|
Post by n00b on Jan 9, 2018 1:40:33 GMT -5
USC is a top volleyball destination. They hired a coach that is coming off a 15-15 season, including a 6-12 record in the WCC. How does that not seem off base? It takes great coaching to take a terrible program and get them to .500. It takes totally different coaching to take a great program and get to final fours. There is certainly a lot of overlap, but he's just completely unproved at the level that USC should be competing at. I know nothing about him as a person or coach. I just see the hard numbers of the resume. It's a weird choice. Stanford, coming off a national championship, hired a 17-14 coach who didn't make the tournament. Hambly had a national championship appearance and five other sweet 16s.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 9, 2018 1:50:17 GMT -5
He took over a team with no history, that wasn't fully funded in one of the least forgiving conferences in the country, an 0-27 record and an RPI of #268, and in 3 years beat a top 10 team and finished with an RPI of #98, above Maryland with Aird, Northwestern with Davis and Cal with Feller. Good post, adding this.
|
|
|
Post by vup on Jan 9, 2018 1:55:33 GMT -5
He kinda cute though...
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jan 9, 2018 1:55:44 GMT -5
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the glowing endorsement by Kiraly. I would not be surprised if he was consulted on this hire. Having the endorsement and collaborating with top USA coaches is a big plus for recruiting. So far I have read a lot of positives. He is a trained teacher, an honest to God college professor, his players like him and they do well in the classroom. Those are not small things, and I think they were important in this search. He took over a team with no history, an 0-27 record and an RPI of #268, and in 3 years beat a top 10 team and finished with an RPI of #98, above Maryland with Aird, Northwestern with Davis and Cal with Feller. The jury is out and I understand the desire for a more established name, but there is potential for a lot of upside with this hire. The first test will be his ability to hire a high quality staff. The second test will be getting buy in from current players. The third test will be recruiting this spring. You saw the endorsement from Karch as a good thing? Really. The fourth test will be getting crushed in conference.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 9, 2018 1:56:51 GMT -5
The Haley ERA will go down like the Pete Carroll era. You mean they are going to find recruiting violations now?
|
|
|
Post by whurlitzer on Jan 9, 2018 2:07:58 GMT -5
The Haley ERA will go down like the Pete Carroll era. You mean they are going to find recruiting violations now? Football wasn't sanctioned for recruiting violations.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 27,898
|
Post by trojansc on Jan 9, 2018 2:08:55 GMT -5
The Haley ERA will go down like the Pete Carroll era. You mean they are going to find recruiting violations now? That was Tennessee and Lane Kiffin, who USC then hired
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Jan 9, 2018 2:14:52 GMT -5
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the glowing endorsement by Kiraly. GM2 cronyism?
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Jan 9, 2018 2:31:17 GMT -5
You saw the endorsement from Karch as a good thing? Really. The fourth test will be getting crushed in conference. I understand opinion of Kiraly on VT is split, but to recruits he is the national team coach with a world championship and an Olympic medal. Of course a very close association with him and with USAV is a positive for recruiting. It's silly to suggest otherwise. Your fourth test is irrelevant. We know he can coach. If his players stay and next years recruits still come, he absolutely will NOT get crushed in conference. I think you're overrating how much teenage girls value Karch's opinion. He won't be the national team coach by the time they're in the unlikely position to try out for the team. Karch's name means far more to people over 30 than those under 30, especially high school girls.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jan 9, 2018 2:35:36 GMT -5
You saw the endorsement from Karch as a good thing? Really. The fourth test will be getting crushed in conference. I understand opinion off Kiraly on VT is split, but to recruits he is the national team coach with a world championship and an Olympic medal. Of course a very close association with him and with USAV is a positive for recruiting. It's silly to suggest otherwise. Your fourth test is irrelevant. We know he can coach. If his players stay and next years recruits still come, he absolutely will NOT get crushed in conference. What makes you think he will be more successful at leveraging ties with USAV in recruiting, or in developing National Team level talent, than Mick (an Olympic coach) was? An endorsement from Karch? And you know he's a good coach how? His record? As far as getting crushed in conference, of course it's relevant. It's only whether or not it will happen that remains to be seen. This team also has some player issues, and they may not respond to touchy feely bows in the hair tactics. He has his work cut out for him.
