The next season conundrum

[1SE]

There's a lot of question-not-being-answered going on in this thread. I don't think there's anyone out there (including myself) that is so spiteful of Wojo that we would actively cheer against Marquette on their way to a great season or big run in the tourney (i.e. Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight or further).

The question would essentially be - what if this year happens all over again? What if we get to the point where we are out, or virtually out, of NCAA tourney contention in late January? Do we cheer for some meaningless wins at the end of the season (such as the UNC or DePaul wins this year)? Or do we hope that the team goes quietly into the night so as to leave no doubt (and no excuse for the BOT) about what we should do with Wojo?

Yes - maybe I wasn't clear enough with the topic. I was not proposing a choice between MU going 30-0 and 0-30 - of course the former would be awesome and I'd rename my son Steve. It would also be awesome to win the lottery.

The conundrum is between a 10-10 BE finish, an invite to Dayton and a first round loss vs. MU doing poorly enough to ensure that Wojo gets fired. The former almost certainly keeps Wojo around, and if he doesn't get one this year, probably also buys him some kind of extension (because how do you recruit if not?). I guess would you rather burn a season or have Wojo do "just well enough" to lock us into a further, extended, period of mediocrity?

Wojo is the Peter Gibbons of basketball coaches.

[1SE]

Dodds, Tower and the BOT talking to Wojo.

[The Sultan]

I can only hope that by retaining him this year, the BOT is looking at this as purely a transactional move: The University can't absorb the cost to get rid of him now or he would have already been removed.  Their thinking shouldn't change no matter what happens.  They "should" have seen enough as have most of us.  You move on after next year no matter what. 

No matter what?  So a top three conference finish and a run to the S16 should mean he would be let go?

[Dr. Blackheart]

I'm right there with you. But I don't think coaches think about these things the same way that you and I do.

But their lawyers and agents do.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

But their lawyers and agents do.

True but they get paid by the coach not the other way around.

[joparks]

No matter what?  So a top three conference finish and a run to the S16 should mean he would be let go?

The if's like these are the reason we are in this type of situation in the first place.  Let's face it, the guy has shown over the last 7 years that this would be more of an exception than a rule. 

So you have to ask yourself, if you hired someone to do something and they got it right 1 out of 8 times, with the 1 time coming on the 8th try, would you be willing to trust your business going forward with that person? 

There is nothing that tells me Wojo could even accomplish such a feat, let alone duplicate it.  Duplication was a minimum expectation over the last 7 years.  When the school hired him, I hope they weren't thinking of being satisfied with 1 S16 ending in 8 years after the previous coach got us to 3 in a row and the one before took us to a Final 4.

[The Sultan]

The if's like these are the reason we are in this type of situation in the first place.  Let's face it, the guy has shown over the last 7 years that this would be more of an exception than a rule. 

So you have to ask yourself, if you hired someone to do something and they got it right 1 out of 8 times, with the 1 time coming on the 8th try, would you be willing to trust your business going forward with that person? 

There is nothing that tells me Wojo could even accomplish such a feat, let alone duplicate it.  Duplication was a minimum expectation over the last 7 years.  When the school hired him, I hope they weren't thinking of being satisfied with 1 S16 ending in 8 years after the previous coach got us to 3 in a row and the one before took us to a Final 4.

I am just asking.  You said "no matter what."  And a top 3 finish and a second weekend finish isn't completely out of the realm of possibilities.  I mean, I think he should be fired today, but clearly if he attains that finish next year, he won't be fired.

Do you think he should be if he does?

[Mu8891]

Here's the deal

Wojo has proven he CANNOT get it done.
When I look at the team that ( hopefully) returns next year + a few recruits, best case scenario is a 10 seed and first round exit.  More likely an
NIT bid ... and
per Lovell / BOT / Dodds et al:

They are young... don't have a PG ...
Got " tired " ... etc etc etc, so that will be just fine. 

Let's start a pool:  at what time next year is the 1 - 6 swoon ?

It's a train wreck

[joparks]

I am just asking.  You said "no matter what."  And a top 3 finish and a second weekend finish isn't completely out of the realm of possibilities.  I mean, I think he should be fired today, but clearly if he attains that finish next year, he won't be fired.

