10
GETTING WORSE....regressing badly...they decided to let him stick around a little longer
5 years later 11-1. A year later, national champions
The point is and shall remain, no one knows what they have early on. It takes time. Look at Buzz Williams at New Orleans...should that be the sole judgment? No. You need time to assess. Classes to matriculate, etc.
So then you would agree that usc fired kiffin too early? If you should give coaches 5 years, regardless if they succeed or suck at the beginning, then usc did the wrong thing, right?
-
Oh I am so glad you brought up McCartney...oh so glad.
The differences between McCartney and Pasqualoni are EXACTLY why a five year rule DOESN'T make sense. McCartney struggled, but was killing it on the recruiting trail. Absolutely killing it. He brought in some big classes that paved the way for his success afterwards. In fact, his AD gave him an extension after the 1-10 year because of the work he had been doing to upgrade the talent in the program.
Pasqualoni has been a dumpster fire at UConn. Can't really coach. The recruiting has been horrendous.
But see, that is why you have to *know* what is going on with the programs. This is why a hard-and-fast rule makes no sense. The job a coach is doing can't simply be based on objective matters, like a won and loss record, but subjectively. Colorado and UConn both did that...and made the correct decisions.
Guns was spot on this...and it why your point is foolish. Oftentimes you can make such a judgement sooner than year five.
Game, set, match.
-
Game, set, match.
Chicos has really never gotten served so hard by so many people in one thread. Hilarious that it's one that he started totally unprovoked in order to prove himself right.
-
Chicos has really never gotten served so hard by so many people in one thread.
Disagree.
-
Oh I am so glad you brought up McCartney...oh so glad.
The differences between McCartney and Pasqualoni are EXACTLY why a five year rule DOESN'T make sense. McCartney struggled, but was killing it on the recruiting trail. Absolutely killing it. He brought in some big classes that paved the way for his success afterwards. In fact, his AD gave him an extension after the 1-10 year because of the work he had been doing to upgrade the talent in the program.
Pasqualoni has been a dumpster fire at UConn. Can't really coach. The recruiting has been horrendous.
But see, that is why you have to *know* what is going on with the programs. This is why a hard-and-fast rule makes no sense. The job a coach is doing can't simply be based on objective matters, like a won and loss record, but subjectively. Colorado and UConn both did that...and made the correct decisions.
Guns was spot on this...and it why your point is foolish. Oftentimes you can make such a judgement sooner than year five.
Pasqualoni cant coach? Thats a new one. He is actually a very well respected X's and O's coach. My guess is that he heads back to the NFL as a LBers coach again. The Cowboys loved the guy just as his players there did. In fact, Pasqualoni tried to win games by outsmarting the opposing coaches. He failed miserably because recruiting athletes is also kinda, sorta important.
-
Today I learned:
19 wins, 7-9 in CUSA and an embarrassing double-digit loss at home to Western Michigan in the NIT is only "a little worse" than 22 wins, 11-7 in the Big East and a last-second loss in the NCAA tournament to an eventual Sweet Sixteen team.
That actually should of been a very good team.
C. Marcus Jackson 6-8
PF Chris Grimm 6-10
SF Steve Novak (NBA)
SG Dameon Mason/Joe Chapman
PG Travis Diener
Bench players Bell, Townsend, Baro & Kinsella.
It was just a case of almost everything going wrong. I think Bell was kicked off the team before the season even started. In theory not a great loss, but we had no point guard after Diener got hurt. Kinsella either broke his foot or hurt his knee leading to another player being lost. The team (by memory) was 7-0 and Diener was averaging over 23 points a game when he hurt his foot and his production took a big hit. Eventually his season ended when he broke his hand. Crean got so mad at Mason, that he basically refused to play him the last 10 games, so that was another player down. That one you can blame on Crean. Without Diener drawing the defenses and being able to pass the ball to Novak, Novak's production dropped significantly. Finally, Grimm dislocated his elbow, which made him less effective even though he continued to play. The team was basically left with Jackson playing point, Chapman doing a good job at the 2g and Novak who could not get open for a shot, since the defenses could lock down on him. The Western Michigan loss was certainly dissappointing, but anybody realistically looking at everything that happen to that team should not have been surprised or embarrassed by the Western Michigan loss. While the season ended up being disappointing, it was probably Crean's best recruiting season at MU, since he signed the three amigos that same season.
