dutchcountry7

https://www.ubspectrum.com/article/2024/04/wrestling-team-complaints-2024 @UBinMD @clodney @MuchMany @Chet @rma @BrooklynBull @promotherobot @SGBull

We did pay him! He was given a contract extension and a pay raise that was not funded. We had to fundraise for his raise because it was more than the athletic department could afford. The Units aren't paid to UB. They are paid to the MAC and distributed to all of the schools in the MAC and used to fund the MAC Championships. Also, the number one complaint from Oats was the lack of facilities. His salary wouldn't have been enough to keep him without facility upgrades. And since facilities aren't consumed annually like salaries are, the facilities are a necessary long term investment. The facilities serve the coaches who will be coaching today as well as five and 10 years from now. That is what happened. That is how he got the raise and extension right before he left for Tuscaloosa. How much did you contribute to the fund? No, he didn't. He made it his home for a moment in time. But he wasn't staying long term. Buffalo isn't close to home. Yes, you're right. It is a real head scratcher... Why didn't UB make Oats the 3rd highest paid basketball coach in the country in 2019? They should have just picked some notes from the money tree. No, it isn't. Everyone talks the talk while they are in the position. And then when something better comes along they are gone. Ah... I get it. This is a troll. You're really a Bonnies fan. Valued him with everything but their pocket book. But of course, you expect others to fund the program for you to enjoy.

Anytime you add a team to the conference that is both in your geographic region and is historically at a level that would put them higher than the median program in the conference, you've got a massive win! UMass to the MAC is great for UB basketball.

This is big for UB. Conference game within easy travel distance for alums in the Capital Region and even down state. UMass has some solid sports.

This is correct. Reggie and JW both were solid MAC coaches. They could compete. But weren't likely to win anything of any significance. They were each a steady hand. Sometimes that is a good thing. But obviously we want more and after the Oats years it looked like a failure.

Imagine the energy she would have shown if she was 20 years old and in that situation! ha ha Yes, I agree with you. Not everyone slows down and has a more mellow demeanor with age. There are some pretty intense 70 year olds I know still running companies and demanding the VPs try to keep up.

I am not too active on here... I tend to go weeks at a time without visiting and then spend a day engaging a lot before dropping off again. As a result, I don't know a lot of the drama from the board. But the things I quickly picked up is that I have disagreed with @MuchMany a fair amount but he has always made his arguments in good faith and we ultimately want the same thing--the success of the programs... and @RapidsFan does not make good faith arguments and often tries to paint people as a bigots out of left field. @RapidsFan is new here as far as I know... so I am not sure if they are a troll or just some nieve young kid just getting exposed to the world and trying to champion social justice in every instance possible even when it isn't an issue... But this is one of many such examples... claiming someone is ageist because they don't think someone displays enough energy? ha ha Talk about a strawman... needing to paint the messenger as a bigot so you can try to undermine their arguments without addressing the issues and don't have to engage with them. And for the record, I don't think a coach needs to display high energy on the sideline to be successful. Some do and are successful and some don't and are successful. There are some very successful coaches that many would label low energy out there in many different sports. It's also true that coaches, like all people, slow down with age so if one of your strengths as a coach was being high energy to motivate your players then that strength will diminish over time. It just happens that most coaches also develop many other skills over time that make the need to be high energy on the side line less significant.

What didn't matter? Maintaining relationships and keeping a connection to Buffalo? How can you turn around and say Buffalo is the place for you after that? I agree with your second comment about the employer. But it is also a reflection on the employer if they welcome that individual back. Especially when that individual is going around saying they have so many great offers that Buffalo would be lucky to have him.

That's the claim made by many when Oats left. People were saying that if Hodgson wasn't hired the whole team would transfer. They were wrong. I agree that it was time to move on from JW but it is crazy for anyone to think that his players didn't love playing for him and the UB rosters were stable and largely free from transfers because the players wanted to stay with him. JW likely would have had a higher performing team this year. I agree with that. But I also think it was time to move on. Though the process wasn't managed well because UB didn't understand the landscape and thought they had more to offer prospective coaches than they were actually willing to offer.

