Jump to content
Buffalo Bulls - UB Fan Forum

Jim Whitesell and UB Part Ways


Kevin

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dutchcountry7 said:

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.

 

Thanks for this detailed and thoughtful response. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If UB continues to struggle the way we have over the start of the season, whitesell should be on the chopping block. Period. I don’t understand why we keep focusing on why he was selected as coach. Most are In agreement that was the appropriate move at the time. But it’s 3 years later and he is squandering a talented team that was gifted to him. His rookie class is the only thing he has left to prove he should remain the coach going forward.  I hope they turn it around this year and the rookies pan out… otherwise we must move on and whitesell is officially a failed hire. For now he is well on his way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that saying ‘the coach should be fired’ is an incomplete thought, and therefore pointless.       That’s why I don’t say it… not because I’m happy with the state of things.  I don’t have a better proposal though.  I feel that has to be part of this discussion.   We all know the school has budget limitations.  If everyone who wants a change also provided a potential solution the discussion might actually get somewhere.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, 121Merrimac said:

I feel that saying ‘the coach should be fired’ is an incomplete thought, and therefore pointless.       That’s why I don’t say it… not because I’m happy with the state of things.  I don’t have a better proposal though.  I feel that has to be part of this discussion.   We all know the school has budget limitations.  If everyone who wants a change also provided a potential solution the discussion might actually get somewhere.  

I'm with you. I have donated to various funds over the years and plan to again soon. Other than tix for basketball and football as well as a mandatory donation to Blue and White for my basketball seats, I haven't donated in 2+ years. $$$$ is a big part of the problem at UB and almost every mid major as well as many P5s. Firing Whitesell is only part of the equation. Without the $$$$ resources and vision to hire the right coach, we are in a difficult position.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, 121Merrimac said:

I feel that saying ‘the coach should be fired’ is an incomplete thought, and therefore pointless.       That’s why I don’t say it… not because I’m happy with the state of things.  I don’t have a better proposal though.  I feel that has to be part of this discussion.   We all know the school has budget limitations.  If everyone who wants a change also provided a potential solution the discussion might actually get somewhere.  

There’s someone out there who wanted to be the UB head coach three years ago but I don’t want to say his name out of fear…

Plus, it’ll never happen anyways.

And just so it’s clear, I have never vouched for Jim Whitesell to be fired. I have my criticisms of him but have never stated that UB should move on from him.

Edited by Big 4 Hoops Blogger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dutchcountry7 said:

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.

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. 

 

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. 

 

I disagree. IMO, Buffalo played tougher OOC teams under every Oates led team, and even a few Witherspoon seasons - remarkable, considering where the program was during his helm. I’m not necessarily saying this is Whitesell’s fault. Take a look at where Western Kentucky, UCI, N Texas, and St Bona are ranked now according to kenpom. Not even close to who UB faced in comparison with 6 or 7 previous seasons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, squire17 said:

I disagree. IMO, Buffalo played tougher OOC teams under every Oates led team, and even a few Witherspoon seasons - remarkable, considering where the program was during his helm. I’m not necessarily saying this is Whitesell’s fault. Take a look at where Western Kentucky, UCI, N Texas, and St Bona are ranked now according to kenpom. Not even close to who UB faced in comparison with 6 or 7 previous seasons.

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…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dutchcountry7 said:

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.

 

I appreciate this post and agree with the majority of your input here.

Edited by Big 4 Hoops Blogger
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, 121Merrimac said:

Do you think that is because…

a) he feels that he has outgrown the position. 
b) the position isn’t as desirable as it was. 
c) UB feels that bridge was burned. 
or, maybe something else.  

Without going into details, I'm mainly making an assumption because I believe Jim Whitesell will remain the head coach at UB for at least the next few years and it's impossible to predict that far ahead unless you already have a coach in waiting or a successor mapped out.

Edited by Big 4 Hoops Blogger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, BrooklynBull said:

See what happens if they lose to Cincinnati.  There will be people who will Saban gone.  He cannot win back to back titles anymore.

I really want Cincinnati to win that one, for all of those second tier guys, like when UCF was doing well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BrooklynBull said:

See what happens if they lose to Cincinnati.  There will be people who will Saban gone.  He cannot win back to back titles anymore.

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.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

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.

 

 

I work with hundreds of delusional Penn St. fans that are insufferable, so I guess no matter where you go, the passion is there regardless of which reality you live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...