-
Pasqualoni cant coach? Thats a new one. He is actually a very well respected X's and O's coach. My guess is that he heads back to the NFL as a LBers coach again. The Cowboys loved the guy just as his players there did. In fact, Pasqualoni tried to win games by outsmarting the opposing coaches. He failed miserably because recruiting athletes is also kinda, sorta important.
Being a NFL caliber position coach doesn't automatically make one a great head coach. And sometimes when you are trying to outsmart other coaches, you would be better off keeping it simple and end up outsmarting yourself. I can't say I'm close enough to the UConn situation to know which is which, but nothing in your post would automatically indicate automatic HC success.
-
Being a NFL caliber position coach doesn't automatically make one a great head coach. And sometimes when you are trying to outsmart other coaches, you would be better off keeping it simple and end up outsmarting yourself. I can't say I'm close enough to the UConn situation to know which is which, but nothing in your post would automatically indicate automatic HC success.
107-59-1 was his record at Syracuse. He kept that program in the top 25 and was arguably the last coach to have great success there.
-
Being a NFL caliber position coach doesn't automatically make one a great head coach. And sometimes when you are trying to outsmart other coaches, you would be better off keeping it simple and end up outsmarting yourself. I can't say I'm close enough to the UConn situation to know which is which, but nothing in your post would automatically indicate automatic HC success.
107-59-1 was his record at Syracuse. He kept that program in the top 25 and was arguably the last coach to have great success there.
-
no. no no no. It has everything to do with judging a coach before the 5 year mark. Aside from some big scandal or rule/law breaking, you've gotta wait 5 years, according to Chicos' theory. If you can't crown a coach, you can't condemn a coach before the 5 year mark.
This is absolutely, 100% false. I said time and time and time again I would FULLY judge after 5 years, and said time and time and time again SO FAR SO GOOD. I never said you can have no judgment about trends, or what is going on during that period or that you have to wait 5 years for any judgment, but that you have to cycle through the recruits for a COMPLETE evaluation.
You are absolutely portraying a falsehood that I never said....something that is done by posters here often. Not surprisingly. Just admit, you are wrong.
-
Imagine a guy that started his career:
19-7
12-11
12-12
12-13
12-14
With his recruits, got worse or plateaued. He would go on to win 3 national titles...Jim Calhoun.
Or another guy, also did well with other recruits, not so great with is:
11-14
20-8
19-9
14-11
9-17
Some guy named Coach K.
Or we can look at the reverse, coaches that started out a blaze of glory, were hailed as such and were in the unemployment lines a few years later.
Dan Hawkins at UC
Bruiser Flint Umass
Lane Kiffin at USC
Rick Pitino in the NBA...anyone want to go back and read about his hiring and how it was hailed? You can do the same for Brad Stevens...we'll see how it turns out.
-
I honestly don't understand.. did USC do the incorrect thing by not waiting 5 years?
Or are you saying you can condemn a coach before 5 years, but you can't coronate them? Because that seems pretty ridiculous to hold the standard one way but not the other.
Not at all. People here, including yourself, incorrectly for years have said I put a 5 year cutoff as if you can't make any judgment until 5 years is up. You have made the same error in this very thread, and it's absurd and not backed up by what I have said. It is brought up constantly in error. I'm just showing another example where a coach was hailed in the first few years, only to bust out. Just as the reverse happens and coaches struggle early, but end up doing fine but fans\media want the guy gone during the struggling times.
