Heard some chatter that some at SH want Willard to bring in a experienced bench coach . Have no idea if this " chatter " is wishful thinking or not but it does raise an interesting question .Remember after our 3-15 conference record a couple of years ago Hill was hired by KW under pressure to address concerns about recruiting. Could this be a similar scenario?
Will There Be Changes On Willard's Staff?
- Thread starter hallgrad80
- Start date
- Status
could be changes but that would be typical Seton Hall. Instead of addressing the problem head on and making a change they will go the scaredy cat route and possibly make a change or two. I don't get it. The head coach is the guy . The face of the program. The one responsible. Yet they seem they will do anything to keep Willard. Maybe its connections. Sure listen to Pitino his dad and all the numerous connections Willard has in the coaching FRATERNITY. I read on this board Willard wanted out after his first week on the job. I don't know. All I know is we keep losing and another year has gone bye without an NCAA bid. When will this insanity stop. 21 YEARS AND 3 BIDS.... ONLY 9 IN OUR ENTIRE HISTORY. ADMINISTRATION DO SOMETHING. What school that is legitimately serious about their basketball program can look at 9 bids in our history and 3 IN LAST 21 YEARS AND DO NOTHING. We have to again change the entire culture of this program. Whether you want to hear it or not its not good. Forget what the FOX ANNOUNCERS say about Willard. If they were Alums believe me they would want a change also. We weren't Soffers first choice. He verballed to a MAAC school first. Loyola of Baltimore? Then changed his mind because he said he had relatives in Metuchen. I think that was his biggest reason and then said what all recruits say. loved the team the coach the league etc. we will beat Marquette in the first round of the BET. But always nice to win a game but really it only means we beat the worst team in the league. Every year seems to be the same.
When you say typical you aren't refering to Seton Halls typical coaching and AD revolving door? We have had 5 coaches in the last 16 years and I think the same number of athletic directors. The only thing "typical" is we typically have a new basketball coach every 4 years.... If anything SHU, the administration and alumni are conditionally firing coaches...
JIMMY36 when I say typical I mean they way things are done in general with the program and the entire athletic program. The lack of facilities through the sixties seventies and most of the eighties. I don't mean having decent facilities for our athletes I mean having no weight room for years back then a bubble Owen Carroll was a mess etc. Ask Mike Sheppard our baseball coach at the time or Nick Menza our soccer coach. Raftery will tell you off camera. Its so many things. Now the facilities have gotten much better and I know what your saying about the ADS and firing 4 not 5 coaches. Amaker left us. But there is nothing I would like more than to have stability but at some point especially looking at our history as a basketball school I just feel a change is needed after 5 years. I wish Willard had a great program. But we can see he doesn't. Your right about firing coaches but Blaney who I know is a good bench coach fired after 3 years. that to me wasn't right. Orr I know had problems attending events but 2 ncaas in 5 years and fired. Didn't do that well at Bowling Green but its strange how some coaches do well at certain schools then move on and don't accomplish much. Happens a lot in college football. Gonzalez the school had to know during its due diligence that he was not a good guy for Seton Hall but hired him anyway. Look what happened. Willard sees like a good guy but just think 5 years is enough. I don't think we had an AD when Amaker was hired. didn't Hobbs hire him? its crazy how things work. 3 years later we are a sweet 16 team and was so close to an elite 8. But after the following year where we were rated anywhere from 1 to 14 pre season he leaves. Even thogh that year was a heartbreak had Amaker stayed I have to believe we would have been a power . We all want whats best for the Hall. That's the bottom line. So many of us remember the days when we were good . We just want that chance to be good again.
I own a retained executive search firm and I'm responsible for staffing for some really great brands and companies globally but I also turn down new business from clients where I see the employee turnover is too high. Really good companies; but the C-suite or below just has too much churn. It's hard enough to recruit a CEO to those companies but even harder to get quality folks to join them. It's also so easy to talk recruits out of their jobs when I have a competitive offer. Did I want to keep, Blaney, Orr or Gonzo, that would be a "no". Look I realize everyone wants Willard gone on this board and honestly if he wasn't our 5th coach in 16 years I think an argument could be made to let him go.