Hodgson didn't seem concerned about maintaining relationships when he was burning bridges. And I find your second comment funny. Jim Whitesell was the continuation of the Oats era. You're picking one data point--Hodgson--and saying that if he isn't given the job then UB is turning their back on their history? What an asinine comment. Clearly hyperbole.

You mean in the time between Oats sitting in the athletic department staff meeting and then when the meeting ended immediately putting in his resignation before heading to the airport? That is when Hodgson had the sit down to talk about his prospect of taking over Buffalo and learned he wasn't going to get the job? All before he joined Oats at the airport? I think you're off here. Why else would Hodgson have told recruits not to come to Buffalo if he doesn't get the job if he didn't believe he was going to get the job? Buffalo was blindsided by Oats' departure. There wasn't time to discuss the succession planning. You're mistaken and it always seems you're errors end up making Hodgson look better. Curious... when was the last time you communicated with Hodgson?

Potentially better results in year one doesn't mean its a better hire for the program. I am still of the opinion that Hodgson should not have been hired. And his performance at Arkansas State hasn't swayed my position. We have known he is a strong recruiter. That is why Oats felt it was so important to take him to Alabama on the private jet while he was still employed by Buffalo and have him talk with the players and recruits while in Tuscalusa. He has brought in talent to his new team but his team doesn't play well, just as @Tee4three has said. He has not shown he can coach and has spent hardly any time in his career coaching. He has always been a recruiter. We need a coach because we aren't going to be able to land and keep high level players in the program in the NIL era without looking the other way to behavior issues. The risk was too great with Hodgson. Did we end up with the right coach? We won't know for some time. It's possible the ship gets turned around but its also possible we missed and didn't get the right hire. Missing on a hire doesn't mean that Hodgson was the right hire. It just means he was one of many candidates that wasn't right for the job. Like @DocCas86said, someone like Ben McCollum is what the program needs. Someone who can coach the game really well, get the most out of their players, and also can convince players that though they have offers from programs at a higher level they should play for him. None of those qualities Hodgson has shown except for landing players with offers to other programs.

Remembered this article from last spring. Thought people might like it since it talks about Mid-Major NIL and gives some figures. https://www.on3.com/nil/news/nil-plays-role-in-michael-eleys-decision-to-stay-at-siena-saints-march-on-collective/

The question is what will be the new staff's strength? Recruiting isn't likely to be because there is no money to buy players and you have to buy players in this new era. This is why a lot of coaches passed over the UB job. They may have taken it a few years prior but now they need a budget to pay players. Which means UB needs to have someone that can coach up players. Nova did a great job of that so we hope to see that with the new staff. If we see progress throughout the season and the team is performing better come Feb and March then it will be a good foundation for the program moving forward.

Year one of a rebuild... Let's see how this team looks in February. Lets see what players coming in over the summer. The sky isn't always falling.

It may not have been an option within his contract. If his contact is specifically for the position of Head Coach of the program then moving him to another position would be a breach of contract. You can't simply require someone to do a different job they weren't hired to do when they have an employment contract specifying the job. Also, the NCAA will only permit one head coach of a program at a time. There must be one, and only one, designated head coach. So you would have to put off the new coach taking over for four weeks. When coaches move into an admin position, it is often based on a mutually benefitable agreement with the school--such as when the coach has really good relationships with donors that the school wants to retain and the coach doesn't want to relocate and is okay moving on from coaching.

This was a big issue and one of my major complaints. It was a complete mismanagement of the transition. It also displayed a huge misunderstanding of the coaching labor market. You only pay the elevated buyout if you need to move quickly to secure a coach that won't be on the market long. But we couldn't do that. And we couldn't do that because the job wasn't as appealing as the admin thought it would be. Coaching hires are not the main obligation of an AD and are done by committee with only a minority of the decision making coming from the AD. Though they tend to be given the credit and the blame for the hires since they are the ones that announce them and lead the department.