Do I think USC did the wrong thing, not particularly. I was never a fan of the guy at UT, Oakland, or as a SC assistant. My point was more on the fan side. If they hung on to him would things have worked out? We'll never know. I just find it cute that some people pretend to know what they have in a coach from day one (these are often the same 450,000 people that attended the Ice Bowl) when he ends up doing pretty well. It will be interesting how many go on record during the next hire on day one to predict the future based on their soothesaying. For me, I like to wait until full recruiting classes cycle through before making a full judgment, my claim from the beginning.
The ultimate irony here is there are some guys, many in this very thread, that get on people for saying we should wait 5 years to fully judge a coach at a school....these very same guys said a certain coach should be fired at a certain Big Ten school after his 3rd year....last night they raised their first Big Ten solo title banner in 20+ years. Believe me, the irony isn't lost.
-
This is the first thread I can remember that is Crean-oriented where Chicos apparently has been made silence.
Many of the people posting in this thread have hung themselves with their own rope on this one, not much I need to do. The same ones upset or mocking that someone said 5 years for a full judgment was wrong are the same people that said he should be fired from IU after 3 years. No need to add further to their hypocrisy (or the irony in their logic), people have seen in for years if anyone pays attention. Some of the very posters in this thread....it's wonderfully delicious in many ways.
-
Lenny, case in point...I give Klein credit for bringing it up. Go do a search in 2011 and it was the central theme.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-lane-kiffin-firing-usc-2011-20130929,0,4052646.story#axzz2grdxGFkB
In the end, Lane Kiffin and USC administrators might have wished 2011 never happened.
The Trojans were coming off an 8-5 season in 2010, their first under NCAA sanctions that included the loss of 30 scholarships. However, the scholarship penalty was stayed for a year because of an appeal by the school.
So in January 2011, USC brought in eight players, which counted against the previous year, and then signed 22 in February. Kiffin and his staff were stockpiling recruits for what was expected to be a long slog through the some of the most severe sanctions in college football history.
Instead, USC showed the college football world — and the NCAA — that sanctions could not stop the Trojans from operating at a level similar to that in the Pete Carroll era.
USC finished 10-2, including victories at Notre Dame and Oregon. And though they were ineligible to compete in the Pac-12 Conference championship game, the Trojans appeared to be back.
Kiffin was lauded for outstanding coaching.
The potential for a national title — and possible Heisman Trophy — drew quarterback Matt Barkley back for a final season.
And USC fans — and much of the media — saw no reason that the Trojans would not continue to hum along.
But Kiffin’s star faded last season as the Trojans spiraled from preseason No. 1 to a 7-6 record.
Barkley struggled to repeat his outstanding junior season, suffered a season-ending shoulder injury against UCLA and fell to the fourth round of the 2013 NFL draft.
Meantime, USC fans grew angrier and more impatient as Athletic Director Pat Haden repeatedly backed Kiffin.
Many booed Kiffin’s play-calling during the Trojans loss to Washington State on Sept. 7 at the Coliseum. By the end of the game, some were chanting, “Fire Kiffin.”
They got their wish early Sunday morning when Haden announced he had relieved Kiffin of his duties.
It's been a while since 2011.
-
Many of the people posting in this thread have hung themselves with their own rope on this one, not much I need to do.
Ironic. Pot calling the kettle black. This whole stupid topic wouldn't exist if you didn't make the ludicrous statement in the first place. Coaches are almost always judged/evaluated prior to 5 years. Guys who get it, are able to make accurate assessments in a majority of cases and consistently make good hires. Guys who don't get it, and are late adopters are the ones who perpetually have no talent at the helm of their program.
So, what's your take on a university re-doing a coaches contract after 2 or 3 years on the job? When other schools come calling to poach a coach from a school after less than 5 years - such as OU and Arkansas did Buzz after Year 3 - are those schools idiotic for trying to reel in a coach like Buzz as they only had 3 years to evaluate from Norman, OK or Fayetteville, AR?
