[Goose]

That strikes me as an odd approach.  You keep your coach if you think he's meeting your standard; if not, he goes and you hope the next guy - whom you've done some diligence on - meets program standards.  It shouldn't be that hard conceptually.

I would argue that you replace your coach whenever you have identified a replacement that will take the job and that you believe is an upgrade. That can be true even if your present coach is "pretty good". If there is somebody better, pull the trigger. There are risk factors involved in this comparison. If your current coach has been there long enough that you have a pretty good calibration on what is possible, that reduces your risk. If your new candidate has a track record that you can evaluate, that reduces your risk.
Often your new coaching candidate has a big standard deviation. You have to decide if replacing a 0.500 coach that you are pretty sure will stay that way with a guy that could be .800 and could also be 0.200 is worth the risk. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. That is one of those things the AD has to manage, either by doing the evaluation himself or hiring some outsiders to do it. It is best to take the emotion out of it and realize exactly what you think the tradeoffs are. You should also document the factors you considered, how you reached the evaluations you did, and how sure of those evaluations you are.
Generally, that isn't what happens and the choice is made based on gut feel/ fan base pressure. Those choices often don't work out well, unsurprisingly. Sometimes they do. Until this last time, I think the process by which USC replaced their football coaches was in that category. This last time, I think they did it right. It still may not work out, but I think they identified a guy that was a clear upgrade.

I do believe it is possible that seeing a particular coach on the market could justify firing your present coach and making a move. However, you have to take a systematic and dispassionate look at that action and weigh the risks vs. the benefits. If you have a good argument that the expected benefit is big enough, do it. But be sure you know what you are doing and why.

[Goose]

That strikes me as an odd approach.  You keep your coach if you think he's meeting your standard; if not, he goes and you hope the next guy - whom you've done some diligence on - meets program standards.  It shouldn't be that hard conceptually.

I would argue that you replace your coach whenever you have identified a replacement that will take the job and that you believe is an upgrade. That can be true even if your present coach is "pretty good". If there is somebody better, pull the trigger. There are risk factors involved in this comparison. If your current coach has been there long enough that you have a pretty good calibration on what is possible, that reduces your risk. If your new candidate has a track record that you can evaluate, that reduces your risk.
Often your new coaching candidate has a big standard deviation. You have to decide if replacing a 0.500 coach that you are pretty sure will stay that way with a guy that could be .800 and could also be 0.200 is worth the risk. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. That is one of those things the AD has to manage, either by doing the evaluation himself or hiring some outsiders to do it. It is best to take the emotion out of it and realize exactly what you think the tradeoffs are. You should also document the factors you considered, how you reached the evaluations you did, and how sure of those evaluations you are.
Generally, that isn't what happens and the choice is made based on gut feel/ fan base pressure. Those choices often don't work out well, unsurprisingly. Sometimes they do. Until this last time, I think the process by which USC replaced their football coaches was in that category. This last time, I think they did it right. It still may not work out, but I think they identified a guy that was a clear upgrade.

I do believe it is possible that seeing a particular coach on the market could justify firing your present coach and making a move. However, you have to take a systematic and dispassionate look at that action and weigh the risks vs. the benefits. If you have a good argument that the expected benefit is big enough, do it. But be sure you know what you are doing and why.

[DC 86]

That strikes me as an odd approach.  You keep your coach if you think he's meeting your standard; if not, he goes and you hope the next guy - whom you've done some diligence on - meets program standards.  It shouldn't be that hard conceptually.

I would argue that you replace your coach whenever you have identified a replacement that will take the job and that you believe is an upgrade. That can be true even if your present coach is "pretty good". If there is somebody better, pull the trigger. There are risk factors involved in this comparison. If your current coach has been there long enough that you have a pretty good calibration on what is possible, that reduces your risk. If your new candidate has a track record that you can evaluate, that reduces your risk.
Often your new coaching candidate has a big standard deviation. You have to decide if replacing a 0.500 coach that you are pretty sure will stay that way with a guy that could be .800 and could also be 0.200 is worth the risk. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. That is one of those things the AD has to manage, either by doing the evaluation himself or hiring some outsiders to do it. It is best to take the emotion out of it and realize exactly what you think the tradeoffs are. You should also document the factors you considered, how you reached the evaluations you did, and how sure of those evaluations you are.
Generally, that isn't what happens and the choice is made based on gut feel/ fan base pressure. Those choices often don't work out well, unsurprisingly. Sometimes they do. Until this last time, I think the process by which USC replaced their football coaches was in that category. This last time, I think they did it right. It still may not work out, but I think they identified a guy that was a clear upgrade.