Do you think he should be if he does?

Yes, I do. Or he should be told to seek out other employment so that maybe he doesn't actually get fired, he leaves. 

Here's my thinking, sorry for the length.

Other people have said if he has success next year we should extend him and place a incentive buyout program on the extension.  Why?  This is a let's try to get the best of both worlds here but really it doesn't fix the problem.  I honestly don't think incentives matter in this case.  I don't think he was trying to lose, I think he wants to win. I also don't think he lacks effort. I believe he works hard. I don't think if he tried harder, he would see any different results.  He just doesn't have the skillset to coach a team to consistently meet the minimum expectations (top 3 or better in conference, s16 or better result) of our fanbase.  Given the resources the school puts into the program, I don't think our expectations are out if line.  He's just not talented enough to accomplish it so incentivizing him will have no impact on results. 

He's the problem.  It's taken a while for a lot of people here to come to grips with this.  Great recruiting classes don't mean anything if you aren't a talented coach and he's not.  For whatever reason, he just doesn't have it. He doesn't have the ability to develop kids and he can't get a team to perform at a level greater than the sum of it's parts.  Can he recruit?  Sure, but he still needs to develop 3, 4 and 5 star players and have a system that allows these players to grow and shine.  These 3 and 4 star guys he brings in are the class of their HS teams but they have trouble finding cohesion in his system.  It's led people to wonder if he even has a system. He doesn't adapt which is why we usually get our lunch handed to us late in the season after there is plenty of tape to review. 

These are all knowns at this point.  It's great that the kids are better people when they leave than when they come in but his job is to make his players better ball players than when they come in.  Make his teams better at the end of the year than at the beginning.  I can't say much for the former, it's hit and miss and the hits are marginal at best.  The latter is obvious.  Translation, he's not the right person for the job. 

Now that this is obvious to everyone, you move on, you don't get swayed by a pocket of success because it's just a pocket, it's not the whole pant.  I'm evaluating him on his whole body of work and even if he somehow manages something in a low expectation environment (meaning "we should be good in a down Big East next year"), it's not enough for me to think he's on to something.  We used to be good (before Wojo) in years the BE was loaded - when the conference was a gauntlet.  Now we hope to compete when it's down?  Have we softened our expectations?

I gave him 5 years, after that, we should have moved on.  People said that was ridiculous, we had a good class coming.  We just made the tourney (and got hammered), there were Jay Wright comps, we were poised with the returning players to make a deep run in year six, it would be insane to let him go then.  The way we lost in the tourney is what got me.  He was not prepared and he was thoroughly out coached and classed by Murray State and  he had no alternate plan when his first plan bombed.  Then he had a mutiny in the locker room.  He should have been axed then.  Well, we are embarking on year 8 now, the team imploded, the great recruiting class doesn't appear to be as great as we thought, we are further away today from our goals than we have been in years and we can't get rid of him fast enough. 

Once you realize the person in charge is not going to get you where you want to go, you don't stay on the bus and see where it takes you.  You get off and find someone who else who can.  People want to think that we can do this painless.  You can't.  Rip the band aid off and move on.  We all will be glad we did and also wonder why we didn't do this sooner.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

No coach has every been fired after a Sweet 16 appearance without off the court issues. Expecting that is crazy


Coaches can improve with time. I don't think Wojo will.  But since we're stuck with him for another year,  if he proves me wrong next season he'll get another year and that may be the correct choice. My guess is he gets fired next season

[Herman Cain]

Yes, I do. Or he should be told to seek out other employment so that maybe he doesn't actually get fired, he leaves. 

Here's my thinking, sorry for the length.

Other people have said if he has success next year we should extend him and place a incentive buyout program on the extension.  Why?  This is a let's try to get the best of both worlds here but really it doesn't fix the problem.  I honestly don't think incentives matter in this case.  I don't think he was trying to lose, I think he wants to win. I also don't think he lacks effort. I believe he works hard. I don't think if he tried harder, he would see any different results.  He just doesn't have the skillset to coach a team to consistently meet the minimum expectations (top 3 or better in conference, s16 or better result) of our fanbase.  Given the resources the school puts into the program, I don't think our expectations are out if line.  He's just not talented enough to accomplish it so incentivizing him will have no impact on results. 

