Jim Whitesell and UB Part Ways

[Big 4 Hoops Blogger]

2 hours ago, dutchcountry7 said:

What isn't mentioned here is that the last two coaches have worked out and jumped to bigger jobs.  Every time there is a coaching change there is a lot of turmoil and typically a set back.  

People here are complaining about not Whitesell not being Oats.  But we can't afford an Oats.  So what do we expect?  Top-100 teams is a reasonable target for the program.  NCAA bids is reasonable.  But complaining that your coach isn't some other elite coach doesn't make any sense.  

The players wanted Whitesell hired.  This is the modern transfer era where players bolt every year to a new program.  They all stayed because he was their guy.  People like to talk about the young kid that brought the recruits in but these recruits were committed to Whitesell which is why they are still here after those other guys left.

Going outside and making a new hire was a risky proposition and not one guaranteed to pay off.  

We need stability and a dependably strong program.  That is what gets you midmajor respect and gets you better games.  When teams know that you will always be a top-100 team they will schedule you.  But if they think your coach is about to be hired away you're not getting games.

People forget that Oats couldn't land home/home series--not even with midmajors.   We had to play Southern Illinois in a in-season home/home because no one believed that Oats would be there the next year.  When they tried to schedule games all teams heard was "Come to Buffalo and play our top-20 team and then next year after I leave and all our players transfer out we will send a rebuilding sub 200 team to your place."  No one wanted to schedule that.

And we did not have that regression.  The teams that believed Oats was on his way out were right.  They were right not to schedule us.  The teams that believed the team would fall off were wrong because we had a mentor for the players that they wanted to play for.  They didn't bolt to other programs like you see at programs all around the country.

The program is in a good spot. 

It is asinine to me that people compare the previous coach to the current coach.  One is being paid 10x the other for a reason. 

I don't believe in gambling to try to find the rare next top coach and have him lead the program for five years until their are poaches away and the cycle starts again.  Hiring involves too much risk to want to gamble like that.  If we are a dependable top-100 program knocking on the door of the NCAA every year then we are establishing a program that when the time comes for a coaching change we will have a lot of talented applicants with an established fan base, history of good scheduling, and long track record of success.

I want the program to be in a great spot in 10 or 20 years.  I don't want us to be talking about the coaches that have left us and in another rebuild. 

*Speaking on behalf of others*

I think the frustration for many is that they heard Nate Oats “talk the talk” and are disappointed the athletic department didn’t follow suit, instead opting for the cheapest, safest option to keep their roster in place. Obviously, we understand why they went that route.

Although extremely difficult, people have seen programs like Butler and Loyola elevate their brands in short time and in Butler’s situation, with multiple different coaches (mostly internal promotions) and were hoping UB would get an added boost beyond consistently being a top 100 team (which is easier said than done).

in the past 15 years we’ve seen Davidson, George Mason, VCU, Loyola, Butler, St. Mary’s, San Diego State, Creighton, and Wichita State all elevate their programs to A10 level status or better.

Whether realistic or not, I think many were hoping UB would develop into one of those type of programs with the athletic department deciding to be more aggressive and capitalizing off of winning NCAA Tournament games in back-to-back years. I think many were expecting to become a consistent top 75 team with special years elevating them to even higher levels.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Big 4 Hoops Blogger

[Big 4 Hoops Blogger]

The UB program is still in a great spot and has the potential to be solid for years to come. Taking the long term approach could work out in their favor and make financial sense.

But with that said, it still feels like the last few years have presented a missed opportunity.

Fundraising and increasing their budget will be key if they ever want to be a “player” on a grander scale. Being a consistent top 100 team is a great goal for a MAC program but I think many on this board were hoping for more.

Considering the apathy the Buffalo community has for UB athletics, the only real way the Bulls will ever generate consistent fan interest is by taking a step forward performance-wise on a yearly basis. It sucks but that’s the reality.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Big 4 Hoops Blogger

[121Merrimac]

9 minutes ago, Big 4 Hoops Blogger said:

… instead opting for the cheapest, safest option …

… or, the option they could afford.  Their budget is not unlimited.   Everyone wants a better coach.  Few are willing to help provide for that investment.  