That sounds great in theory, but there are financial and recruiting considerations. If you recently signed your coach to an extension then you are probably looking at a hefty buyout. Depending on when the "upgrade coach" becomes available could sabotage an incoming recruiting class. There is a cost to making a change, so "pulling the trigger" any time you can upgrade isn't optimal.

For the record I would have replaced Haase at this point, but that's based on the premise that we could significantly upgrade the position which would justify the cost.

[DC 86]

That strikes me as an odd approach.  You keep your coach if you think he's meeting your standard; if not, he goes and you hope the next guy - whom you've done some diligence on - meets program standards.  It shouldn't be that hard conceptually.

I would argue that you replace your coach whenever you have identified a replacement that will take the job and that you believe is an upgrade. That can be true even if your present coach is "pretty good". If there is somebody better, pull the trigger. There are risk factors involved in this comparison. If your current coach has been there long enough that you have a pretty good calibration on what is possible, that reduces your risk. If your new candidate has a track record that you can evaluate, that reduces your risk.
Often your new coaching candidate has a big standard deviation. You have to decide if replacing a 0.500 coach that you are pretty sure will stay that way with a guy that could be .800 and could also be 0.200 is worth the risk. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. That is one of those things the AD has to manage, either by doing the evaluation himself or hiring some outsiders to do it. It is best to take the emotion out of it and realize exactly what you think the tradeoffs are. You should also document the factors you considered, how you reached the evaluations you did, and how sure of those evaluations you are.
Generally, that isn't what happens and the choice is made based on gut feel/ fan base pressure. Those choices often don't work out well, unsurprisingly. Sometimes they do. Until this last time, I think the process by which USC replaced their football coaches was in that category. This last time, I think they did it right. It still may not work out, but I think they identified a guy that was a clear upgrade.

That sounds great in theory, but there are financial and recruiting considerations. If you recently signed your coach to an extension then you are probably looking at a hefty buyout. Depending on when the "upgrade coach" becomes available could sabotage an incoming recruiting class. There is a cost to making a change, so "pulling the trigger" any time you can upgrade isn't optimal.

For the record I would have replaced Haase at this point, but that's based on the premise that we could significantly upgrade the position which would justify the cost.

[Goose]

That sounds great in theory, but there are financial and recruiting considerations. If you recently signed your coach to an extension then you are probably looking at a hefty buyout. Depending on when the "upgrade coach" becomes available could sabotage an incoming recruiting class. There is a cost to making a change, so "pulling the trigger" any time you can upgrade isn't optimal.

These costs are part of the evaluation. Losing a recruiting class counts as a negative. A buyout is a negative. That reduces the expected benefit. If you still think the benefits outweigh the costs, do it. But do not ignore these costs, and consider that the expected result isn't scalar. It is a PDF, and the loss function is non-linear. Can you weather a disaster and how likely is said disaster?

For the record I would have replaced Haase at this point, but that's based on the premise that we could significantly upgrade the position which would justify the cost.

Exactly.

[Goose]

That sounds great in theory, but there are financial and recruiting considerations. If you recently signed your coach to an extension then you are probably looking at a hefty buyout. Depending on when the "upgrade coach" becomes available could sabotage an incoming recruiting class. There is a cost to making a change, so "pulling the trigger" any time you can upgrade isn't optimal.

These costs are part of the evaluation. Losing a recruiting class counts as a negative. A buyout is a negative. That reduces the expected benefit. If you still think the benefits outweigh the costs, do it. But do not ignore these costs, and consider that the expected result isn't scalar. It is a PDF, and the loss function is non-linear. Can you weather a disaster and how likely is said disaster?

For the record I would have replaced Haase at this point, but that's based on the premise that we could significantly upgrade the position which would justify the cost.

