Hopefully an objective view of our coaching situation

[TrueBlue1989]

Facts

- Willard, depending on your view, has done a below average to terrible job
- there is some substantial buyout but amount is unknown

Case against making a coaching change this year

- great returning talent plus a top 100 recruit and Nzei ( some departures are likely if a change is made)
- SHU has a reputation that coaches come here to die so to give Willard a 6th year will demonstrate patience to future candidates
- presumably the buyout is much lower in a year thus enabling the school to afford a excellent candidate where with the full buyout it may not be feasible
- perhaps there are no obvious upgrades that are interested in the job today

Case for making a change

- we can be a bad team without top recruits
- fans have lost patience with Willard and attendance and donations will decline
- there is strong interest in the job by coaches who would be viewed as clear upgrades


The reality is that we don't really know. I thought that Willard was a great choice at the time so what do I know? What is clear to me is that knee-jerk reactions may feel good but may put us in a worse place. For example, suppose that we hire DH to a 7 year deal and he is not effective at this level, then what? 5 years later repeat this cycle?

Lyons is our most talented AD ever, admittedly not a high bar, so why not give him the benefit of the doubt to make a change when it is best long term for SHU. If I'm correct, the clear majority of this board was pleased with the Willard hire so our collective track record is not great.

I'm curious what candidates posters believe are clear upgrades that the school can afford and that would be interested in the job?

 

[Section112]

True Blue good post and you make some good points. But you are missing a few key points. What recruit is going to come to SHU when the coach is on the hot seat and the writing is on the wall for next year if he's not successful? This could put us back even farther. Also you forgot how the season ended with a perplexed coach and a team playing terribly. Not the feeling you want to go into in the off season. Is this the guy that will lead us to the promised land? Where are the leadership and motivational skilles? At least last year we played a few good games in the BE Tourney and had the big upset of Nova. The consistent thing we have seen is the pattern of failing down the stretch in Feb games when they really matter. That has been an obvious pattern that has not changed even the year we went to the NIT. Good coaches show improvement throughout the season most years while that has not happened thus far. That is huge for me. In my mind the number of reasons for keeping Coach Willard are much shorter than the reasons to let him go sans the big buyout. It really comes down to money and a few of our leaders that want to stick with him IMO.

 

[TrueBlue1989]

He just received a top 100 verbal during the height of bad press. I think that shows he can sell trough the noise.

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by TrueBlue1989:

- great returning talent plus a top 100 recruit and Nzei ( some departures are likely if a change is made)

- Wouldn't say great returning talent, would say good, in-need-of-improvement returning talent
- Singh is no Top 100 recruit, not by anyone, not a Top 150 recruit, more like a Top 200 by almost all
- Some departures are likely if Willard stays, don't ask, I'm not at liberty to say

Originally posted by TrueBlue1989:

What is clear to me is that knee-jerk reactions may feel good but may put us in a worse place. For example, suppose that we hire DH to a 7 year deal and he is not effective at this level, then what? 5 years later repeat this cycle?

- The flip side is every year you keep an ineffective coach after a reasonable time period (4-5 years is more than ample) you risk driving your program even further into the ground

Originally posted by TrueBlue1989:

I'm curious what candidates posters believe are clear upgrades that the school can afford and that would be interested in the job?

- The clear upgrade part is very simple. The affordability and interest part is the great unknown.

 

[Section112]

Originally posted by TrueBlue1989:
He just received a top 100 verbal during the height of bad press. I think that shows he can sell trough the noise.

Are you talking about Singh? Have to give him credit for getting him yes I agree.

But we still are in desperate need of bigs which he has been unable to recruit other than transfers and by giving away coaching positions. I hope you are right and he can continue to recruit through this mess that he has created. But his recruiting sans one year has not been good. But in the end there has to be accountability. How many more kids can come through our program and never see the NCAAs? It's terrible.

 

[TrueBlue1989]

Who are the CLEAR upgrades? Affordability is always an issue. DH is not a clear upgrade to me nor is BH. Perhaps they are both terrific but I think that they entail risk. The Dayton coach is a clear upgrade but there is zero chance that he is taking the job.

I'm not defending Willard at all but I'm not sure that there is such a clear solution. If we could get the Dayton coach it would be a no brainer.

 

[TrueBlue1989]

By SHU standards we have great returning talent. Gibbs could be 1st team BE next year. Delgado is frosh of the year. IW and KC have 1st team potential. Nzei is apparently very good but I have not seen him. I thought that rivals ranked Singh top 100 but I could be wrong. How many years have we had that much talent on one team?

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by TrueBlue1989:

DH is not a clear upgrade to me nor is BH.

I would strongly disagree with you and not just because I think both Hurley's are/will be very good. How can you look at Willard's 5-year body of work at Seton Hall and think he's got any coaching ability at all?

 

[Burnsly]

Excellent insight, 1989.

 

[Flnj86]

Scout had Singh as a Top 80 recruit.

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by TrueBlue1989:

By SHU standards we have great returning talent. Gibbs could be 1st team BE next year. Delgado is frosh of the year. IW and KC have 1st team potential. Nzei is apparently very good but I have not seen him. I thought that rivals ranked Singh top 100 but I could be wrong.