But you need to look at the facts and we have so much churn that you need to give it one more year with Willard given the class we have coming back in, plus the fact we were in the top 20 about 5 weeks ago. You guys can spin it one way but everyone else competing for our talent will point to SHU firing Willard the same year he had a top 20 team (after a slide... Nobody will look at his total big east record), firing Orr after the NCAA's and talking about how SHU is one of, if not the least stable head coaching jobs in Division I basketball. Look at it from a recruiters/Competing coach "oh your other school is Seton Hall the good news is if you go there and aren't happy with the coach in about three years will be a new one!".
The buyout is one thing but at some point SHU needs to pay for the coaching mistakes of the past and the time is now. It's not a Willard or Lyons issue, this has been in the making for 20 years. Blaney, Amaker, Orr, Gonzo, Willard... People don't look at wins and loses and purse snatching when they recruit against us they just say "Chernobyl is more stable than SHU basketball do you really want you kid to go there?". Keeping Willard here for a 6th year, after a top 20 team and a top 10 recruiting class at the very least shows the school and alumni are committed to a coach and team. Coincidentally in the corporate world 6 years between movement is the "stable" guy (maybe that's why I'm so fine w a 6th year), if you move to a new company every 3, 4 or 5 years for "better jobs" "better money" "bad boss", etc I've heard them all, you are the problem (same goes for a company blowing out staff)...
This post was edited on 3/8 11:22 AM by jimmyd36
But you need to look at the facts and we have so much churn that you need to give it one more year with Willard given the class we have coming back in, plus the fact we were in the top 20 about 5 weeks ago. You guys can spin it one way but everyone else competing for our talent will point to SHU firing Willard the same year he had a top 20 team (after a slide... Nobody will look at his total big east record), firing Orr after the NCAA's and talking about how SHU is one of, if not the least stable head coaching jobs in Division I basketball. Look at it from a recruiters/Competing coach "oh your other school is Seton Hall the good news is if you go there and aren't happy with the coach in about three years will be a new one!".
The buyout is one thing but at some point SHU needs to pay for the coaching mistakes of the past and the time is now. It's not a Willard or Lyons issue, this has been in the making for 20 years. Blaney, Amaker, Orr, Gonzo, Willard... People don't look at wins and loses and purse snatching when they recruit against us they just say "Chernobyl is more stable than SHU basketball do you really want you kid to go there?". Keeping Willard here for a 6th year, after a top 20 team and a top 10 recruiting class at the very least shows the school and alumni are committed to a coach and team. Coincidentally in the corporate world 6 years between movement is the "stable" guy (maybe that's why I'm so fine w a 6th year), if you move to a new company every 3, 4 or 5 years for "better jobs" "better money" "bad boss", etc I've heard them all, you are the problem (same goes for a company blowing out staff)...
This post was edited on 3/8 11:22 AM by jimmyd36
Seton Hall with it's poor facilities, lousy AD's and low salary were the problem and few coaches could succeed here.
But that's been rectified and the upgraded Seton Hall is a place where anyone with talent should succeed. The University is no longer the problem-it's about hiring the right guy.
Tony Bozzella proves the point.
But that's been rectified and the upgraded Seton Hall is a place where anyone with talent should succeed. The University is no longer the problem-it's about hiring the right guy.
Tony Bozzella proves the point.
so hire an experienced assistant and keep the head coach is suppose to turn it all around next year.....yeah OK. They really must think this fan base is stupid.
Jimmyd
I can appreciate everything you say about the impact on constant staff changes for people at the top of the ladder. We used executive search firms a lot because mine was an industry that lent itself to constant turnover because your competition was always poaching your top performers and if your own people were not performing well then your business did not only not grow it shrank. I see the same analogy with coaching college basketball and college football where a high rate of turnover is part of the landscape because if you have a top performer
your completion may go after him to fill a vacancy and if your head coach is not performing well the pressure is on to replace him generally within 5 years or less.
I can appreciate everything you say about the impact on constant staff changes for people at the top of the ladder. We used executive search firms a lot because mine was an industry that lent itself to constant turnover because your competition was always poaching your top performers and if your own people were not performing well then your business did not only not grow it shrank. I see the same analogy with coaching college basketball and college football where a high rate of turnover is part of the landscape because if you have a top performer
your completion may go after him to fill a vacancy and if your head coach is not performing well the pressure is on to replace him generally within 5 years or less.
