|
Post by slxpress on May 19, 2022 13:39:33 GMT -5
Sure, I brought up Pete Waite and Wisconsin as a specific example of a program that would have been better off if they’d been able to keep their former coach. Period. The end. I stand by it. It's a poor comparison....you left out a ton of context (like the fact that Cook was waiting to go back to Nebraska)....
Maybe "coach management" is a better topic: Like how could the IU Athletic Department let things get this bad in the first place?
Well, what IU is facing is of a different order. There’s hiring an incompetent coach. Then there’s hiring an abusive coach. Then there’s knowing you have an incompetent abusive coach, and you keep him. I can understand hiring a incompetent coach. I could give a giant list of coaches who I thought were sure fire successes who fell flat on their face. You just never know. I can even understand hiring an abusive coach. Abusive people who are successful are master manipulators. It’s part of why psychopathy is so common among highly successful people, even though it’s only measured at 10% of the population. Coaching is inherently an authoritative relationship, and sometimes the line between developing someone to their utmost and abusive behavior isn’t quite as cut and dried as we’d like to think. How did Bob Knight stay on so long at Indiana? Ever read The Junction Boys about Bear Bryant’s first team at A&M? That said, when someone goes beyond the pale AND they’re poor at their job, it takes a special kind of administration to say, “He’s our guy!” I remember when Mangino was fired from the KU football program for abusive behavior after taking them to the Orange Bowl. They not only haven’t had any success since, they’ve been the worst Power 5 program in the country. The thing is, OU was doing similar things when he was on staff there, and Bill Snyder at KSU where Mangino started his career wasn’t known for handing out milk and cookies to either his players or his staff. Yet, once things came to light KU did the right thing. I don’t really comprehend what’s going on at IU other than it’s a cancer. And the cancer isn’t just with Aird. It’s with his enablers in the IU administration. And if their decision making is so poor in the current situation, why does anyone think it would be better with the next coach, starting with who they choose to hire?
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on May 19, 2022 13:41:29 GMT -5
Holy hell. I’m not comparing Pete Waite and Wisconsin to Indiana and Aird. I’m saying that a great program has to both find the right coach and keep them. Indiana is not only going to have to find the right coach - which they obviously haven’t yet. They will also have to then keep them, which is another set of challenges. One I’m sure they’d aspire to at this point, but a challenge nonetheless. I get your point. Indiana would have the same problem as a mid-major if they find the right coach to get the program on track: being poached by a better program. But if you could get things going in Indiana, it could become a destination school. I agree with this completely. Shoot, got to find the right coach first and worry about the rest later.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 19, 2022 13:50:04 GMT -5
It's a poor comparison....you left out a ton of context (like the fact that Cook was waiting to go back to Nebraska)....
Maybe "coach management" is a better topic: Like how could the IU Athletic Department let things get this bad in the first place?
