Who You Gots...

[RF2044]

The field.

Dear god, please be the field.

Now - IF after an exhaustive and thorough national search, it’s determined that one of:
Hop, Red, GMac, Buddy, Buddy’s kid -
is the best coaching hire Syracuse can make, then so be it.

But, to purposely and needlessly limit ourselves to former Cuse players is stupid and shortsighted.

144% correct.

And luckily, our AD understands that -- which is why he'll conduct a national search. Because artificially constraining ourselves WOULD be stupid.

 

[OrangeTown]

GMac gets the odd years, Red gets the even years.

We'll make everyone happy and then everyone will be happy, right?

Hopefully GMac doesn't have the Bret Saberhagen curse.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

A million likes for this. I just can't imagine hiring for such a high profile position and limiting yourself to candidates based on where they graduated college from. Would anyone do that in their real life?

I agree with your 'wants,' but in reality, lots of people/companies do this in real life. There are 'family businesses,' and this is sorta like that. There are 'familiarity hires,' which is incredibly common. You hire someone because you already know/trust what they can do, and you don't bother to look 'outside' to fill that position. Happens all the time. That's what 'networking' is about.

It's not as if our program doesn't have the precedent of promoting from within. If a HoF career is the objective and the model, then why wouldn't you 'repeat history?'

I also wish we would earnestly look outward. But, as i have said many times, it would also be a pretty rough blow to lose all of our loyal alums if the New Guy wasn't inclined to create his own staff.

 

[CardiacCuse]

If I was guessing of the 3 named, I would say GMac...just a hunch.

Brad Stevens would be interesting, imo...he's not gonna last in the NBA for a long time, imo...

Better in college.

 

[CardiacCuse]

Carmelo Anthony.

 

[MSOrange]

I agree with your 'wants,' but in reality, lots of people/companies do this in real life. There are 'family businesses,' and this is sorta like that. There are 'familiarity hires,' which is incredibly common. You hire someone because you already know/trust what they can do, and you don't bother to look 'outside' to fill that position. Happens all the time. That's what 'networking' is about.

It's not as if our program doesn't have the precedent of promoting from within. If a HoF career is the objective and the model, then why wouldn't you 'repeat history?'

I also wish we would earnestly look outward. But, as i have said many times, it would also be a pretty rough blow to lose all of our loyal alums if the New Guy wasn't inclined to create his own staff.

I appreciate the response but I will push back on this paragraph I bolded. This precedent was nearly 50 years ago when we were a regional independent program. Times and circumstances have changed and I hope our mindset has.

 

[Briancuse]

Cuserunner.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

I appreciate the response but I will push back on this paragraph I bolded. This precedent was nearly 50 years ago when we were a regional independent program. Times and circumstances have changed and I hope our mindset has.

I don’t disagree. I want change, too. I’m just projecting—into the mind of the AD. Hiring Red/GMac is essentially the same ‘strategy’ as hiring Hopkins, and that strategy led to a 50 year “legendary” run. That’s the safest route again, and there aren’t any clear cut outside options at the moment. Oats seems to have been a great choice for Bama, but how often does it work out that you choose a recent small school NCAA tournament darling and then he ends up being a sustained success at a major? I‘m only thinking of Enfield at the moment. You guys with better memories can help me prove or disprove my perception.

 

[kcsu]

Its Red.

 

[RF2044]

I don’t disagree. I want change, too. I’m just projecting—into the mind of the AD. Hiring Red/GMac is essentially the same ‘strategy’ as hiring Hopkins, and that strategy led to a 50 year “legendary” run. That’s the safest route again, and there aren’t any clear cut outside options at the moment. Oats seems to have been a great choice for Bama, but how often does it work out that you choose a recent small school NCAA tournament darling and then he ends up being a sustained success at a major? I‘m only thinking of Enfield at the moment. You guys with better memories can help me prove or disprove my perception.

Not directed at you specifically, ZZ -- but what you're advocating is the OPPOSITE of the "safest route."

Combined, neither Red nor GMac have had even ONE SINGLE program interested in them. Want to know why? Because they're not qualified. And if they aren't qualified for even lower level programs, then they have no business at the helm of an ACC program that is top 5 in all time wins. This is not a position for on-the-job training.