He's the problem.  It's taken a while for a lot of people here to come to grips with this.  Great recruiting classes don't mean anything if you aren't a talented coach and he's not.  For whatever reason, he just doesn't have it. He doesn't have the ability to develop kids and he can't get a team to perform at a level greater than the sum of it's parts.  Can he recruit?  Sure, but he still needs to develop 3, 4 and 5 star players and have a system that allows these players to grow and shine.  These 3 and 4 star guys he brings in are the class of their HS teams but they have trouble finding cohesion in his system.  It's led people to wonder if he even has a system. He doesn't adapt which is why we usually get our lunch handed to us late in the season after there is plenty of tape to review. 

These are all knowns at this point.  It's great that the kids are better people when they leave than when they come in but his job is to make his players better ball players than when they come in.  Make his teams better at the end of the year than at the beginning.  I can't say much for the former, it's hit and miss and the hits are marginal at best.  The latter is obvious.  Translation, he's not the right person for the job. 

Now that this is obvious to everyone, you move on, you don't get swayed by a pocket of success because it's just a pocket, it's not the whole pant.  I'm evaluating him on his whole body of work and even if he somehow manages something in a low expectation environment (meaning "we should be good in a down Big East next year"), it's not enough for me to think he's on to something.  We used to be good (before Wojo) in years the BE was loaded - when the conference was a gauntlet.  Now we hope to compete when it's down?  Have we softened our expectations?

I gave him 5 years, after that, we should have moved on.  People said that was ridiculous, we had a good class coming.  We just made the tourney (and got hammered), there were Jay Wright comps, we were poised with the returning players to make a deep run in year six, it would be insane to let him go then.  The way we lost in the tourney is what got me.  He was not prepared and he was thoroughly out coached and classed by Murray State and  he had no alternate plan when his first plan bombed.  Then he had a mutiny in the locker room.  He should have been axed then.  Well, we are embarking on year 8 now, the team imploded, the great recruiting class doesn't appear to be as great as we thought, we are further away today from our goals than we have been in years and we can't get rid of him fast enough. 

Once you realize the person in charge is not going to get you where you want to go, you don't stay on the bus and see where it takes you.  You get off and find someone who else who can.  People want to think that we can do this painless.  You can't.  Rip the band aid off and move on.  We all will be glad we did and also wonder why we didn't do this sooner.

This is a very well reasoned post.

[5DollarPitcher]

Yes, I do. Or he should be told to seek out other employment so that maybe he doesn't actually get fired, he leaves. 

Here's my thinking, sorry for the length.

Other people have said if he has success next year we should extend him and place a incentive buyout program on the extension.  Why?  This is a let's try to get the best of both worlds here but really it doesn't fix the problem.  I honestly don't think incentives matter in this case.  I don't think he was trying to lose, I think he wants to win. I also don't think he lacks effort. I believe he works hard. I don't think if he tried harder, he would see any different results.  He just doesn't have the skillset to coach a team to consistently meet the minimum expectations (top 3 or better in conference, s16 or better result) of our fanbase.  Given the resources the school puts into the program, I don't think our expectations are out if line.  He's just not talented enough to accomplish it so incentivizing him will have no impact on results. 

He's the problem.  It's taken a while for a lot of people here to come to grips with this.  Great recruiting classes don't mean anything if you aren't a talented coach and he's not.  For whatever reason, he just doesn't have it. He doesn't have the ability to develop kids and he can't get a team to perform at a level greater than the sum of it's parts.  Can he recruit?  Sure, but he still needs to develop 3, 4 and 5 star players and have a system that allows these players to grow and shine.  These 3 and 4 star guys he brings in are the class of their HS teams but they have trouble finding cohesion in his system.  It's led people to wonder if he even has a system. He doesn't adapt which is why we usually get our lunch handed to us late in the season after there is plenty of tape to review. 