When you say "could be" and "potential" you could be talking about every other team in the Big East as well.

Nzei has great athleticism and motor but is a bit of a project basketball-wise, Top 300 player.

Singh is not in any Top 150 lists out there. I personally think he could be Top 150 but nobody else agrees with me.

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by Flnj86:

Scout had Singh as a Top 80 recruit.

No they don't, bad info, maybe earlier in his career, but he's not in their Top 150 list for either 2015 or 2016.

 

[TrueBlue1989]

Singh is ranked #84 by Scout not Rivals, sorry.

Spk you are not reading my posts carefully. I have repeatedly said that I'm not defending Willard. Lets stipulate that both DH and BH are upgrades. That does not mean that they are the answer on a long term basis. Perhaps you were against Willard from the beginning but most were not. Neither brother has accomplished as head coaches much more than Willard so there is no guarantee.

If these coaches are such no brainer s they will be hired by top 50 programs this year. Picking coaches is tough. Who did you want when we picked Willard?

 

[TrueBlue1989]

So you point is that we don't have great talent next year based on our standards. BE freshman of the year, McD AA, etc. there is no point discussing this with you.

 

[lokiSHU]

Sha is responsible for SHU getting Veer. Willard is by far the worst recruiting HC in SHU and maybe BE history. Everyone knows how last yrs class was obtained.

 

[SOSHU]

What led you to believe that Willard was a good hire? There was NOTHING in his background that would lead to that conclusion.Also 1989, you need to work on your negative mindset. The Dayton coach is presently making 300K. How do you know that he would "definitely not come to Seton Hall? Also, ANY major program is a coaching graveyard for coaches who do not win after five years.

 

[TrueBlue1989]

It doesn't matter how the talent was secured. The point is that what is flight risk if there is a change.

Again I'm not defending Willard. Are you reading my posts?

The purpose of this thread is to discuss trade-offs and risks in making a change.

Le me be clear, if there was no buyout, there was no flight risk and we could get a good long term solution then I'm 100% for a change. Has this board descended into nothing other than negativity, name calling and Willard bashing?

This post was edited on 3/21 1:30 PM by TrueBlue1989

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by TrueBlue1989:

Singh is ranked #84 by Scout not Rivals, sorry.

No, he's not, you may be looking at Verbal Commits which uses an old Scout ranking. Currently he's No. 288 on Scout's 2015 list.

Originally posted by TrueBlue1989:

Neither brother has accomplished as head coaches much more than Willard so there is no guarantee.

Both have accomplished more than Willard, which is a REALLY low bar (30-60). There's no guarantee with any hiring.

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by TrueBlue1989:

The point is that what is flight risk if there is a change.

Why no thought about flight risk if there is no change?

 

[TrueBlue1989]

Ok, the Dayton coach is coming to SHU? Really!! Last year Bloomberg wrote an article that Dayton is one of the top 10 most profitable basketball programs in the US. Look it up. Danny posted it on this board. Before his recent extension to 2019 his SALARY was 335k but that is before virtually guaranteed incentives. If you think that he makes all in 300k than you are crazy. His brother's top assistant likely makes that amount. Gonzo made more than 300k at Manhattan.

 

[TrueBlue1989]

Totally fair but it seems higher if a change is made. Obviously if this is not true it materially increases the case for change.

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by TrueBlue1989:

Before his recent extension to 2019 his SALARY was 335k but that is before virtually guaranteed incentives. If you think that he makes all in 300k than you are crazy.

For the year ended 06/30/2013, Archie Miller made $650,000 at Dayton, certainly more now.

Originally posted by TrueBlue1989:

Gonzo made more than 300k at Manhattan.

Um, no. Gonzo was making $125,000 per year at Manhattan when he was hired by Seton Hall. When he was fired by Seton Hall, he was making $400,000 per year.

 

[lokiSHU]

It's negativity and bashing per se. The greater risk of talent flight control mes from retention. There are a number of knowledgeable posters on this board who understand the dynamics of College and HS basketball better than those making the decisions at SHU? That is not too say they should act on any posters suggestions, but where there is smoke there is fire. Retaining Willard only do to the fact it will cheaper to fire him next year is ridiculous. If they cannot negotiate a reasonable buyout then do it and lawyer up.

 

[TrueBlue1989]

I checked U of A's website. One year old data has the head hoops assistant SALARY of 235k before and incentives or bonuses.

 

[TrueBlue1989]

Well if there is no change your hypothesis will be tested. I obviously don't know the answer.

 

[TrueBlue1989]

Gonzo was not making 125k all in. 125k is not high for a BE assistant and I have heard that allof our assistants make more than that but I can't confirm.