[Big 4 Hoops Blogger]

32 minutes ago, 121Merrimac said:

… or, the option they could afford.  Their budget is not unlimited.   Everyone wants a better coach.  Few are willing to help provide for that investment.  

I believe this part is incorrect. Nate Oats signed an extension with UB worth $831,000 per year. Jim Whitesell was hired shortly after and gets paid $361,000 per year according to his wiki page. Other articles mention a $300,000 base salary and up to $100,000 in annual additional compensation.

Plus, UB had the buy-out money from Oats bolting from Alabama. I also know there was a group of boosters willing to donate a high sum to increase Oats extension beyond what it was reported at.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Big 4 Hoops Blogger

[121Merrimac]

5 minutes ago, Big 4 Hoops Blogger said:

This part is incorrect. …

I think to some part, this is opinion.  I know that there was some money for Oats potential salary, but I also think that the school might dismiss that as an outlier, and put more trust in the longer term, or historical average donations. 

[Big 4 Hoops Blogger]

1 minute ago, 121Merrimac said:

I think to some part, this is opinion.  I know that there was some money for Oats potential salary, but I also think that the school might dismiss that as an outlier, and put more trust in the longer term, or historical average donations. 

That’s fair. Didn’t think of it that way.

Obviously, they were going to be more aggressive with Oats than anyone else. All of the candidates that the search firm recommended would’ve come with larger price tags than what Jim Whitesell ended up taking in my opinion.

[squire17]

Re UB men’s BB scheduling (rank is final kenpom for that year other than 2022, for which rank is current):

2016 (Oats): Old Dominion (100), St Joseph’s (43), St Bona (89), Duke (17), Iowa St (20), VCU (31)…UB lost to all but won the MAC and played well in the NCAAs

2017 (Oats): Xavier (31), Nevada (54), Creighton (28), St Bona (91), Pittsburgh (79)…UB lost to all and lost to MAC champ Kent St

2018 (Oats): Cincinnati (4), S Dakota St (78), St Bona (68), Syracuse (41), Texas A&M (29)…UB lost to all but won MAC and trounced Arizona in NCAAs

2019 (Oats): West Virginia (95), San Francisco (67), Syracuse (39), Marquette (33)…UB beat all but Marquette, won the MAC, trounced Arizona St in NCAAs, and lost to runner-up Texas Tech

2022 (Whitesell): Michigan (10), St Bona (42), UC Irvine (92)…so far lost two games

Other than MAC opponents or 2 wins in the NCAAs, UB’s record against top 100 ranked teams is 3-19 in what most would consider the best stretch of their men’s basketball’s program’s history. My point is that I love that UB was playing against top programs, and playing competitively in most of those games. This year is a step down as far as scheduling is concerned. This is what concerns me…pretending to be striving for relevance, but falling well short. If you only play mid level opponents, there is no way you can expect to be viewed as a serious program. The overwhelming majority of the games played against the teams mentioned above were AWAY games. If that’s all you can get, then take it. 
 
This is not a knock on Whitesell or the current players. 

[121Merrimac]

1 minute ago, Big 4 Hoops Blogger said:

That’s fair. Didn’t think of it that way. …

I appreciate your point of view too.  If a couple donors were willing to help support Oats, maybe they would be willing to support another, future winning coach.  Historical trends are meant to be broken, it could happen. 

[UBminicre]

I have never commented on Whitesell until Bonnie’s loss. When we signed him, I was happy because the team wanted him and they all stayed. To me that was the clear choice given the success we were coming off of and knowing we had graves, Williams and segu in the pipe (+ Jordan and mballa).
 

My expectations were high, probably too high, but I was severely disappointed in what I perceived to be a regression in Graves (who I thought would turn out to be the best player in UB history). 2019.20 flamed out of first round of MAC playoff against (12) Miami Ohio? Fast forward to 20.21, flamed out in MAC championship and lost 1st game in tough battle in NIT. Fine.