On the question of possible staff changes I think it would be fair to say that this is not a highly regarded staff with the exception of Sha. We don't know what kind of assistant Tiny will turn out to be as he has just one year in the college ranks and I'm not sure what FJH brings to the table anymore so why would anyone object to trying to improve any area of that could benefit the program.
Keeping Willard does not benefit the program. We have seen enough. We are all beaten, battered, and bruised after 5 years. Hiring an experienced assistant and keeping Willard is like putting a bandaid on a broken leg. You are fooling nobody. It's a losing culture at Seton Hall.
I don't think a bench coach is the answer. I don't think Xs and Os sank this season. It was personality issues.
Now, that's something a head coach also has to be able to manage and I think Willard's track record in that regard speaks for itself. He's not very good at it.
I'm agnostic on him right now. I won't be upset either way. I don't mind him coming back for another year with this group to see if they can mature and put the issues aside. But there's certainly a strong case to be made for going in another direction.
Two things, though;
1. I'm really sick of starting from scratch every 4-5 years.
2. If we make a change, who can we realistically get who would be better and would prevent a talent exodus? We have a lot of very good young players and I don't want to lose any of them.
Now, that's something a head coach also has to be able to manage and I think Willard's track record in that regard speaks for itself. He's not very good at it.
I'm agnostic on him right now. I won't be upset either way. I don't mind him coming back for another year with this group to see if they can mature and put the issues aside. But there's certainly a strong case to be made for going in another direction.
Two things, though;
1. I'm really sick of starting from scratch every 4-5 years.
2. If we make a change, who can we realistically get who would be better and would prevent a talent exodus? We have a lot of very good young players and I don't want to lose any of them.
I am not saying the reasons for the previous coaching departures were "right" or "wrong". My job is a professional recruiter- sports not so much. It's like the candidate that sends me his resume and every 3-5 years he has a new job and "every time" he has "individual reasons" that are sound, logical arguments for his movement but the reality is my clients see the candidate as the problem. Those resumes don't make it past my desk more than 5% of the time. Those companies that blow out their employees year after year don't make it on my client roster.
I am not saying keep Willard for life, I am simply stating that because of our record of instability at the Head Coaching level we have to show some understanding that another change at the top this year, however good it might feel at the end of this season, just isn't the best move. Yes you are paying for the sins of the past plus the reality that Willard's combined record although "average to poor", still had a top 10 recruiting class, a top 20 team just a month ago and is a great guy most people love personally and professionally and he has no "black marks" on his record. If you have a strategy for a new coach to explain to a recruit "let me tell you how bad Willard REALLY was, why the last 4 coaches were bad, and why I am different" and actually land a recruit, I have a few hundred thousand dollars in executive search fees for poorly run companies I can turn you onto tomorrow because you'd be either a better salesman than me or someone comfortable doing whatever it takes.
I am not saying keep Willard for life, I am simply stating that because of our record of instability at the Head Coaching level we have to show some understanding that another change at the top this year, however good it might feel at the end of this season, just isn't the best move. Yes you are paying for the sins of the past plus the reality that Willard's combined record although "average to poor", still had a top 10 recruiting class, a top 20 team just a month ago and is a great guy most people love personally and professionally and he has no "black marks" on his record. If you have a strategy for a new coach to explain to a recruit "let me tell you how bad Willard REALLY was, why the last 4 coaches were bad, and why I am different" and actually land a recruit, I have a few hundred thousand dollars in executive search fees for poorly run companies I can turn you onto tomorrow because you'd be either a better salesman than me or someone comfortable doing whatever it takes.
SPK they have been showing a lot more stability than us... I will give you they did have one "blip" to our Amaker, Orr, Gonzo and "potentially" Willard blip. I think we are winning that race. If you were looking for a job (think job seeker is a player) what employer has the better record here?
1.9 Cooley era: 2011-present
1.9.3 2013-2014 Season - BIG EAST Tournament Champions / NCAA Tournament 2nd Round
This post was edited on 3/8 12:22 PM by jimmyd36
1.9 Cooley era: 2011-present
1.9.3 2013-2014 Season - BIG EAST Tournament Champions / NCAA Tournament 2nd Round
This post was edited on 3/8 12:22 PM by jimmyd36
A
anon_4htvdezyfe7k9
Guest
Hill seems most likely to go. Still trying to figure out what value he adds. No history of being a good coach and apparently lost his contacts or ability to recruit that he had in his first stint with us.
