dutchcountry7

Nothing changed. Everything I said there is a fact. And Whitesell was the correct hire for UB at the time given the field of candidates and dynamics within the program. I know you want to beat the dead horse that your buddy Hodgeson should have got the job but it was the correct decision to not hire him. That hasn't changed. Curious you dig up this old comment and want to circle back on it. Is it your attempt to discredit me after I posted the following about your boy? There is a reason not one write up about the hiring at Arkansas State has mentioned player development or game management. It's all about recruiting. And recruiting (as in keeping the team together) is what Whitesell accomplished when he given the head coach position. His teams did not reach their potential but the more important thing is that the program didn't experience a freefall and mass rebuild after Oats left and his recruiter told the players UB recruited to go elsewhere. A freefall and mass rebuild is the norm when losing a coach of Oat's caliber. The fact the team didn't have a mass exodus of players is significant. Whitesell's KenPom and winning percentage in his first three years are indicative of the stability he brought to the program (2020: #148/.625; 2021: #77/.640; 2022: #130/.633). This year was the drop off (#211/.469) and the admin made the change based on that fact. Everyone's criticism is that Whitesell didn't do enough with the players he had. But somehow people think hiring a recruiter with basically no applicable coaching experience is a panacea?

You're right. Under normal situations... Both of Alabama's assistants interviewing during their tournament run is because Alabama is cleaning house due to the PR issues of their murder. As a result, the staff members responsible for recruiting and monitoring the activities of the players have been asked to seek other employment. They will be supported as they move on if they move on willingly. This allows Oats and the administration to point to the changes when supporters question the program. "We made changes to address the culture problem." They are keeping them on to not disrupt the tournament run, which is also why they never too action against the players and treated it like it wasn't a big deal. Yes, probably. Correct. You take what you can get when you need to move quickly.

Basically all state school coaches have a similar base salary. Calipari's base salary at Kentucky is $400,000 a year. Coach_John_Calipari_Contract.pdf The base salary is what state benefits are based off and keeps coaches on the men's and women's sides in compliance with Title IX. The majority of the compensation is from additional sources like media and endorsements guaranteed by the school. Kentucky gives Cal $8 Million a year for his "media" appearances for the team. UMass and UB pay their coaches similar from the state employee standpoint. But the UB basketball media contract is pretty worthless. We are paid in "exposure" with our Friday night ESPN2 MACtion.

The MAC average is nowhere near $700k.

Who knows… The whole thing doesn’t make much sense.

Sounds like leaving the state violated his release. The game was at TCU.

They were negotiating the payout that would be given. CMU is not getting the payout that was due to the ACC but it will undoubtedly be better than the Arizona Bowl. It’s possible they had to pay the Arizona Bowl to be released as well.

Your comment and this thread made me think of this one... Thought I would share since we all could probably benefit from some levity in the discussion here.

Getting bought is not the same as getting home/home deals. If you want to ignore the value of home games, I guess you could argue the SWAC builds the best schedules out of all the conferences…