Judgements are made on coaches ALL the time in less than a 5-year window - and for the many here who jumped on the Buzz bandwagon after just Year 1 - We all look intelligent for doing so. For those of you who wanted to deny that any judgements, conclusions could be drawn about Buzz after Year 1, or Year 4 for that matter - you guys look like idiots. Sorry...just the way it is.
-
The difference is Calhoun was in his 25th season at UConn with 2 prior championships under his belt. Buzz had 2 seasons at MU, and for those he relied heavily on holdover players for success in those years. His third season (first with mostly his own players) resulted in a 9th place peformance.
As for your memory, there was only one Big East team in the final four (UConn). Butler, VCU and Kentucky were the other three teams.
Because I don't share your man crush, you continue to interpret anything less as "belitting" or "diminishing accomplishment."
I've long said that I think Buzz has done a great job to maintain us at the level of success that Crean brought us to. I don't like Crean any better than Buzz over vice versa. I just see two very equivalent coaches--each with his own style, each with simillar levels of success.
I'm sorry, but Buzz has been about the same--results wise--as Crean.
Crean as his best (2003) is a little bit better than Buzz at his (2013).
Crean at this worst (2004) is a little worse than Buzz at his (2010).
That's it. I thought Crean did a great job. I think Buzz is doing a great job as well.
That having been said, I still think in general, its only common sense to give a new coach a few years (and five seems better than three) to make a rational evaluation.
Ok so harder conference, team of midgets, injuries and transfers and losing to a sweet 16 team at the buzzer (after destroying them the whole game) is only a little better than a team that played in a weaker conference and lost in the opener of the NIT? And I wouldn't call 2013 Buzz's best it looks that way due to seeding but 12-13 would've put a beat down to last years team.
I mean when you brag about MU bball do you say we have 31 tournament appearances but really our nit teams are only a little bit worse than our tournament teams. No you don't include nit teams because people with prestigious programs don't brag about the NIT
-
That actually should of been a very good team.
C. Marcus Jackson 6-8
PF Chris Grimm 6-10
SF Steve Novak (NBA)
SG Dameon Mason/Joe Chapman
PG Travis Diener
Bench players Bell, Townsend, Baro & Kinsella.
It was just a case of almost everything going wrong. I think Bell was kicked off the team before the season even started. In theory not a great loss, but we had no point guard after Diener got hurt.
No, that's not a good team, much less a "very" good team. They started 9-0 thanks to an extraordinarily soft NC schedule. Once the conference season started they were losing to some not-so-good teams (DePaul, TCU, Charlotte) even with Diener in the lineup.
And whose fault is it, exactly, that the team was built without a competent backup PG?
Crean got so mad at Mason, that he basically refused to play him the last 10 games, so that was another player down. That one you can blame on Crean.
Never happened. Mason averaged 30+ minutes per game down the stretch, all five of them starts and more than his season average.
Without Diener drawing the defenses and being able to pass the ball to Novak, Novak's production dropped significantly.
Also not correct. Novak's scoring during conference play went up after Diener got hurt. This probably can be attributed to more shots being available, but it would be inaccurate to say his production dropped, much less dropped significantly.
While the season ended up being disappointing, it was probably Crean's best recruiting season at MU, since he signed the three amigos that same season.
So, MU didn't have a terrible 2004-05 season because the next year's recruiting class was good?
Not sure how or why you're trying to make a link here.
-
I'll wait 5 years to fully judge for all the reasons outlined. 1000's of examples why. Others can choose whatever timeline they wish. To each their own, but too many schools, pro teams burned and on the flip side, sometimes it takes that long or longer before guys get it going. Recruiting cycles are absolutely key in my opinion.
To each their own.
Matt Doherty (and thousands of others) contributed to this post
Peace
-
(http://imageshack.us/a/img5/3756/6ee.gif)