Jimmyd
Your insights certainly offer a different perspective based on your extensive business experience in the executive search field and are extremely helpful in this discussion. I am curious as to whether the paradigm you suggest changes when the client who has had constant staff turnover with unacceptable frequency has become a more attractive place to work because it has made the infrastructure changes necessary to attract better candidates and for the candidate to succeed. I have always felt the the primary reasons we've had so much failure with our coaching hires is that we were not an attractive option for the higher regarded candidate and we were taking the lesser candidate to fill that role and thus we were unable to offer to those we were trying to recruit an environment that could compete with those who we're seeking the same recruits.
Your insights certainly offer a different perspective based on your extensive business experience in the executive search field and are extremely helpful in this discussion. I am curious as to whether the paradigm you suggest changes when the client who has had constant staff turnover with unacceptable frequency has become a more attractive place to work because it has made the infrastructure changes necessary to attract better candidates and for the candidate to succeed. I have always felt the the primary reasons we've had so much failure with our coaching hires is that we were not an attractive option for the higher regarded candidate and we were taking the lesser candidate to fill that role and thus we were unable to offer to those we were trying to recruit an environment that could compete with those who we're seeking the same recruits.
Hallgrad honestly the "but this time is different" arguement rarely works. The challenge Seton Hall has is recruiting not only a top coach but also top players. There are some instances where a business will continue to blow people out and make money but in my experience there are more successes when they show just a bit more calm/resolve when "potential" success is so near.
It's a risk if you keep Willard that he will not win next year but it's a bigger risk to our brand if you blow out a coach the same year he had a top 10 recruiting class, was ranked nationally and had his best player hurt for a big part of the season. People want to use that injury argument as excuses when in fact it's the reality. Well in society PERCEPTION is REALITY and nobody wants to dig deep when evaluating a head coaching vacancy or a team to play for. If a candidate or company with tons of movement keeps making excuses, I for one shutdown but some employers and some recruiters are less concerned. The "business" of Seton Hall basketball isn't in a place where they can afford to let Willard go after this year without continuing the "it's not us it's them" that were the problem. That's the "excuse" people remember not that Willard uses the excuses of injuries.
I'd make the argument that by showing some calm and keeping Willard another year, and if he loses he is gone after next year, you might be able to land a better coach because you can point to a change in attitude within the administration and alumni base of not just blowing out coaches after a struggle. Spending $1 million to buy out a coach with one year left on his contract who had a top 20 team and a top 10 recruiting class the same year reeks of desperation and administration that is driven by emotion and not sound judgement (regardless of the Fanbase view of the win and loss record. The greater population will only see another coaching change after a slump).
Hipsters are loving my paragraphs...
This post was edited on 3/8 1:04 PM by jimmyd36
It's a risk if you keep Willard that he will not win next year but it's a bigger risk to our brand if you blow out a coach the same year he had a top 10 recruiting class, was ranked nationally and had his best player hurt for a big part of the season. People want to use that injury argument as excuses when in fact it's the reality. Well in society PERCEPTION is REALITY and nobody wants to dig deep when evaluating a head coaching vacancy or a team to play for. If a candidate or company with tons of movement keeps making excuses, I for one shutdown but some employers and some recruiters are less concerned. The "business" of Seton Hall basketball isn't in a place where they can afford to let Willard go after this year without continuing the "it's not us it's them" that were the problem. That's the "excuse" people remember not that Willard uses the excuses of injuries.
I'd make the argument that by showing some calm and keeping Willard another year, and if he loses he is gone after next year, you might be able to land a better coach because you can point to a change in attitude within the administration and alumni base of not just blowing out coaches after a struggle. Spending $1 million to buy out a coach with one year left on his contract who had a top 20 team and a top 10 recruiting class the same year reeks of desperation and administration that is driven by emotion and not sound judgement (regardless of the Fanbase view of the win and loss record. The greater population will only see another coaching change after a slump).
Hipsters are loving my paragraphs...
This post was edited on 3/8 1:04 PM by jimmyd36
PIRATE64. your right I should do that . honestly sorry that I do write like this on here but for some reason I want to get out my thoughts so fast that I ignore paragraphs. ill just space it more after every sentence. also I think my keyboard is messed up. always have to go back and redo a lot of words because the letters at times don't come out like they should . but seriously thank u know what u mean. I cant stand reading my own comments without a paragraph.