 

[SHU90s]

TrueBlue,

I'm honestly not sure what you are getting at in your posts on this thread. To me -- and please correct me if I am misreading what you have written -- you seem to be saying that unless the Hall has a sure thing lined up as the next coach -- such as an Archie Miller -- then the Hall is better served by keeping Willard for another year. Let's face it. There is no such thing as a sure thing when it comes to a next coach. Look at Brian Gregory. He was darn successful at Dayton, and most thought he would do very well as Georgia Tech's coach. Yet, he has been absolutely Willard-esque down there. Conversely, neither our own PJ nor Brad Stevens had top-shelf, glittering resumes when they got their HC gigs, yet both were outstanding. In my humble view, it is insane to keep Willard simply because the school may not be sure whether the next guy will be better. The school knows what it has in Willard, and what it has is woefully inadequate. The school is paying Lyons big bucks to make decisions regarding head coaches, and they should trust his judgment. They shouldn't be afraid to make a change simply because they don't know, with 100% certainty, whether the next guy will be a home run hire.

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by TrueBlue1989:
Gonzo was not making 125k all in. 125k is not high for a BE assistant and I have heard that allof our assistants make more than that but I can't confirm.

Gonzo made $125K all in at Manhattan his last year there, go find Manhattan's publicly filed Form 990 for his last year.

 

[TrueBlue1989]

No. I'm saying that this is not a no brainer. Frankly, I don't know what the right answer is. I was hoping that the post would spark a debate of the pros and cons of making a change. It is simplistic to say that it is an easy or obvious decision, at least from my perspective. Said another way, we agree that Willard has done a bad job so what would you take into consideration in making any decision? I was hoping it was stimulate a dialogue other than Willard sucks.

 

[HALL28]

Originally posted by TrueBlue1989:
No. I'm saying that this is not a no brainer. Frankly, I don't know what the right answer is. I was hoping that the post would spark a debate of the pros and cons of making a change. It is simplistic to say that it is an easy or obvious decision, at least from my perspective. Said another way, we agree that Willard has done a bad job so what would you take into consideration in making any decision? I was hoping it was stimulate a dialogue other than Willard sucks.

It's a complete no-brainer. He is a terrible coach. The right answer is hire a better coach. Get rid of him, and go all in quickly on B or D Hurley. It is a colossal mistake if the Hurleys leave Buffalo and URI for bigger jobs and we never even tried to get them to come here.

But to oust Willard, the influential donors to this program are going to have to get loud (if they haven't already, I don't know). This has to go through Lyons, Willard's buddy who I guess is the one we can thank for the extension/buyout. If SPK says there are going to be transfers anyway, and Willard is actually putting out feelers for other jobs, this is a total mess and it need to end now.

 

[hallgrad80]

You can never justify keeping anyone who has proven he cannot handle the job because you're worried his replacement might be worse. It's like saying lets keep a cardiac surgeon on the hospital staff who has twice the mortality rate of his peer group because the doctor you hire might have an even higher mortality rate and yet there are posters who are offering that as a valid reason to keep Willard.There are choices out there that are better then Willard and it's the job of the head of the search committee to find that person and if the head of that committee is our AD, if he's as good as many suggest, I would think he has a list that he continuously updates so if a change is effected he's ready to begin the search and not be starting from scratch.

 

[jcpetri]

So SPK says if Willard stays, some players may jump ship....and it's been said that if Willard goes, some players might jump ship....so where does that leave us....with fewer players next year???

 

[Flnj86]

Dan Mentioned the other day that if Willard is the coach next year that every player will be back.

 

[bobojcd]

Originally posted by Flnj86:
Dan Mentioned the other day that if Willard is the coach next year that every player will be back.

Well, SPK says different. Who are you gonna believe?

How many times did Dan post there was no extension? I mean no offense, but Dans credibility isn't as high as it once was.

 

[wpc75]

Every person here is putting up rumors from someone. Looks like some individuals work very hard at making a case against KW/PL and the team. I am sure PL has interviewed all the players and has a handle on who is in. I just wonder what AAU/Catholic HS coach has it in so bad for Seton Hall to be handing out all this false information over the past 6 weeks to posters here to run with. So far they are batting zero. I guess soon one of them just might be true.

 

[bobojcd]

Originally posted by wpc75:
I am sure PL has interviewed all the players and has a handle on who is in.

What makes you think that? Seriously, not trying to flame. Do you think ADs routinely interview every athlete at the conclusion of a season?

I would feel a TON better if I believed that Lyons has sat down with every player and asst. and gotten to the bottom of how they feel about the program.

 

[Shuathelete]

SPK is just dominating this thread.

The answer to the question "Who is a CLEAR upgrade," the answer is that ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY is a clear upgrade. Nobody is worse than Kevin Willard. Maybe Eddie Jordan. Thats it. You cannot get any worse than him. He is one of the worst coaches in the history of college basketball.

The real question is: Is there a coach who is worth it enough to eat the ridiculous ill advised buyout?

I think we need to do everything we can to find out. Take all of the DePaul candidates and interview them too.

It is extremely embarrassing to the fans, the league, and Fox to show up for a 6th year with this idiot as our head coach:

 

[hallgrad80]

With a coach seeking to keep his job and has every indication that next year might be his last if he doesn't perform is it surprising that he will take risks on players who have academic or personal conduct issues? You see it all the time in college FB and BB.