These are all knowns at this point.  It's great that the kids are better people when they leave than when they come in but his job is to make his players better ball players than when they come in.  Make his teams better at the end of the year than at the beginning.  I can't say much for the former, it's hit and miss and the hits are marginal at best.  The latter is obvious.  Translation, he's not the right person for the job. 

Now that this is obvious to everyone, you move on, you don't get swayed by a pocket of success because it's just a pocket, it's not the whole pant.  I'm evaluating him on his whole body of work and even if he somehow manages something in a low expectation environment (meaning "we should be good in a down Big East next year"), it's not enough for me to think he's on to something.  We used to be good (before Wojo) in years the BE was loaded - when the conference was a gauntlet.  Now we hope to compete when it's down?  Have we softened our expectations?

I gave him 5 years, after that, we should have moved on.  People said that was ridiculous, we had a good class coming.  We just made the tourney (and got hammered), there were Jay Wright comps, we were poised with the returning players to make a deep run in year six, it would be insane to let him go then.  The way we lost in the tourney is what got me.  He was not prepared and he was thoroughly out coached and classed by Murray State and  he had no alternate plan when his first plan bombed.  Then he had a mutiny in the locker room.  He should have been axed then.  Well, we are embarking on year 8 now, the team imploded, the great recruiting class doesn't appear to be as great as we thought, we are further away today from our goals than we have been in years and we can't get rid of him fast enough. 

Once you realize the person in charge is not going to get you where you want to go, you don't stay on the bus and see where it takes you.  You get off and find someone who else who can.  People want to think that we can do this painless.  You can't.  Rip the band aid off and move on.  We all will be glad we did and also wonder why we didn't do this sooner.

[MU82]

Yes, I do. Or he should be told to seek out other employment so that maybe he doesn't actually get fired, he leaves. 

Here's my thinking, sorry for the length.

Other people have said if he has success next year we should extend him and place a incentive buyout program on the extension.  Why?  This is a let's try to get the best of both worlds here but really it doesn't fix the problem.  I honestly don't think incentives matter in this case.  I don't think he was trying to lose, I think he wants to win. I also don't think he lacks effort. I believe he works hard. I don't think if he tried harder, he would see any different results.  He just doesn't have the skillset to coach a team to consistently meet the minimum expectations (top 3 or better in conference, s16 or better result) of our fanbase.  Given the resources the school puts into the program, I don't think our expectations are out if line.  He's just not talented enough to accomplish it so incentivizing him will have no impact on results. 

He's the problem.  It's taken a while for a lot of people here to come to grips with this.  Great recruiting classes don't mean anything if you aren't a talented coach and he's not.  For whatever reason, he just doesn't have it. He doesn't have the ability to develop kids and he can't get a team to perform at a level greater than the sum of it's parts.  Can he recruit?  Sure, but he still needs to develop 3, 4 and 5 star players and have a system that allows these players to grow and shine.  These 3 and 4 star guys he brings in are the class of their HS teams but they have trouble finding cohesion in his system.  It's led people to wonder if he even has a system. He doesn't adapt which is why we usually get our lunch handed to us late in the season after there is plenty of tape to review. 

These are all knowns at this point.  It's great that the kids are better people when they leave than when they come in but his job is to make his players better ball players than when they come in.  Make his teams better at the end of the year than at the beginning.  I can't say much for the former, it's hit and miss and the hits are marginal at best.  The latter is obvious.  Translation, he's not the right person for the job. 

Now that this is obvious to everyone, you move on, you don't get swayed by a pocket of success because it's just a pocket, it's not the whole pant.  I'm evaluating him on his whole body of work and even if he somehow manages something in a low expectation environment (meaning "we should be good in a down Big East next year"), it's not enough for me to think he's on to something.  We used to be good (before Wojo) in years the BE was loaded - when the conference was a gauntlet.  Now we hope to compete when it's down?  Have we softened our expectations?