2022, I had high hopes again with the development of Williams and segu and the excitement of mballa sticking around off of a very strong showing. I’d feel far better right now if we won one of sfa or Bonnie’s. It hasn’t happened- that’s one thing. What really irks me is the fact that almost all the real games we have serious lapses and consistency issues for 20-30 minutes. We always catch fire for 10 and get back in it which is good. However, I begin to wonder is there a coaching issue with this extreme volatility in play. Further, I see again guys like Williams and mballa who have a world of talent potentially not hitting those marks. I am not trying to downplay what Williams has done, he’s filling the stat sheet and keeping us in a lot of games when we are down an out, but I think he expects more of himself. Pairing this with graves, again I begin to wonder is it our coaching?

Last and most daunting to me, I have no idea who will lead our team to a top 100 rank going forward. For the first time in a long time I look at our roster and I don’t see it. That’s after 3 years which is usually the runway a coach needs to get his guys in. Now, perhaps whitesell has an ace up his sleeve or is going to do some master JUCO work but I’m worried. Pair that with the fact that all the players I expected to keep us highly competitive beyond just top 80 rank and losing mac tourney games were all from the oats era. All of them! 

That is why, for the first time, I am raising the flag of concern here. I hope I am wrong. I agree that it’s likely whitesell has at least 1-2 years to prove himself. I hope we don’t regress too much further and we get lighting from somewhere. But until proven differently,   I am concerned we are about to squander the last relics of the best run in UB history. And for those who disagree, that is okay, but don’t write off our very real concerns as just negative Nancy bitching. 
 

BTW, I like where this conversation went. I think it was constructive and is allowing the negative people like me and the positive people to reconcile a bit. We obviously all care for the team or we wouldn’t waste our time. I think big 4 hoops blogger was spot on with why we are all over the place.

[dutchcountry7]

8 hours ago, Big 4 Hoops Blogger said:

Nate Oats signed an extension with UB worth $831,000 per year.

That extension was contingent on fundraising to cover a portion of the increase through an incentive.

It was to signal a commitment to the coach but was not guaranteed.
 

Do you think the athletic department has the money and is simply choosing not to spend it to be successful?   That seems to be your claim. 

[UBminicre]

1 hour ago, dutchcountry7 said:

That extension was contingent on fundraising to cover a portion of the increase through an incentive.

It was to signal a commitment to the coach but was not guaranteed.
 

Do you think the athletic department has the money and is simply choosing not to spend it to be successful?   That seems to be your claim. 

I am not even sure why the money is relevant in this particular conversation. I understand that the more we can spend, in theory, the better coach we can hire. But spending a low amount doesn’t mean we can’t catch lighting in a bottle. In fact we usually always do… at a lower pay scale. Then they earn up. Either way, I don’t hold it against whitesell that he was cheaper to bring in. I also don’t fault UB for picking the cheaper candidate who was able to keep the very talented young squad together. 

[Big 4 Hoops Blogger]

2 hours ago, dutchcountry7 said:

That extension was contingent on fundraising to cover a portion of the increase through an incentive.

It was to signal a commitment to the coach but was not guaranteed.
 

Do you think the athletic department has the money and is simply choosing not to spend it to be successful?   That seems to be your claim. 

I’ve had specific sources talk to me about the subject so I’m confident there were alternative options. The fundraising part was obviously massive. The question is how hard UB actually pursued their options?

Another question would be: Why did they go out and pay for a search firm that recommended coaches most likely demanding $500,000+ a year instead of hiring their internal candidate that they could’ve extended right away if that was truly the direction they wanted, could afford and would keep the team together?

Like I said earlier, it is what it is. I don’t hate Whitesell and want him to be successful at UB. I understand the logic of why he was hired and what he brings to the table.

I’m just explaining that both sides of the conversation have legitimate points and that hiring Whitesell wasn’t as simple as many have made it seem.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Big 4 Hoops Blogger

[Big 4 Hoops Blogger]

2 hours ago, dutchcountry7 said:

That extension was contingent on fundraising to cover a portion of the increase through an incentive.

It was to signal a commitment to the coach but was not guaranteed.
 

Do you think the athletic department has the money and is simply choosing not to spend it to be successful?   That seems to be your claim. 