|
|
|
Post by BeiBei on Jan 9, 2018 2:54:11 GMT -5
USC is a top volleyball destination. They hired a coach that is coming off a 15-15 season, including a 6-12 record in the WCC. How does that not seem off base? It takes great coaching to take a terrible program and get them to .500. It takes totally different coaching to take a great program and get to final fours. There is certainly a lot of overlap, but he's just completely unproved at the level that USC should be competing at. I know nothing about him as a person or coach. I just see the hard numbers of the resume. It's a weird choice. Stanford, coming off a national championship, hired a 17-14 coach who didn't make the tournament. Not making the tournament with a number 1 recruiting class. Does Portland have a senior ace on the roster?
|
|
|
Post by BeiBei on Jan 9, 2018 3:06:14 GMT -5
Not making the tournament with a number 1 recruiting class. Does Portland have a senior ace on the roster? Portland recruited a #55 recruiting class to a school with no VB history and a #268 RPI. You can argue whether that will translate to USC, but that is actually quite impressive. I still think he is not a bad hire. A lot of upside based on what he did at Portland. When someone first posted USC picked a nobody, I thought they chose Scott Wong
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Jan 9, 2018 3:07:51 GMT -5
Not making the tournament with a number 1 recruiting class. Does Portland have a senior ace on the roster? Portland recruited a #55 recruiting class to a school with no VB history and a #268 RPI. You can argue whether that will translate to USC, but that is actually quite impressive. You are being too reasonable and fair for thei board. Lol
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jan 9, 2018 3:30:45 GMT -5
What makes you think he will be more successful at leveraging ties with USAV in recruiting, or in developing National Team level talent, than Mick (an Olympic coach) was? An endorsement from Karch? And you know he's a good coach how? His record? As far as getting crushed in conference, of course it's relevant. It's only whether or not it will happen that remains to be seen. This team also has some player issues, and they may not respond to touchy feely bows in the hair tactics. He has his work cut out for him. I made no comparison with Mick. This change wasn't about replacing Mick with Crouch, it was clearly about moving on from Mick. I thought Mick had a fantastic season, had another fantastic season year before last and deserved to come back. This hire has nothing to do with Crouch vs Mick, or Fisher vs Mick. While I completely understand the pro-Mick sentiment, that is a completely separate issue from discussing the new hire. I said if he passes the first three tests that your forth test would be irrelevant (or maybe redundant is better). One of the tests is player buy-in, which is exactly what you alluded to with your touchy feely hair bow comment. To be clear, if the players transfer out, if the players don't buy in, and recruits opt out, then yes, they will get crushed in conference. That's why I specifically listed those as the tests he must pass. I don't believe it is as easy to separate the issue of moving on from Mick from the discussion of the hire in the context of whoever is hired compared to Mick, as you suggest. The reason is that there is always some semblance of, and need for, continuity. It need not be a direct comparison, but it is an inherent and unavoidable one. Your three tests, in fact, all have to do with continuity, and may or may not have anything to do with the new coach's abilities (or with Mick's). Mick's departure was created by his personal hubris, but it is fairly evident that the subsequent response, including the ultimate hire, were a result of the failings of the administration, and one person in particular (notwithstanding that she may feel her intentions were good.)
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Jan 9, 2018 7:19:00 GMT -5
Last time USC hired, they were able to lure a National Champion coach away from a major athletic power. I hope Couch comes in and does a great job and wins his own national championships, but I am not the only one that sees a difference here, right? USC didn't hire Mick away from Texas. He had already left Texas and was coaching the National Team. Haley was looking for a landing spot after the Olympics. He knew he wasn't going to get a 2nd quad because he had already alienated the USA Volleyball people, much like he eventually alienated the people in the USC Athletic Dept.
|
|