Well, what IU is facing is of a different order. There’s hiring an incompetent coach. Then there’s hiring an abusive coach. Then there’s knowing you have an incompetent abusive coach, and you keep him. I can understand hiring a incompetent coach. I could give a giant list of coaches who I thought were sure fire successes who fell flat on their face. You just never know. I can even understand hiring an abusive coach. Abusive people who are successful are master manipulators. It’s part of why psychopathy is so common among highly successful people, even though it’s only measured at 10% of the population. Coaching is inherently an authoritative relationship, and sometimes the line between developing someone to their utmost and abusive behavior isn’t quite as cut and dried as we’d like to think. How did Bob Knight stay on so long at Indiana? Ever read The Junction Boys about Bear Bryant’s first team at A&M? That said, when someone goes beyond the pale AND they’re poor at their job, it takes a special kind of administration to say, “He’s our guy!” I remember when Mangino was fired from the KU football program for abusive behavior after taking them to the Orange Bowl. They not only haven’t had any success since, they’ve been the worst Power 5 program in the country. The thing is, OU was doing similar things when he was on staff there, and Bill Snyder at KSU where Mangino started his career wasn’t known for handing out milk and cookies to either his players or his staff. Yet, once things came to light KU did the right thing. I don’t really comprehend what’s going on at IU other than it’s a cancer. And the cancer isn’t just with Aird. It’s with his enablers in the IU administration. And if their decision making is so poor in the current situation, why does anyone think it would be better with the next coach, starting with who they choose to hire? There's definitely some luck involved in hiring. Scott Frost was viewed as a home run hire, and while he hasn't been fired yet, it's certainly not going well. On the other hand, Pete Caroll wasn't anywhere close to USC's top choice, and he was interested in the job in part because his daughter played volleyball for USC. At any rate, I agree with you that Indiana keeping Aird is inexcusable and speaks to a larger problem with the administration.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 19, 2022 13:55:42 GMT -5
If USC could have figured out a way to keep Jerritt Elliott when he was the interim head coach rather than giving the job back to Mick Haley, they’d be in a much better place right now. Wait, what? USC’s current state of affairs is on Donna Heinel’s back and a corrupt USC athletic dept and administration. So much could have happened since 2002, who’s to say Jerritt would have gotten along with that b*tch? . And USC was good enough to have made Final Four’s and at least the Regional Final is over half of those years. Mick was by no means without flaws, but he kept USC competitive and could rebound quickly from less than standard years, which still weren’t even missing the tournament. Wow, you must really dislike Heinel. I guess I can't say that I blame you.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 19, 2022 14:01:12 GMT -5
Consider these two modes:
1) comfortable where you are 2) looking to move up
I suspect everyone is in some kind of Venn diagram mix of these two modes most of the time.
Now consider the issue of a school hiring a volleyball coach.
The school may be looking for a coach to take them up to a higher level. The coach may be seeing the school as a step to a further career goal. Or the school may just want the volleyball program to not cause them problems, and the coach may just want a stable job.
I suspect that in some cases, if a school picks the right "up and coming" coach, it may be nearly impossible to keep that coach if a good result makes the coach more eligible to move on to a bigger stage. So in that case, sure, it can be harder to keep a good coach than to find one.
On the other hand, if the school is already a national power and has a strong volleyball tradition, then the school may be more of a destination job than a stepping stone job, and it may be harder to hire the right coach than to keep an existing coach.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on May 19, 2022 14:10:11 GMT -5
Well, what IU is facing is of a different order. There’s hiring an incompetent coach. Then there’s hiring an abusive coach. Then there’s knowing you have an incompetent abusive coach, and you keep him. I can understand hiring a incompetent coach. I could give a giant list of coaches who I thought were sure fire successes who fell flat on their face. You just never know. I can even understand hiring an abusive coach. Abusive people who are successful are master manipulators. It’s part of why psychopathy is so common among highly successful people, even though it’s only measured at 10% of the population. Coaching is inherently an authoritative relationship, and sometimes the line between developing someone to their utmost and abusive behavior isn’t quite as cut and dried as we’d like to think. How did Bob Knight stay on so long at Indiana? Ever read The Junction Boys about Bear Bryant’s first team at A&M? That said, when someone goes beyond the pale AND they’re poor at their job, it takes a special kind of administration to say, “He’s our guy!” I remember when Mangino was fired from the KU football program for abusive behavior after taking