A successful athletics department doesn’t just run the programs at a school. The best are also great at raising money.

Alnutt has been able to do that for football. The question is, was he successful at capitalizing off of basketball’s success following their Top 25 season?

This is where Whitesell and all of this enters the equation. If he’s all that they could afford, that means they barely elevated themselves from a budget perspective following four NCAA Tournament seasons in 5 years which seems hard to believe. If that is the case, fine but then you’d have to question how they weren’t able to raise more money for basketball after increasing community interest.

Truth is, we’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe, UB takes off again this year in MAC play and Whitesell brings them back or maybe they’ll flop and we’ll be saying “what if” but we’ll all be pointing to the day Whitesell was hired as the turning point of the program.

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Big 4 Hoops Blogger

[Jeseph]

17 minutes ago, Big 4 Hoops Blogger said:

A successful athletics department doesn’t just run the programs at a school. The best are also great at raising money.

Alnutt has been able to do that for football. The question is, was he successful at capitalizing off of basketball’s success following their Top 25 season?

This is where Whitesell and all of this enters the equation. If he’s all that they could afford, that means they barely elevated themselves from a budget perspective following four NCAA Tournament seasons in 5 years which seems hard to believe. If that is the case, fine but then you’d have to question how they weren’t able to raise more money for basketball after increasing community interest.

Truth is, we’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe, UB takes off again this year in MAC play and Whitesell brings them back or maybe they’ll flop and we’ll be saying “what if” but we’ll all be pointing to the day Whitesell was hired as the turning point of the program.

 

They "put up the money" for an Oats extension. I'm sure there were donors ear-marking funds for that but I'd assume the money they saved on the JW promotion was just re-appropriated away from Men's Hoops.

[mikescherrer8]

11 hours ago, 121Merrimac said:

I appreciate your point of view too.  If a couple donors were willing to help support Oats, maybe they would be willing to support another, future winning coach.  Historical trends are meant to be broken, it could happen. 

I would have preferred a donation to Oats’ salary, versus say, a field house for the football team.

[dutchcountry7]

1 hour ago, Big 4 Hoops Blogger said:

A successful athletics department doesn’t just run the programs at a school. The best are also great at raising money.

Alnutt has been able to do that for football. The question is, was he successful at capitalizing off of basketball’s success following their Top 25 season?

This is where Whitesell and all of this enters the equation. If he’s all that they could afford, that means they barely elevated themselves from a budget perspective following four NCAA Tournament seasons in 5 years which seems hard to believe. If that is the case, fine but then you’d have to question how they weren’t able to raise more money for basketball after increasing community interest.

Truth is, we’ll have to wait and see what happens. Maybe, UB takes off again this year in MAC play and Whitesell brings them back or maybe they’ll flop and we’ll be saying “what if” but we’ll all be pointing to the day Whitesell was hired as the turning point of the program.

 

You seem to be under the assumption that each sport is a silo with their own boosters, revenue, and budgets.  

 

That is not accurate. 

 

Each sport has an allocated annual budget and within that manages their own expenses.  

 

At a higher level, the athletic department manages each sport, overall fundraising, management of resource allocation based on changes in year to year needs, and overall revenue. 

 

Most sports are going to the same well for funding. You see the same top donors giving to women’s basketball, football, etc.   It is the job of the athletic department leadership to prioritize the focus of these fundraising initiatives to best ensure that the overall athletic department is successful and moves forward toward their goals. 

 

When we had a coach that the market was willing to pay 10x what we were paying because he produced a top-20 level team, it made sense to allocate resources to that.  But that was not intended to be the focus.  The focus at the time was infrastructure like the football field house.  The admin pivoted because we found ourself with something else that could be a better short term investment that could lead to even more future progress for the athletic department as a whole. 

 

It didn’t make sense to ask the donors that were willing to fund the old staff and ask them to fund a multi-year contract for an unknown coach who we didn’t know would work out.  

 

When we lost that “pleasant surprise” of the old staff the wise thing to do was stay the course.  