Top-100 team. Winning record. 75% of losses by one possession. Top ranked team in the conference. You can be disappointed and want more but those are not bad results. I can assure you that the programs you want to schedule in the future and the events that you want the team to get invited to are looking at those results and are confident that UB is a solid program. A conferences are not judged by how good the top team is in the conference. The metric most commonly used by programs for ballparking competitive level is KenPom. It's an easy metric for people to follow and is made public. Power Conference teams tend to look at the number of Top-100 teams in a conference when judging the strength of the conference. Mid-Majors tend to look at the number of Top-150 teams. When you're talking about at-large bid teams they aren't judged by their conference but by their own merit. This is a point many people don't seem to understand. Gonzaga isn't considered a WCC team. They are simply considered a Top-20 team which is why they can get good games. The reason conferences are considered by these levels is because this is what teams in those tiers consider acceptable challenging games. You're focused on a team like Iona and think that they dictate the strength of the conference. They don't. No one who does scheduling and considers conference strength looks at conferences that way. They look at the MAAC and see that there are two teams in the Top-150 which means that winning the regular season or conference tournament means those are your challengers. They look at the MAC and see that there are five teams in that range that could challenge. Yes, upsets by teams outside of that range happen but the The MAC is considered significantly better than the MAAC. I am sure that doesn't make much sense but it is important to remember that MTEs are often scheduled blind. We played in the Cancun Challenge this year so I will give that as an example. We committed to play in the event, not to play against any specific teams. The event coordinator has complete control over the assignment of games and selection of teams. But what they do communicate are the conferences they are working with and negotiating with. It is common for events to work with the same tier of teams every year. We were likely told that they were in talks with also securing a team from the Atlantic 10, CUSA, Southland, Missouri Valley Conference. So while we didn't know the teams we would play we had an idea of the tier of the team and the type of teams that they would be accustomed to playing during the year. We ended up in a bracket with Saint Louis from the Atlantic 10 (who we didn't play), and played games against Illinois State (MVC) and SF Austin (who moved to the WAC). The Southland team was better than we might have thought as they were the flagship of the Southland before moving to the WAC. Illinois State was below what we would expect from the MVC but Saint Louis is one of the best programs in the Atlantic 10. The MAC does significantly better scheduling than the MAAC. The MAAC has to sponsor their own events which is how they get into events like the Gotham Classic and Orlando Invitational. The MAAC sponsors those and puts money into them. The MAC doesn't sponsor any events but we get invites. Yes, there is no reason to act. In the last 15 years Buffalo, despite having four different head coaches the team has only been outside the top-150 two times, with the most recent time being 10 years ago, in 2003. The program has remained in the level that mid-majors consider a strong and stable program--regularly inside the top-100. The equation now is very different than it was just a few years ago. This is why we are just now getting good games. UC Irvine, North Texas, Western Kentucky are big games. Those are solid teams that Hurley and Oats could not get scheduled. They were not able to schedule anticipated top-100 teams. And we've won those games and done it on the road. Mid-majors struggle with scheduling because of the risk of turmoil. So few programs sustain success. The boom and bust cycle is common in mid-majors. Many mid-majors find success but very few of them sustain it at a conference level let alone at a national level (as judged by overall rank among D1 programs). Stability long term is the sign of a strong program--which is very different than a strong team which is more fleeting. This is what makes a job attractive. And the job wasn't as attractive as many think when Oats left. There were a lot of coaches that were skittish about UB. School with competing football interest... located in a location that doesn't have local recruits so you have to travel for recruits... Mid-major with a mid-major budget but one of the better mid-major conferences so can be tougher to get to the NCAA tournament which is the easiest way to attract power conference offers... The high expectations after following Oats which makes it hard for a coach to be viewed as a success and can stunt a career for a young motivated coach looking to rise through the ranks. (Which is exactly what we are seeing in this discussion.) It was understood by many candidates that they would struggle to keep the team together as it was the first off season with the new transfer portal that made it much easier for kids looking to transfer to find quality suitors. and the talented Mid-Major players were expected to be very valuable for power conference teams looking to fill holes in their lineup. Now, I want to preface this by saying that I don't accept the premise that the program is destined for failure but I think it is is important to discuss contingencies when you are assessing risk and looking at possible outcomes. This is a worthy discussion. Every coach and every program can have bad games and bad seasons. The program is one of the better mid-major programs. But if the program were to struggle the next few years (for more than a year) then there is no doubt a change would be made. But at that point, there would be a lot more interest in the position. The track record of success through four coaches, the ability to keep players from transferring out in the modern area, the ability to schedule quality teams and getting considered for quality events, and not following one of the top coaches in college basketball but rather being viewed as someone to save the program is a much more welcoming environment for a coach.

Yes. Danny White has had an amazing eye for hires. Which is why he has been poached away by both of his last two jobs. This was his strength. But it is also like saying Nate Oats built a top-20 program at Buffalo so that should be expected of every coach. The skill that White had was not in finding the best coach but in finding the best coach for a specific program. Some coaches don't work at certain schools and in certain environments. White did well here. He was like Oats in his ability to perform in that regard. I have a lot of criticisms of Danny White as an athletic director at UB. (Which I have shared and there is no point in rehashing.) But he has shown to be a rockstar in his hiring of coaches. Honestly, he is probably better suited in leading a search firm to find head coaches. He would could be paid handsomely and would knock it out of the park. White has a rare talent. Which is why he is being paid $2 Million a year by Tennessee. Pointing to him is like pointing to Jack Welch, Lee Iacocca, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, or Elon Musk and saying: "We just need to hire a CEO like those companies had." Simple enough, right?

You're mistaken.

Come with evidence. Name the mid-major programs that had success leading to their head coach being poached, and continued that success through an outside hire. I want the evidence to support this claim that is made around here and seems to be widely accepted.

Again, you're wrong on so many accounts. I have no doubt you talk to some people at Ohio and UB. That doesn't mean you have an understanding of the situations. And you're wrong about me.

Yes. They would have left. It was well discussed. The kids get to pick their coach and program by transferring. So they each could find the perfect situation for themselves. With each transfer out there is an exponentially higher probability of others leaving. No one wants to be the one staying around in a rebuild. You think that a new coach can put on a sales pitch and convince them that he is the best one to lead them. But if they are listening to sales pitches they open it up to hear from everyone. The whole team bought in on Whitesell. He is the reason they are still around. It isn't because they love the UB campus, the weather, the food, or whatever attribute we want to try to claim keeps kids around. Personal relationships are the biggest selling point.

This comment really struck me. It's still mind blowing to me that we have a team that is a legitimate contender for an NIT at-large bid right now and people act like the program is dead. We literally have, and have had, a better team than Bobby Hurley has at Arizona State... And somehow we think going out and finding another coach like him would be a panacea that ensures we don't have the feeling we have right now following the loss. Either you think that Buffalo is a better job than Arizona State or even Bobby Hurley isn't able to sustain the success we like to attribute to Bubbly Hurley. Either way, I think it is telling.