So now you agree that your figure for lower bowl seating was incorrect. Rather than continuing with the back and forth where you start counting each individual seat and validating a body in the seat, I have to again say... We are talking about UB Basketball here. My point is that Siena has more fan support. They get more buts in the seats than we get and they do it with an inferior product. Are you trying to dispute that and say that UB gets more fans at games than Siena?

Siena is an important model. I have often felt that our marketing and fan engagement has missed the mark. Why does Siena have so much support? It isn't simply the market. Because if that were the case then UAlbany would have a solid fan base. But they don't have the fan support in the same market. It ruffled some feathers when I pointed out Siena's level of fan support. But it is a reality. I don't believe there is any reason UB can't have that support. But our administrations have often thought in seasons rather than years. When you have aspirations of using UB as a stepping stone you think about short term wins. While this can be great for things like making bold coaching hires that can really pay off, it also often results in a lack of long term investment in the fan base. The reality is that you have to invest in your fan base and it is easier to do when you're at a school like Siena or St. Bona where a lot of people are intending to stay long term. At UB we get more ambitious professionals. And that can actually hold us back in some areas.

I honestly don't know. They moved out of their on campus arena around 97. They had some good runs around the early 2000s but haven't been good in a while. They should have been losing fans over the last ten years. They have not had anywhere near the success of UB and they have had much more coaching turn over. Their fans have been loyal. It probably helps that it is a quality arena. So having a comfortable viewing experience and full-time food vendors likely give a better experience than they would be able to provide in their own arena. The size of the venue and the ability to flex probably has been a real benefit too. Selling out a venue can actually hamper the fan experience by shutting would be fans out. They are able to flex their capacity by opening the upper level seating. So when there is a spike in draw they can accommodate those fans. It is likely that some of those fans will buy another ticket at another date due to the experience of the game they were able to get in to see. They clearly do a really good job of keeping their fans interested and invested. This was the point I was trying to make. While we want to excel and be playing in the NCAA tournament regularly, there has been a view expressed here often that if we aren't producing successful teams then we shouldn't expect people to come to the games. I believe that is wrong. It is a problem to over sell the success and make that the reason to attend games. You're telling your prospective customers that they should be coming because of the rare high level performance. People will naturally be drawn to that. You don't need to sell that. What you sell is why they should come to a game. Period. Why they should come when the team is playing Saint John Fischer. Why you should come when they are below .500. You sell the experience. You build a community around that experience. It is much easier to do this within a collegiate model than a pro-model because you have the identity with the school. This is the reason people were upset with the branding of "New York" as they saw Buffalo as the local and school brand. But you need to sell the importance of that. If the School is Buffalo and you value your affiliation with Buffalo then you don't need to be successful to be able to show up and support your team. Siena has found success with building a fan base that supports them even when they are not great. That's what we should have.

I told you, these are the permanent seats not the full lower bowl. I told you how you can get the actual figures. Get the MVP Arena promoters packet. It has full documentation that will tell you what I am saying is accurate. Since you didn't do that, I will do it for you. The below image is the recommended basketball seating configuration for MVP Arena from page 39 of the arena's promoter's packet. The seats in green are the permanent seats. The ones you were talking about being renovated. The seats in red as the expandable seats that augment the lower bowl's seating capacity and give flexibility to the arena's function. The back seats are additional floor seating that are added to the arena during basketball games. The green seats (~6,000) with the red seats (~1,250) and the black seats (~600) is a little shy of 8,000 lower bowl seats, as I said. Siena's basketball fan base is larger than Buffalo's. That is a fact. They draw more fans to their games regularly while being off campus and harder for students to get to the games. They also do it while putting an inferiors product on the floor. That is a testament to their fan base. You may see more bumper stickers on cars that say UAlbany than Siena but that would be expected given the massive size difference. That however does not have anything to do with the people who pay money and show up to watch the basketball teams compete. Siena has buts in the seats and those people pay for that privilege. They aren't getting tickets for free and showing up.