I gave him 5 years, after that, we should have moved on.  People said that was ridiculous, we had a good class coming.  We just made the tourney (and got hammered), there were Jay Wright comps, we were poised with the returning players to make a deep run in year six, it would be insane to let him go then.  The way we lost in the tourney is what got me.  He was not prepared and he was thoroughly out coached and classed by Murray State and  he had no alternate plan when his first plan bombed.  Then he had a mutiny in the locker room.  He should have been axed then.  Well, we are embarking on year 8 now, the team imploded, the great recruiting class doesn't appear to be as great as we thought, we are further away today from our goals than we have been in years and we can't get rid of him fast enough. 

Once you realize the person in charge is not going to get you where you want to go, you don't stay on the bus and see where it takes you.  You get off and find someone who else who can.  People want to think that we can do this painless.  You can't.  Rip the band aid off and move on.  We all will be glad we did and also wonder why we didn't do this sooner.

Well stated ... but much of it is unrealistic. As TAMU suggested, if Wojo takes us to the Sweet 16, he simply will not be fired.

Here's how I'm approaching it: We'll see what happens next season when we get well into next season.

I am not going to make threats I won't keep. There are folks here who are OUTRAGED OUTRAGED OUTRAGED! ... but even if we keep Wojo, they say they're still gonna kick out the big bucks for season tickets.

Yeah! That'll show Marquette!

There are levels of disgust. And no matter what one's level is, it doesn't necessarily mean one is a "lesser" fan.

I know that I will continue to watch every game and will root for us to win every individual game. I'll do that if we're 8-1 at the time, or if we're 1-8, or something in between. Marquette basketball isn't my life, but for the 2 hours that we are playing, I am all-in.

If lots of winning means Wojo stays, I can deal with that. Indeed, I hope it happens, and I hope it's the start of something big, and I hope I have to say I was wrong about firing Wojo immediately after the loss to DePaul.

If lots of losing means he goes, that's fine. But I'm never gonna sit there and root for us to lose.

Those who think it's best to sit in front of the TV and scream, "Damn!" when we go on a big run like we did against UNC and Butler and a couple other teams at the end of the season, or who say, "Yay!" when we lose to DePaul ... whatevs.

[joparks]

I agree, it sounds crazy, but crazy or not, it's probably the best solution long term.  Rewarding someone after year 8 for accomplishing the minimum expectation for the first time (read - a broken clock is right twice a day) will only set that as the acceptable results bar which everyone else after him will be judged by and would be below everyone's current expectations.  We aren't moving the ball forward in this case, we are actually moving it backwards.  It would also deal a blow to this program and their fanbase that we are happy with a deep run once a decade.  It also really lowers the return on investment the school has with the program considering the amount of resources they dump into it annually.  Keep in mind, we aren't evaluating some guy who is in his 3rd or 4th year.  This would be year 8 which is why any success has to be viewed as a blind squirrel finding a nut.  We all know his deficiencies. I think we are way past the "he's figuring it out phase" so keeping him would only serve as a signal from the BOT that they are ok with that result, which would in turn probably upset many people because that's far below our expectations.  Especially when the results turn back to normal, the carriage turns back into a pumpkin the year after.

That said, based on his whole body of work, I find highly unlikely he has success to this level next season.  If he somehow does find success, I'm evaluating him off that whole body of work, not the what have you done for me lately.  I would encourage him to take his newfound luck and seek employment elsewhere. 

He knows the school and the fanbase want to get rid of him.  He's aware that his buyout is the only thing possibly preventing that from happening.  If I was in his position, I would be looking to move on after next year if he gets a next year regardless of the result.  I'm not sure why he would want to stay where he's worn out his welcome and where even if he does have success, his past record makes that success look like a fluke (it would be).  He knows now that he's gone whether he jumps or he's pushed.  Next year, if he's coaching for us, he's coaching to continue coaching...at another school.

The temptation is to reward his results with a new contract or at least keep him. To fire him after a good season seems crazy and I can see that.  But view it from this perspective.  When you look at everything, it really would be crazy for the school to keep him...and still claim that they demand the level of program success we all expect.  Besides, they have already rewarded his non results with new contracts so the gesture would be meaningless.  If they did this after he took the team to the S16 in year 4, that's crazy.  After year 8, not as crazy as you think and just because no school has ever done that before, doesn't make it crazy.  If you look at it from an ROI perspective and look at the whole body of work and see a S16 run next year for what it would really be - an aberration, it's not crazy at all.