Yeah, you said: "Hindsight, would you have taken a mediocre, retread head coach guaranteed to have a young talented roster or taken a risk on a highly motivated, talented young coach with unknowns regarding your team?" But you don't give the name of the candidate. You're living in a fantasy land. You're saying: "While we are disappointed if the loss(es) we have, would you rather have this feeling or would you have rather have a coach from the blue ocean of options who will undoubtedly have all the virtues you want in a coach." You're weighing a known quantity to an imaginary figure. Name the specific coach that you believe we were able to hire who you wanted at the time.

Again, that's the point. Landing a solid outside hire is rare. Everyone plans for an improvement when they go outside and most programs do not land a great hire that is "better than should be at their program" which are the coaches that get hired away. You're using the rare success as proof that UB does it. But the only thing that is more rare than making a great "homerun" hire is doing it back to back. I know you think that we are a destination job and we thought so too. We thought as an AAU member, state flagship, recent history of success, and being in a respected conference that we would be able to go outside and find a great hire. That's why we engaged a firm. And after the due diligence, there weren't options available that felt like they were a slam dunk or would provide the spark needed to win over the team. It was clear it would be a rebuild if we went outside and it wouldn't be with a coach that would be expected to have a quick turnaround due to their name recognition. This is why the program made the wise decision to go with an internal hire. UB is a strong program and one of the best in the MAC--a strong conference. I know we have had some losses that we don't want to see but that doesn't change the calculus. We are in a better position as a result. If the program is unable to reload in the next year or two then we would look for a change but the hire has been successful and it has helped make the program more attractive. The reality is that the job will be more desirable for the next hire than it was when Whitesell was hired. It doesn't matter if that hire happens in two years or ten years. It will be more desirable because the success will be through three separate head coaches. And if it is in 10 years it would mean that the program continues to perform well and the staff reloads. This would not have been true if we went outside, lost all the players, had a few subpar seasons while trying to rebuild and peaked as a middling MAC team before we parted ways with the outside hire. The hire was absolutely the right move. And the constant desire to live in the past and rehash the possibilities and dreams of making the perfect hire undermines the program. The "want to be more" refrain and acting like you need to make irrational risks to be great is a sign of someone that doesn't believe the program is actually good. When you feel like the only way to succeed is to engage in risky behavior is a tell-tale sign that you don't actually believe the program is positioned to succeed on its own merits. It is the admission that you're willing to take long shots that have a high probability of failure in hopes of hitting it big. That isn't a strategy and it isn't how you build a program. The athletic department made the investment. They engaged an outside firm to put additional resources into the search to be able to turn up any and all possible candidates. They made the investment to find the best option and put in an extensive search. And after making that investment they made the wise decision to go with an internal hire. People like to act like that is a sign of a failure but it was a very wise decision and showed great strength by the athletic department. The easy thing to do would be to make a hire from the outside pool of candidates. There was a pressure to justify the spending on the search firm and this is something some here like to complain about. But the sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy for a reason. You're not merely paying to find an outside hire. You're paying to have a better understanding of where your program sits in the marketplace and how your internal candidate compares to options you may not have known were options. The fact that they engaged the search firm, interviewed candidates, discussed compensation, and weighted expected benefits (and risks) of hires and then decided to not use any of the candidates they were able to generate through the firm shows that the due diligence was performed properly and all of the factors were considered. It would be easy to feel like you had to justify the search firm and their expense and by default had to settle for a candidate through that process. But that is how a program that isn't willing to invest operates. The risk assessment is how you win long term. This is no different than business or investments. The ones that can't accurately price in risk are the ones that aren't around long term. UB needs to build for the long term. There are many programs with successful coaches hired away that don't keep the success going. The programs that keep the success going are the rare ones. The ones that are gutted and rebuild are the norm.

This is rose tinted glasses for sure. What program has reloaded in a situation like the one you described? Maybe VCU who pays coaches four times what UB does every time they have a coaching change? Youre not seeing ModMajors make a smooth transition with an outside hire. That doesn’t happen. The programs that have had smooth transitions have always come from internal hires. Which is how Oats was hired. Outside hires rarely work out for mid majors. There is a reason so few midmajors have success despite there being so many coaches hired each year. It’s a long shot to attract the diamond in the rough. But when you have a successful program often a big reason for that is not merely who was the head coach but the composition of the staff which is much more elite than the peers.

Duquesne beat UCI by 22…

All sited COVID: Ohio State has pulled out of playing Kentucky in Vegas Seton Hall has pulled out of playing Iona at MSG Penn State has pulled out of playing at VCU There will be more.

This is a very big game. UCI should be a tournament team and could win a first round game. They are solid which is why they went looking to play good teams like us.

UCI is playing Duquesne in Akron. It is a neutral site game.

I have observed that the Canisius crowd puts a really big emphasis on the Big Four games. They really want to win those games. They don’t seem to care too much about games with Youngstown State and the like but the Big Four matter to them. Canisius always seems to play us and St Bona tough. I really think they spend a lot more time preparing for us than they do most games. I am sure they have watched a ton of film on us over the summer. This is not a game to be taken lightly. Why wouldn’t it be a game Reggie wants to win more than others?

I think they mean Alumni Arena and not WNY…