The safest route is to hire someone who actually has a proven track record, proven coaching acumen. And that's exactly what we're going to do when the time comes. We can do better, and we will do better.

 

[RF2044]

Its Red.

Red will get a courtesy interview. That's about it.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Not directed at you specifically, ZZ -- but what you're advocating is the OPPOSITE of the "safest route."

Combined, neither Red nor GMac have had even ONE SINGLE program interested in them. Want to know why? Because they're not qualified. And if they aren't qualified for even lower level programs, then they have no business at the helm of an ACC program that is top 5 in all time wins. This is not a position for on-the-job training.

The safest route is to hire someone who actually has a proven track record, proven coaching acumen. And that's exactly what we're going to do when the time comes. We can do better, and we will do better.

Do you not think that they haven't had sniffs because folks assume:
1) they just wouldn't be interested in leaving Syracuse?
2) they'd likely install an all zone defense, and that's not super attractive to most fanbases?

I'm not sure how you reach a conclusion that an assistant coach isn't qualified. What would they have to do to demonstrate they are qualified? Assistants get hired/promoted to HC positions. What did they do to demonstrate they were ready?

If we don't have assistants who are qualified to coach "even lower level programs," that's quite an indictment. Why should we have them on our staff?

Hop didn't have HC experience, and pretty quickly won Coach of the Year in his conference. Was he different (from Red/GMac)?

I don't know the answers to all these questions. But, other programs never approached JB about their vacancies. Because they knew where he wanted to be. There used to be talk about NBA teams not approaching him because they 'didn't think he had "it,"' but does that mean he 'wasn't qualified?' It's all speculation.

My only arguments in favor of a current assistant being promoted as 'the safe option' revolve around the JB precedent, the known personalities and characters, JB's likely endorsement of one of them, and that there isn't a clear outside option at this point. It's hard for me to think that an inside hire isn't the safest if we can't even talk about a specific name from the outside. Because that person is "X," it's inherently more risky. At this point.

 

[SUfanNC]

It’s funny that so many people mention this. He lived in Syracuse for most of his entire adult life. His recruiting connections and relationships are all in the Northeast and up and down the East coast. It takes years and years to build that kind of network. Most importantly, Syracuse is a significantly better basketball job than Washington.

I agree with all of what you said. I just don't know that if he is doing well at UW at the time it's just that easy to uproot to go back. If he is gaining traction there to your point it is hard and takes time. Plus why go back when you paved your way. This is all based on if Hop is doing well which is part of my quote

 

[RF2044]

Do you not think that they haven't had sniffs because folks assume:
1) they just wouldn't be interested in leaving Syracuse?
2) they'd likely install an all zone defense, and that's not super attractive to most fanbases?

I'm not sure how you reach a conclusion that an assistant coach isn't qualified. What would they have to do to demonstrate they are qualified? Assistants get hired/promoted to HC positions. What did they do to demonstrate they were ready?

If we don't have assistants who are qualified to coach "even lower level programs," that's quite an indictment. Why should we have them on our staff?

Hop didn't have HC experience, and pretty quickly won Coach of the Year in his conference. Was he different (from Red/GMac)?

I don't know the answers to all these questions. But, other programs never approached JB about their vacancies. Because they knew where he wanted to be. There used to be talk about NBA teams not approaching him because they 'didn't think he had "it,"' but does that mean he 'wasn't qualified?' It's all speculation.

My only arguments in favor of a current assistant being promoted as 'the safe option' revolve around the JB precedent, the known personalities and characters, JB's likely endorsement of one of them, and that there isn't a clear outside option at this point. It's hard for me to think that an inside hire isn't the safest if we can't even talk about a specific name from the outside. Because that person is "X," it's inherently more risky. At this point.

They haven't garnered external offers because they have likely maxed out their careers as assistant coaches. And there's nothing wrong with that. Doesn't mean that they aren't good coaches, just maybe not head coaching material. Pointing that out is not an "indictment" at all -- sports is full of countless examples of fine coaches who are better assistant coaches or coordinators than they are HC's. It's the peter principle.

As MS points out above, there is no precedent here. JB was hired nearly five decades ago.

