Why waiting 5 years to completely judge is just prudent

[Skatastrophy]

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.

[keefe]

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!

[Lennys Tap]

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

[The Equalizer]

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.

[jesmu84]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[GGGG]

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.

[jesmu84]

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?

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Silkk the Shaka]

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.

[NersEllenson]

Chicos has really never gotten served so hard by so many people in one thread.

Disagree.

[Atticus]

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.

[bilsu]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[Atticus]

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.

[Atticus]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[NersEllenson]

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.

[Galway Eagle]

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

[Pakuni]

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.