 

The football field house still needs more funding.  The financing weighs on the athletic department budget and it prevents the athletic department from having flexibility in their scheduling and to be nimble due to a lack of financial flexibility.  

 

What the overall athletic department needed (and still needs) is stability without a drop off.  Big declines in athletic performance due to rebuilds caused by coaches leaving and players leaving set athletic departments back significantly.  

 

We are not in a position to be able to buy out a coach for a poor performance.  No one thinks they will hire a coach that fails. 

 

The very real possibility was that we made the investment into hiring a new coach funded not by actual athletic department revenue but by short term donor funding—like we were planning to do with the old staff—and we are left paying $600,000 a year for a coach, who regresses as players transfer out, then he has to bring in his own players to fit his own system and by year five we have a coach with two winning seasons.  Or even worse we have fans on here asking why we aren’t buying out the contract to fire the coach for taking our great program and running it into the ground. 

 

That is a common midmajor coach getting poached scenario that plays out. 

 

And if that happens we lose the trust of the donors.  We took their money, gave it to an employee who didn’t deliver and have nothing to show for it.  

 

If we could keep the old staff for that money then it made sense to spend the money to keep the winning program in place.  That was a low risk move. 

 

But if there was going to be a complete change in the program then it didn’t make sense to use the limited donor resources on a high risk gamble.  It made much more sense to invest into things like infrastructure that will benefit the athletic program as a whole and will persist for years to come no matter what personnel are in place.  

 

People don’t realize how little revenue came in and continued to come in from the 2019 run.  

[dutchcountry7]

1 hour ago, Big 4 Hoops Blogger said:

Another question would be: Why did they go out and pay for a search firm that recommended coaches most likely demanding $500,000+ a year instead of hiring their internal candidate that they could’ve extended right away if that was truly the direction they wanted, could afford and would keep the team together?

The feedback from the market was not what Bulls fans think it is.  The job isn’t as prized as we think it would be. As a result the coaches were higher risk and at the same time the meetings with players made clear who they wanted.  

[Big 4 Hoops Blogger]

1 hour ago, dutchcountry7 said:

You seem to be under the assumption that each sport is a silo with their own boosters, revenue, and budgets.  

 

That is not accurate. 

 

Each sport has an allocated annual budget and within that manages their own expenses.  

 

At a higher level, the athletic department manages each sport, overall fundraising, management of resource allocation based on changes in year to year needs, and overall revenue. 

 

Most sports are going to the same well for funding. You see the same top donors giving to women’s basketball, football, etc.   It is the job of the athletic department leadership to prioritize the focus of these fundraising initiatives to best ensure that the overall athletic department is successful and moves forward toward their goals. 

 

When we had a coach that the market was willing to pay 10x what we were paying because he produced a top-20 level team, it made sense to allocate resources to that.  But that was not intended to be the focus.  The focus at the time was infrastructure like the football field house.  The admin pivoted because we found ourself with something else that could be a better short term investment that could lead to even more future progress for the athletic department as a whole. 

 

It didn’t make sense to ask the donors that were willing to fund the old staff and ask them to fund a multi-year contract for an unknown coach who we didn’t know would work out.  

 

When we lost that “pleasant surprise” of the old staff the wise thing to do was stay the course.  

 

The football field house still needs more funding.  The financing weighs on the athletic department budget and it prevents the athletic department from having flexibility in their scheduling and to be nimble due to a lack of financial flexibility.  

 

What the overall athletic department needed (and still needs) is stability without a drop off.  Big declines in athletic performance due to rebuilds caused by coaches leaving and players leaving set athletic departments back significantly.  

 

We are not in a position to be able to buy out a coach for a poor performance.  No one thinks they will hire a coach that fails. 

 

The very real possibility was that we made the investment into hiring a new coach funded not by actual athletic department revenue but by short term donor funding—like we were planning to do with the old staff—and we are left paying $600,000 a year for a coach, who regresses as players transfer out, then he has to bring in his own players to fit his own system and by year five we have a coach with two winning seasons.  Or even worse we have fans on here asking why we aren’t buying out the contract to fire the coach for taking our great program and running it into the ground. 