I think people are just afraid of change. Sure, change is "risky" -- but risk also brings opportunity. There is no reason for the AD to artificially constrain the search to a limited subset of candidates. We need to find the best candidate we can, and hire him. Period.

Having former ties to the program is nice to have, but isn't a need to have.

PS-- Hopkins followed up that Coach of the Year run with two last place finishes. So...

 

[Zelda Zonk]

They haven't garnered external offers because they have likely maxed out their careers as assistant coaches. And there's nothing wrong with that. Doesn't mean that they aren't good coaches, just maybe not head coaching material. Pointing that out is not an "indictment" at all -- sports is full of countless examples of fine coaches who are better assistant coaches or coordinators than they are HC's. It's the peter principle.

As MS points out above, there is no precedent here. JB was hired nearly five decades ago.

I think people are just afraid of change. Sure, change is "risky" -- but risk also brings opportunity. There is no reason for the AD to artificially constrain the search to a limited subset of candidates. We need to find the best candidate we can, and hire him. Period.

Having former ties to the program is nice to have, but isn't a need to have.

PS-- Hopkins followed up that Coach of the Year run with two last place finishes. So...

Where do you get the info/impression that our assistants aren't qualified/have maxxed their careers?

When i mention "precedent," it's in the context of 'literally the last decision we made,' and the only one that could be in memory. Which was successful, by any account. 50 years ago isn't really relevant. The Nixon Memo was further back than that, and it had an impact just last year. Carolina just promoted an assistant. UConn did it after Calhoun. It happens. It's not bizarre. It's probably more 'normal' than abnormal, especially with already-established programs.

Former ties: Again, i don't disagree with you. Ideally, i'd like a clean start, and one that isn't defined by zone. Most of my arguments aren't from my own perspective–just putting out what i expect are going to be the AD's concerns and thought processes.

Hopkins: Yep. That CoY didn't sustain. But, there are a lot of factors involved, and my point wasn't that Hop went from assistant to HoF. It's that he went from assistant with no experience to a product/result that demonstrated that he had competence. Maybe he's going to be an excellent coach, but just not with the same kind of consistency as JB. Heck, the Red Sox seem to go from first to last place every other year—stuff happens.

 

[RF2044]

Where do you get the info/impression that our assistants aren't qualified/have maxxed their careers?

When i mention "precedent," it's in the context of 'literally the last decision we made,' and the only one that could be in memory. Which was successful, by any account. 50 years ago isn't really relevant. The Nixon Memo was further back than that, and it had an impact just last year. Carolina just promoted an assistant. UConn did it after Calhoun. It happens. It's not bizarre. It's probably more 'normal' than abnormal, especially with already-established programs.

Former ties: Again, i don't disagree with you. Ideally, i'd like a clean start, and one that isn't defined by zone. Most of my arguments aren't from my own perspective–just putting out what i expect are going to be the AD's concerns and thought processes.

Hopkins: Yep. That CoY didn't sustain. But, there are a lot of factors involved, and my point wasn't that Hop went from assistant to HoF. It's that he went from assistant with no experience to a product/result that demonstrated that he had competence. Maybe he's going to be an excellent coach, but just not with the same kind of consistency as JB. Heck, the Red Sox seem to go from first to last place every other year—stuff happens.

Because no other program has expressed an interest in either of them. That's why. And that should be informative, but to some it apparently isn't.

Doesn't mean that either or both won't ever get a shot to be head coaches at some point. But Red is 50+ years old. That's a long time to be an assistant coach without being offered a head coaching gig, if you actually have the chops to be a head coach.

As for the rest -- being a head coach is more than just about understanding basketball, or coaching on game day. Some have the ability to coordinate all aspects of the program on and off the court, most do not. Which is why many -- not all -- of them fail or underachieve when given the opportunity to be a HC. Are there exceptions? Sure. But this is not a program where we should be looking to guys who require on the job training.

And I completely disagree with you about 50 years ago / precedent, and how it informs what we'll do today. I see people point to that, as though it will / should somehow be instructive about what to expect, but what some other AD did in the mid 1970s when we were a regional program won't influence as to how things will unfold now, when college basketball has transformed into big business.