them to the Orange Bowl. They not only haven’t had any success since, they’ve been the worst Power 5 program in the country. The thing is, OU was doing similar things when he was on staff there, and Bill Snyder at KSU where Mangino started his career wasn’t known for handing out milk and cookies to either his players or his staff. Yet, once things came to light KU did the right thing. I don’t really comprehend what’s going on at IU other than it’s a cancer. And the cancer isn’t just with Aird. It’s with his enablers in the IU administration. And if their decision making is so poor in the current situation, why does anyone think it would be better with the next coach, starting with who they choose to hire? There's definitely some luck involved in hiring. Scott Frost was viewed as a home run hire, and while he hasn't been fired yet, it's certainly not going well. On the other hand, Pete Caroll wasn't anywhere close to USC's top choice, and he was interested in the job in part because his daughter played volleyball for USC. At any rate, I agree with you that Indiana keeping Aird is inexcusable and speaks to a larger problem with the administration. I still think Frost can turn it around. But he’s definitely running out of time. I laughed so hard when Mike Garrett hired Carroll out of desperation after he’d been turned down by his previous 4 or so top choices. Nobody wanted to work for him. Some close relatives of mine had been New England fans for a couple of decades and so I had followed him there a bit. I thought for sure he was going to be another mediocre hire by the Trojans. Not only was that a surprise, but New England replaced him with another mediocre career coach, and that worked out okay for them, too. You just never know. I do wonder a bit how things would have turned out for Nebraska if they’d kept Solich. His problem is he wasn’t a hall of farmer like Devaney and Osborne. At that point in Nebraska’s history their expectations were extremely high, and Solich simply wasn’t on that level. But it was such an end to an era. Nebraska had basically run iterations off the same playbook for 40 years. Nebraska ran things in a different way than anyone else, and they had ended up becoming dominant doing it that way. Solich ended up having a nice 15 year career at Ohio, which is probably at the level he should have been all along. But it’s been a bummer since then. Anyway, Aird needs to go. This isn’t going to get turned around in any sense of the word, either on the court or off.
|
|
|
Post by mervynpumpkinhead on May 19, 2022 14:16:50 GMT -5
Wait, what? USC’s current state of affairs is on Donna Heinel’s back and a corrupt USC athletic dept and administration. So much could have happened since 2002, who’s to say Jerritt would have gotten along with that b*tch? . And USC was good enough to have made Final Four’s and at least the Regional Final is over half of those years. Mick was by no means without flaws, but he kept USC competitive and could rebound quickly from less than standard years, which still weren’t even missing the tournament. Wow, you must really dislike Heinel. I guess I can't say that I blame you. At that time, there was zero reason to keep Jerritt instead of Mick.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 19, 2022 14:17:39 GMT -5
There's definitely some luck involved in hiring. Scott Frost was viewed as a home run hire, and while he hasn't been fired yet, it's certainly not going well. On the other hand, Pete Caroll wasn't anywhere close to USC's top choice, and he was interested in the job in part because his daughter played volleyball for USC. At any rate, I agree with you that Indiana keeping Aird is inexcusable and speaks to a larger problem with the administration. I still think Frost can turn it around. But he’s definitely running out of time. I laughed so hard when Mike Garrett hired Carroll out of desperation after he’d been turned down by his previous 4 or so top choices. Nobody wanted to work for him. Some close relatives of mine had been New England fans for a couple of decades and so I had followed him there a bit. I thought for sure he was going to be another mediocre hire by the Trojans. Not only was that a surprise, but New England replaced him with another mediocre career coach, and that worked out okay for them, too. You just never know. I do wonder a bit how things would have turned out for Nebraska if they’d kept Solich. His problem is he wasn’t a hall of farmer like Devaney and Osborne. At that point in Nebraska’s history their expectations were extremely high, and Solich simply wasn’t on that level. But it was such an end to an era. Nebraska had basically run iterations off the same playbook for 40 years. Nebraska ran things in a different way than anyone else, and they had ended up becoming dominant doing it that way. Solich ended up having a nice 15 year career at Ohio, which is probably at the level he should have been all along. But it’s been a bummer since then. Anyway, Aird needs to go. This isn’t going to get turned around in any sense of the word, either on the court or off. Yeah, with Solich, he was dealing with a fanbase with extremely high expectations. That said, he was still a triple option guy like Osborne was, and he wasn't as good a coach as Osborne, so that success was unsustainable. I don't think it's possible to win a title with the triple option anymore. It was sort of a perfect storm for mid-1990s Nebraska of having a legendary coach and some advantages (e.g. with steroids) that they don't have anymore.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 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: 30,327