Doubtful, very doubtful and I don't want to waste another year on a loser.
And tell me this, don't we have to give him an extension because God forbid some coach uses it against us with recruits that he only has one year to go on his contract. Seton Hall will eventually have to buy him out one way or another.
Every time SPK refers to his Big East record, I want to gag. It doesn't make good sense to wait another year. Pay him and be done with it.
And tell me this, don't we have to give him an extension because God forbid some coach uses it against us with recruits that he only has one year to go on his contract. Seton Hall will eventually have to buy him out one way or another.
Every time SPK refers to his Big East record, I want to gag. It doesn't make good sense to wait another year. Pay him and be done with it.
team defense has been incredibly weak during the tenure, the soft zone matchup nonsense just enables other offenses to score easy...there is no edge or physicality on defense and yes you can be physical without fouling and the offense doesn't do much most of the time that reflects on the head coach
Hall28 what's misguided?
-Have we not had 5 coaches in 16 years?
-Are we not view as an "unstable" if not the most unstable head coaching job in the Big East?
-Isn't buying a coach out with a $1million buyout, with a year left on his contract, when he landed a top 10 recruiting class, lost his best player to injury midseason, and had the team in the top 20 going to be viewed by SHU as another desperate attempt to "jump start" the program? Will recruits, parents, coaches, etc really view this as a smart move? Will people outside the SHU boosters really see this as anything more than another Seton Hall blowout?
Maybe my business analogy is tough for some people to wrap their head around but I'm not some nut job who graduated from Seton Hall and spent the last 5 years living at home w my parents. I'm taking a step back and saying -is the damage to the school better or for worse if Willard remains w the program. I come to the conclusion it's better for everyone if he gets the 6th year.
-Have we not had 5 coaches in 16 years?
-Are we not view as an "unstable" if not the most unstable head coaching job in the Big East?
-Isn't buying a coach out with a $1million buyout, with a year left on his contract, when he landed a top 10 recruiting class, lost his best player to injury midseason, and had the team in the top 20 going to be viewed by SHU as another desperate attempt to "jump start" the program? Will recruits, parents, coaches, etc really view this as a smart move? Will people outside the SHU boosters really see this as anything more than another Seton Hall blowout?
Maybe my business analogy is tough for some people to wrap their head around but I'm not some nut job who graduated from Seton Hall and spent the last 5 years living at home w my parents. I'm taking a step back and saying -is the damage to the school better or for worse if Willard remains w the program. I come to the conclusion it's better for everyone if he gets the 6th year.
It's worse. We stay with a loser and if he's on the last year of his contract, we wlll need to extend him. We lose, one way or another.
We get how successful you are, but there are any # of CEO and CFO's on this board; they just don't spend time talking about themselves.
We get how successful you are, but there are any # of CEO and CFO's on this board; they just don't spend time talking about themselves.
Jimmy
I think one of the principal concerns among many on this Board , and it's one of mine, is that we would give Willard a seventh year even if year six is a repeat of the last three years because there has been absolute silence from the administration on the program on what its tolerance is for a continued lack of success.
I think one of the principal concerns among many on this Board , and it's one of mine, is that we would give Willard a seventh year even if year six is a repeat of the last three years because there has been absolute silence from the administration on the program on what its tolerance is for a continued lack of success.
muggy's interesting perspective as it's just my point of view, which is based on looking at this from a practical standpoint and not my mom's house. I point out what I do, and maybe that I do it well, so when you evaluate my point of view you understand I have some perspective and logic behind it. It would be much worse if I was some guy who barely donated, had no professional experience related to recruiting and was simply arguing on a message board. Those are the people who are the misguided ones... Just trying to add a little perspective from the other side.
What damage is going to be done to the school by hiring a different coach? I think you're overstating the perception among others about our program. What do recruits parents coaches etc think now? I think they see a team with talent that has severely underachieved.
Agree to disagree. Hopefully he proves you right and me wrong. I would like nothing more than to see him figure it out.
Hallgrad80 that's even more of a reach than me saying Willard has a great returning core of players and can be competitive next year. The season isn't over and Willard has a year left on his contract, the vast majority of donors I speak to appear to be comfortable w the administration, so what do people expect the administration to say? what have people seen other schools say in this instance?
- Status
Similar threads