Our current AD can't afford to get the hire wrong. Restricting himself ONLY to internal candidates would be a great way to bungle the hire. On the list of evaluative criteria, having ties to the program should be pretty far down the list.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Because no other program has expressed an interest in either of them. That's why. And that should be informative, but to some it apparently isn't.

Doesn't mean that either or both won't ever get a shot to be head coaches at some point. But Red is 50+ years old. That's a long time to be an assistant coach without being offered a head coaching gig, if you actually have the chops to be a head coach.

As for the rest -- being a head coach is more than just about understanding basketball, or coaching on game day. Some have the ability to coordinate all aspects of the program on and off the court, most do not. Which is why many -- not all -- of them fail or underachieve when given the opportunity to be a HC. Are there exceptions? Sure. But this is not a program where we should be looking to guys who require on the job training.

And I completely disagree with you about 50 years ago / precedent, and how it informs what we'll do today. I see people point to that, as though it will / should somehow be instructive about what to expect, but what some other AD did in the mid 1970s when we were a regional program won't influence as to how things will unfold now, when college basketball has transformed into big business.

Our current AD can't afford to get the hire wrong. Restricting himself ONLY to internal candidates would be a great way to bungle the hire. On the list of evaluative criteria, having ties to the program should be pretty far down the list.

"Because no other program has expressed an interest in either of them. That's why. And that should be informative, but to some it apparently isn't."

You're probably far more plugged-into the backchannels of coaching discussions than i am. And still, i don't see this as anything more than the highest level of nebulous speculation. We as a team have not been setting the world on fire of late. If we had been a hot program—top-ranked, etc.—assistants would get more projected credit for that success. Maybe that's an indication that our assistants aren't qualified—i don't know. But, then it would also reflect on our HC's qualifications.

I recently read an older story about the 'top assistants who will be HCs someday' and those prognostications didn't amount to much.

I wonder how many assistants who eventually ended up being good HCs were actually pursued by other programs while they were assistants. I'm guessing that that might be more prevalent among assistants who weren't working at their high-profile alma mater, where the expectation might be that their 'loyalties' and end objectives wouldn't be to return to that higher profile school. If i were an AD, that would be a concern. I'd want a long-term solution, not a short-term proving ground for someone destined to leave.

Yeah, i agree—and i've said it a hundred times—i want the AD to look elsewhere. But, i also recognize the challenge in doing so, and i don't expect him to just throw away the relationships we have in the 'SU Family of Alums.' Whether he should throw that away depends on the quality of an outside candidate. And right now, none have been named that are compelling enough.

But, whatever: thanks for the discussion and for indulging my 'exploration of someone else's thought process.' It will be interesting.

 

[Marroniac]

All these years, I don’t think I’ve ever heard Red speak. Hard to form an opinion.

 

[Yukon]

As someone who roots for a team that went through a similar transition not to long ago, take the field. Not that any of the listed options are awful but none will be able to follow a legend. Then you are in the awkward situation of firing a family member which will alienate some former players.

Very rarely do high level programs change coaches without a hiccup. UNC and Kentucky took a bit to get it right and Indiana and UCLA are still figuring it out. Kansas is pretty much the only school that seems to have transitioned smoothly. Go with the best coach, not what you know.

 

[SBU72]

GMac gets the odd years, Red gets the even years.

We'll make everyone happy and then everyone will be happy, right?

So they are co-head coaches who split the seasons

 

[All4SU]

Might be a bit of a jump from volunteer assistant in D2 up to SU. But hey...

 

[SBU72]

There was a recent discussion about SU having lots to offer recruits, being 2nd tier, just below the top 5 or 6 schools. By extension and often discussed, many claim SU is a destination school for top coaches both established and the up and coming. If this is the case where SU has a wide range of coaches to choose from, why are most picking GMac or Red? Shouldn't they be picking the field of the best around.

 

[kcsu]

Red will get a courtesy interview. That's about it.

I dont agree.

 

[kcsu]

Gmac, don’t want him to be but think it will be. With Dnic in the fold, JB finishes this year, then the year after he retires right before the season or early season so Gmac can slide right in.

So the staff becomes G Joe Buddy and Dnic? Perfect we will build a recruiting fence around Albany.

 

[RF2044]

I dont agree.

Luckily for the program, you'll have no say in the matter.