|
Post by trojansc on May 19, 2022 14:22:59 GMT -5
Wow, you must really dislike Heinel. I guess I can't say that I blame you. I was pretty vocal about Heinel before it all came out and she was even proven to be a criminal that should be in jail. But yeah, the b-word in my previous post was probably even letting her off easy.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on May 19, 2022 14:23:18 GMT -5
It was sort of a perfect storm for mid-1990s Nebraska of having a legendary coach and some advantages (e.g. with steroids) that they doesn't have anymore. You can't look at the rosters of those 1990s teams and claim Nebraska had some unique advantage with PEDs. Every team was jacked back then. It wasn't the roids.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 19, 2022 14:25:03 GMT -5
It was sort of a perfect storm for mid-1990s Nebraska of having a legendary coach and some advantages (e.g. with steroids) that they don't have anymore. You can't look at the rosters of those 1990s teams and claim Nebraska had some unique advantage with PEDs. Every team was jacked back then. It wasn't the roids. I was living in Nebraska in the 1990s and rooted for those teams. It wasn't just the roids, but they were definitely part of it. Anyway, I'm not trying to discredit those teams (1995 Nebraska is my favorite college football team ever). I'm just saying they don't have that advantage anymore.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on May 19, 2022 14:29:38 GMT -5
Consider these two modes: 1) comfortable where you are 2) looking to move up I suspect everyone is in some kind of Venn diagram mix of these two modes most of the time. Now consider the issue of a school hiring a volleyball coach. The school may be looking for a coach to take them up to a higher level. The coach may be seeing the school as a step to a further career goal. Or the school may just want the volleyball program to not cause them problems, and the coach may just want a stable job. I suspect that in some cases, if a school picks the right "up and coming" coach, it may be nearly impossible to keep that coach if a good result makes the coach more eligible to move on to a bigger stage. So in that case, sure, it can be harder to keep a good coach than to find one. On the other hand, if the school is already a national power and has a strong volleyball tradition, then the school may be more of a destination job than a stepping stone job, and it may be harder to hire the right coach than to keep an existing coach. I don’t see it exactly the same. First of all, the people who I’ve known who are extremely successful don’t really look at head jobs as stepping stones in the truest sense. They don’t allow their focus to drift from the task at hand. The line between success and failure is often very thin. It’s difficult to get everyone’s buy in if you’re seen with one foot out the door, and so successful people give off the impression they’re lifers, even when it’s patently obvious they’re not. As someone doing the hiring, yes, hiring someone who is “overqualified” is a legitimate concern, as frustrating as it can be for the unemployed to hear it. But when you’re talking about the person leading your organization, whatever that organization happens to be, you’re doing yourself a disservice if you limit your pool to candidates who will be content to stay in that position. Unless you truly don’t care about the ultimate success of that organization. Better to hire someone obviously ambitious, talented and motivated and hope to entice them to stay when they’ve built the organization into something worthwhile. Or have them build it into something worthwhile and hope the person who takes the reins can build on it AND eventually stick around. My biggest thing is that fans often like to act like it’s the program that is inherently successful, when it’s never the program. It’s always the coach. The difference is the most well funded programs with the most resources and the best tradition, tend to have the largest pool of candidates to choose from, have the best chance of keeping the right coach once they find them, and when they do make a change, can marshal those same advantages on every hire they make. I’m firmly convinced that if you take the very best coach in a profession, and you put them in a place with much more limited resources, they will still find a way to shine. Also, it doesn’t matter how good of a job a program represents, there’s plenty of people out there incapable of taking advantage of it.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 19, 2022 14:33:51 GMT -5
My biggest thing is that fans often like to act like it’s the program that is inherently successful, when it’s never the program. It’s always the coach. Well sure, *coaches* think that is true.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on May 19, 2022 14:35:35 GMT -5
My biggest thing is that fans often like to act like it’s the program that is inherently successful, when it’s never the program. It’s always the coach. Well sure, *coaches* think that is true. I think it’s true. We can go through the list, starting with Washington football.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 19, 2022 14:38:40 GMT -5
Well sure, *coaches* think that is true. I think it’s true. Are you a coach?
|
|