[MU82]

I agree, it sounds crazy, but crazy or not, it's probably the best solution long term.  Rewarding someone after year 8 for accomplishing the minimum expectation for the first time (read - a broken clock is right twice a day) will only set that as the acceptable results bar which everyone else after him will be judged by and would be below everyone's current expectations.  We aren't moving the ball forward in this case, we are actually moving it backwards.  It would also deal a blow to this program and their fanbase that we are happy with a deep run once a decade.  It also really lowers the return on investment the school has with the program considering the amount of resources they dump into it annually.  Keep in mind, we aren't evaluating some guy who is in his 3rd or 4th year.  This would be year 8 which is why any success has to be viewed as a blind squirrel finding a nut.  We all know his deficiencies. I think we are way past the "he's figuring it out phase" so keeping him would only serve as a signal from the BOT that they are ok with that result, which would in turn probably upset many people because that's far below our expectations.  Especially when the results turn back to normal, the carriage turns back into a pumpkin the year after.

That said, based on his whole body of work, I find highly unlikely he has success to this level next season.  If he somehow does find success, I'm evaluating him off that whole body of work, not the what have you done for me lately.  I would encourage him to take his newfound luck and seek employment elsewhere. 

He knows the school and the fanbase want to get rid of him.  He's aware that his buyout is the only thing possibly preventing that from happening.  If I was in his position, I would be looking to move on after next year if he gets a next year regardless of the result.  I'm not sure why he would want to stay where he's worn out his welcome and where even if he does have success, his past record makes that success look like a fluke (it would be).  He knows now that he's gone whether he jumps or he's pushed.  Next year, if he's coaching for us, he's coaching to continue coaching...at another school.

The temptation is to reward his results with a new contract or at least keep him. To fire him after a good season seems crazy and I can see that.  But view it from this perspective.  When you look at everything, it really would be crazy for the school to keep him...and still claim that they demand the level of program success we all expect.  Besides, they have already rewarded his non results with new contracts so the gesture would be meaningless.  If they did this after he took the team to the S16 in year 4, that's crazy.  After year 8, not as crazy as you think and just because no school has ever done that before, doesn't make it crazy.  If you look at it from an ROI perspective and look at the whole body of work and see a S16 run next year for what it would really be - an aberration, it's not crazy at all.

Just because you keep saying this -- and saying it well -- doesn't mean it's realistic, jo.

But keep the ... um ... faith?

[Scoop Snoop]

Kudos to joparks for the best summation of the case of Marquette vs. Wojo I have ever read. If you are not an attorney, you missed your calling.

[Jockey]

I am just asking.  You said "no matter what."  And a top 3 finish and a second weekend finish isn't completely out of the realm of possibilities. 

Define "completely out".

[BCHoopster]

Right now not enough talent to move up in the Big East.  Now if he can sign 2 kids who can bring something to the table they might be OK, need a couple of kids who can make shots.  Freshman as you can tell from last year were very inconsistent.

[MU82]

Right now not enough talent to move up in the Big East.  Now if he can sign 2 kids who can bring something to the table they might be OK, need a couple of kids who can make shots.  Freshman as you can tell from last year were very inconsistent.

Yes, we need to sign transfers who were at least as effective at their roles as Reinhardt and Rowsey were. I'm not saying we necessarily need those skill-sets (although Rowseyesque shooting would be nice), just that we need immediate, mature, skilled contributors, not posers like Froling or Chartouny. 

[The Sultan]

I agree, it sounds crazy, but crazy or not, it's probably the best solution long term.  Rewarding someone after year 8 for accomplishing the minimum expectation for the first time (read - a broken clock is right twice a day) will only set that as the acceptable results bar which everyone else after him will be judged by and would be below everyone's current expectations.  We aren't moving the ball forward in this case, we are actually moving it backwards.  It would also deal a blow to this program and their fanbase that we are happy with a deep run once a decade.  It also really lowers the return on investment the school has with the program considering the amount of resources they dump into it annually.  Keep in mind, we aren't evaluating some guy who is in his 3rd or 4th year.  This would be year 8 which is why any success has to be viewed as a blind squirrel finding a nut.  We all know his deficiencies. I think we are way past the "he's figuring it out phase" so keeping him would only serve as a signal from the BOT that they are ok with that result, which would in turn probably upset many people because that's far below our expectations.  Especially when the results turn back to normal, the carriage turns back into a pumpkin the year after.