Exactly.

[fullmetal]

Shaka Smart at VCU was great; Shaka Smart at Texas was lackluster.  There's no reason to think Golden would have been able to recruit and coach at Stanford any better than Haase.  We got rid of Wlat because he was a real dumpster fire; anyone might have had positive WAR (wins above replacement) over Harris.  I'm less certain about the bar being that low for Haase, primarily because of his recruiting.  Obv his W/L record has been bad.

[fullmetal]

Shaka Smart at VCU was great; Shaka Smart at Texas was lackluster.  There's no reason to think Golden would have been able to recruit and coach at Stanford any better than Haase.  We got rid of Wlat because he was a real dumpster fire; anyone might have had positive WAR (wins above replacement) over Harris.  I'm less certain about the bar being that low for Haase, primarily because of his recruiting.  Obv his W/L record has been bad.

[BostonCard]

Well, there is the fact that your target coach might not take your offer, and it is pretty low rent to offer a coach while you still have one.

Plus, if coaches think you will treat them like disposable parts that can be replaced when some hot young thing comes around, they will stop taking the job.

Word gets around.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, there is the fact that your target coach might not take your offer, and it is pretty low rent to offer a coach while you still have one.

Plus, if coaches think you will treat them like disposable parts that can be replaced when some hot young thing comes around, they will stop taking the job.

Word gets around.

BC

[winflop]

There's no reason to think Golden would have been able to recruit and coach at Stanford any better than Haase. 

Don't need a better recruiter. Need an HC who's better at everything else

[winflop]

There's no reason to think Golden would have been able to recruit and coach at Stanford any better than Haase. 

Don't need a better recruiter. Need an HC who's better at everything else

[gailtate]

Shaka Smart at VCU was great; Shaka Smart at Texas was lackluster.  There's no reason to think Golden would have been able to recruit and coach at Stanford any better than Haase.  We got rid of Wlat because he was a real dumpster fire; anyone might have had positive WAR (wins above replacement) over Harris.  I'm less certain about the bar being that low for Haase, primarily because of his recruiting.  Obv his W/L record has been bad.

There's no reason to think Golden would have been able to recruit and coach at Stanford any better than Haase.

The question is whether or not Haase can rise above mediocity at Stanford. Evidence we've seen is hardly encouraging. Would a school where MBB is a big deal see it any other way, especially a school with an alleged "Hoops Guy" as AD??

[gailtate]

Shaka Smart at VCU was great; Shaka Smart at Texas was lackluster.  There's no reason to think Golden would have been able to recruit and coach at Stanford any better than Haase.  We got rid of Wlat because he was a real dumpster fire; anyone might have had positive WAR (wins above replacement) over Harris.  I'm less certain about the bar being that low for Haase, primarily because of his recruiting.  Obv his W/L record has been bad.

There's no reason to think Golden would have been able to recruit and coach at Stanford any better than Haase.

The question is whether or not Haase can rise above mediocity at Stanford. Evidence we've seen is hardly encouraging. Would a school where MBB is a big deal see it any other way, especially a school with an alleged "Hoops Guy" as AD??

[DC 86]

I suppose Sean Miller would be an upgrade. Obviously Stanford wouldn't hire him but I was surprised that Xavier felt no compunction in picking him up.

[DC 86]

I suppose Sean Miller would be an upgrade. Obviously Stanford wouldn't hire him but I was surprised that Xavier felt no compunction in picking him up.

[BostonCard]

Recruiting is but one facet of a coach’s job, and good recruiting means nothing if you can’t get your recruits to perform on the field.  I would happily trade Haase’s whales for a someone else’s NCAA tournaments.

The challenge, of course, is that it doesn’t always work out. But at this point, the devil we don’t know is likely to deliver results that are no worse than Haase, and may well be better.

BC

[BostonCard]

Recruiting is but one facet of a coach’s job, and good recruiting means nothing if you can’t get your recruits to perform on the field.  I would happily trade Haase’s whales for a someone else’s NCAA tournaments.

The challenge, of course, is that it doesn’t always work out. But at this point, the devil we don’t know is likely to deliver results that are no worse than Haase, and may well be better.

BC