This is not correct and this source is what your whole premise is based on. These are lower bowl permanent seats. Do you think that the Arena has more upper deck seats than lower bowl seats? You really think an arena would be designed to put the majority of the fans in the upper deck? Do you honestly think that when you look at the arena pictures there are more seats in the upper deck than the lower bowl? For the basketball configuration there are expandable seats that pull out beyond the fixed permanent seats to expand the capacity. These are used in basketball and also used in ice hockey. It allows the arena to have a larger floor space for events like monster trucks or conventions. They also add floor seats for the basketball configuration making it have a greater seating capacity than ice hockey. The lower bowl is just shy of 8,000 capacity. You can request the Venue's promoter's packet if you don't believe me. You provided a lot of pictures of games and broke out your estimated attendance by section claiming that only about 70% of the seats were claimed in all of the lower bowl seats to try to say that Siena is lying about their numbers. Could you tell me what 70% of the actual lower bowl capacity which is a little shy of 8,000 would be? Seems to be right in line with their reported attendance figures for those games. Yes, you may have a game from time to time where the tickets sold result in a much higher attendance being reported than buts in the seats such as when there are snow storms. But Siena's figures are solid. They don't inflate their numbers. This is Siena's second best attended game last season when they hosted Iona. Yes, there were some empty seats around the arena in the lower bowl. But they also open sections of the upper decks to accommodate the increased capacity when needed, such as with this game. The reported attendance of 7,801 is consistent with the pictures. I am not really sure what your point in arguing all this is exactly... are you just trying to say that Siena doesn't have more fans that support their program than we do? Because that isn't debatable. They absolutely do.

Are you implying that their numbers are fabricated? That's not the case. The games you say are bad attendance are not bad in total numbers. They are just a low percentage of total capacity that makes them look bad. Similar to the Big Four games at Key Bank. They have solid attendance compared to Big Four home venues but look empty in comparison to the large arena. As you have said, MVP Arena in Albany is about the same size as Key Bank Arena. So use those comparisons as a baseline. This is the actual attendance of the game you say is good attendance for Siena. The Upper Section is open and the Arena is at 2/3 capacity. Compared to our 2016 Big Four game at Key Bank Arena here: The thing is that the attendance was actually strong in total numbers at Key Bank that day. The problem is the venue is massive. So while only about 1/3 of the capacity was filled, the number of people in attendance would have rivaled a sellout at Alumni Arena. For comparison, here is a game you said is bad attendance for Siena. This was their lowest attendance of the year (Army West Point): This game where the attendance was so poor, as you say, is still really strong attendance. One third of the arena is filled with fans in the end-zones and filled along the sidelines on the lower bowl. It is their worst attendance of the year and it would be a packed Alumni Arena. The game that you say is good attendance (UAlbany) would have filled two Alumni Arenas. While the game you said was poor attendance on a weeknight would have been a packed Alumni Arena. Siena's strong fan base is the reason the MAAC has held the conference tournament in Albany so many times in the last 20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAAC_men's_basketball_tournament#List_of_finals Siena has a much stronger fan base than we do. And they do it without an on-campus arena.

These comments always annoy me. It's akin to saying "No one comes to our games because they have better things to do." Also, it is out of touch. St Bona doesn't have a well resourced program and solid fan base because of the Olean community. The majority of their season ticket holders live over an hour away from Olean and their biggest donors are nowhere near Olean. Their former AD even lived in East Aurora, just 25 miles from Alumni arena and 60 miles from SBU's campus. And this made sense due to so much time spent with the Buffalo arena alumni that support the program. St Bona gets big games in NYC for instance because they sell tickets. They have fans down there that come out. There is a basketball culture. That culture starts with the students. And those students become alums. If you need to be having national success to get people interested in your program you don't have a fan base you just have bandwagoners. Look at Siena, they are horrible. But they have a huge fan base. Imagine if they were actually any good. https://sienasaints.com/news/2022/10/27/mens-basketball-siena-basketball-leads-northeast-mid-majors-in-attendance-for-second-straight-time.aspx UB tries to sell to the community like they are a pro sports franchise but that won't work. It needs to be a grassroots educational community model.