That said, based on his whole body of work, I find highly unlikely he has success to this level next season.  If he somehow does find success, I'm evaluating him off that whole body of work, not the what have you done for me lately.  I would encourage him to take his newfound luck and seek employment elsewhere. 

He knows the school and the fanbase want to get rid of him.  He's aware that his buyout is the only thing possibly preventing that from happening.  If I was in his position, I would be looking to move on after next year if he gets a next year regardless of the result.  I'm not sure why he would want to stay where he's worn out his welcome and where even if he does have success, his past record makes that success look like a fluke (it would be).  He knows now that he's gone whether he jumps or he's pushed.  Next year, if he's coaching for us, he's coaching to continue coaching...at another school.

The temptation is to reward his results with a new contract or at least keep him. To fire him after a good season seems crazy and I can see that.  But view it from this perspective.  When you look at everything, it really would be crazy for the school to keep him...and still claim that they demand the level of program success we all expect.  Besides, they have already rewarded his non results with new contracts so the gesture would be meaningless.  If they did this after he took the team to the S16 in year 4, that's crazy.  After year 8, not as crazy as you think and just because no school has ever done that before, doesn't make it crazy.  If you look at it from an ROI perspective and look at the whole body of work and see a S16 run next year for what it would really be - an aberration, it's not crazy at all.

Everyone knows this.

But there is no way he gets fired if he goes to a Sweet 16 next year. Nor should he be.

[Viper]

I agree, it sounds crazy, but crazy or not, it's probably the best solution long term.  Rewarding someone after year 8 for accomplishing the minimum expectation for the first time (read - a broken clock is right twice a day) will only set that as the acceptable results bar which everyone else after him will be judged by and would be below everyone's current expectations.  We aren't moving the ball forward in this case, we are actually moving it backwards.  It would also deal a blow to this program and their fanbase that we are happy with a deep run once a decade.  It also really lowers the return on investment the school has with the program considering the amount of resources they dump into it annually.  Keep in mind, we aren't evaluating some guy who is in his 3rd or 4th year.  This would be year 8 which is why any success has to be viewed as a blind squirrel finding a nut.  We all know his deficiencies. I think we are way past the "he's figuring it out phase" so keeping him would only serve as a signal from the BOT that they are ok with that result, which would in turn probably upset many people because that's far below our expectations.  Especially when the results turn back to normal, the carriage turns back into a pumpkin the year after.

That said, based on his whole body of work, I find highly unlikely he has success to this level next season.  If he somehow does find success, I'm evaluating him off that whole body of work, not the what have you done for me lately.  I would encourage him to take his newfound luck and seek employment elsewhere. 

He knows the school and the fanbase want to get rid of him.  He's aware that his buyout is the only thing possibly preventing that from happening.  If I was in his position, I would be looking to move on after next year if he gets a next year regardless of the result.  I'm not sure why he would want to stay where he's worn out his welcome and where even if he does have success, his past record makes that success look like a fluke (it would be).  He knows now that he's gone whether he jumps or he's pushed.  Next year, if he's coaching for us, he's coaching to continue coaching...at another school.

The temptation is to reward his results with a new contract or at least keep him. To fire him after a good season seems crazy and I can see that.  But view it from this perspective.  When you look at everything, it really would be crazy for the school to keep him...and still claim that they demand the level of program success we all expect.  Besides, they have already rewarded his non results with new contracts so the gesture would be meaningless.  If they did this after he took the team to the S16 in year 4, that's crazy.  After year 8, not as crazy as you think and just because no school has ever done that before, doesn't make it crazy.  If you look at it from an ROI perspective and look at the whole body of work and see a S16 run next year for what it would really be - an aberration, it's not crazy at all.

...does the school want to get rid of him? Isn't that the big question mark?