 

That is a common midmajor coach getting poached scenario that plays out. 

 

And if that happens we lose the trust of the donors.  We took their money, gave it to an employee who didn’t deliver and have nothing to show for it.  

 

If we could keep the old staff for that money then it made sense to spend the money to keep the winning program in place.  That was a low risk move. 

 

But if there was going to be a complete change in the program then it didn’t make sense to use the limited donor resources on a high risk gamble.  It made much more sense to invest into things like infrastructure that will benefit the athletic program as a whole and will persist for years to come no matter what personnel are in place.  

 

People don’t realize how little revenue came in and continued to come in from the 2019 run.  

Thanks for the insight. That’s a perspective I’ve never really had anyone go into detail about before and I appreciate the deeper understanding of how they operate.

[Big 4 Hoops Blogger]

1 hour ago, dutchcountry7 said:

The feedback from the market was not what Bulls fans think it is.  The job isn’t as prized as we think it would be. As a result the coaches were higher risk and at the same time the meetings with players made clear who they wanted.  

I find this disappointing. I understand Buffalo is a very difficult market for UB to operate in but I was hoping there was an opportunity to take advantage of their dream 2018-19 season.

I guess that wasn’t the case afterall. I still believe in schools creating their own opportunities but recognize the risk associated with that and the limitations UB has from being part of the SUNY system.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Big 4 Hoops Blogger

[UBlearns]

16 hours ago, dutchcountry7 said:

The players wanted Whitesell hired.  This is the modern transfer era where players bolt every year to a new program.  They all stayed because he was their guy.  People like to talk about the young kid that brought the recruits in but these recruits were committed to Whitesell which is why they are still here after those other guys left.

This will sound kinda silly, but just an anecdote here.  I have no insight as to anything going on within the program, unlike some others here seem to have.

I was randomly on a flight with the basketball team during the 18-19 ranked season, an early morning flight ahead of the Marquette game.  We'd all heard the talk about Hodgson as the ace recruiter (and he certainly does seem to be - no dispute here), and I expected him to be the players' coach amongst the group.  Oats wasn't there, but seemed like pretty much everyone else who I could recognize was there.  I kid you not, the coach that everyone gravitated around was Whitesell.  Knowing little about him, I had expected him as a grizzled X's and O's veteran coach keeping more to himself, but it was abundantly clear how much the players respected him even from such a small sample size interaction.  He was the players' coach.  

After they boarded the plane and he was convinced everyone was settled, he pulled out his laptop and watched Marquette game film for the entire flight, while taking notes.  When the whole Oats thing unfolded and he went to Alabama after the season, it did not surprise me when the word came out that the remaining players wanted Whitesell as the coach - it was very clear with the cameras off, no manicured press footage, just players going on a road trip, how much respect and rapport the players had with him.

There are still high on-the-court expectations to be met, of course, but there's something to be said about a coach who has the charisma and the steady-hand character to keep a team together in such circumstances.

[Jeseph]

11 minutes ago, UBlearns said:

there's something to be said about a coach who has the charisma and the steady-hand character to keep a team together in such circumstances.

This is a cool story, appreciate you sharing it.

I want to be clear that, as Mr. Negative, I still think Whitesell is a super like-able guy that should be credited with being a glue element to that roster. I just think those qualities make him a perfect assistant coach.

[121Merrimac]

5 hours ago, Jeseph said:

... as Mr. Negative, ...

Nah, you might be in the top ten, but you definitely don't come close to getting my vote for this award

[UBminicre]

42 minutes ago, 121Merrimac said:

Nah, you might be in the top ten, but you definitely don't come close to getting my vote for this award

I’m runner up. 
 

It’s crystal clear that the players wanted to play for whitesell. That is why he retained the entire team. That certainly means something and was important at the time of hire which is why I supported the move.

Three years later and it’s time for us to measure him on what he did with the team he kept together and the talent he brings in going forward. I am worried about both, but I hope he proves me wrong. 

 

[Jeseph]

Stock +1 😉

[121Merrimac]

3 minutes ago, Jeseph said:

Stock +1 😉

Meh, tonight isn't election night either.  🤣