MBB: NESCAC

[jumpshot]

JEFFFAN, every winning enterprise I know hires the most qualified person. Stockholders, directors, trustees, employees, customers, executives, patients, etc., expect good leaders to do so.

What was the most important factor?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

JEFFFAN, every winning enterprise I know hires the most qualified person. Stockholders, directors, trustees, employees, customers, executives, patients, etc., expect good leaders to do so.

What was the most important factor?

By whose definition? Yours? Or someone elses? Maybe the committee felt otherwise.

[jumpshot]

Dave, please understand my question is addressed to JEFFFAN who said today in his earlier post that professional qualifications were not the most important factor, and had they been there would be a different new coach at amHerst. JEFFFAN purports to know what was the most important factor.

So I'm simply asking JEFFFAN what was the most important factor?

[JEFFFAN]

One only has to look at the last five coaching hires at Amherst to know what the primary criteria was for hiring.   It is not for me to question whether that is appropriate or not - clearly the administration felt that having the best track record and strongest qualifications were not the most important criterion.  Again, to be clear, it is not for me to judge whether the school's criteria is appropriate or not.  They run the school, I just went there and for 42 years gave money to the school.  I do not any longer as excellence is not the primary driver in athletics.

Check out the reports in the Greenfeld Reporter by Chip Ainsworth on the lacrosse debacle.   That will provide an additional sense of the situation at Amherst as one of the top D3 lacrosse coaches in America was run out of town on the basis of an absurdly bad process.

AMH63 and some other posters are, like me, ready for a change at the top of the school.   

[SpringSt7]

https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1273639203096543233?s=21

Some big time news for former Eph Will Hardy, who seems destined to be an NBA head coach sooner rather than later.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

One only has to look at the last five coaching hires at Amherst to know what the primary criteria was for hiring.   It is not for me to question whether that is appropriate or not - clearly the administration felt that having the best track record and strongest qualifications were not the most important criterion.  Again, to be clear, it is not for me to judge whether the school's criteria is appropriate or not.  They run the school, I just went there and for 42 years gave money to the school.  I do not any longer as excellence is not the primary driver in athletics.

Check out the reports in the Greenfeld Reporter by Chip Ainsworth on the lacrosse debacle.   That will provide an additional sense of the situation at Amherst as one of the top D3 lacrosse coaches in America was run out of town on the basis of an absurdly bad process.

AMH63 and some other posters are, like me, ready for a change at the top of the school.

Considering the accusations of what was going on by the men's lacrosse team and the fact the buck stops with the head coach of a team, I don't think many care what the argument is about the process. That decision had to be made to let the coach go. Amherst isn't the first to do this. Coaches have been fired for hazing still going on with programs and certainly for behavior the lacrosse team at Amherst is accused of in this case. Are you trying to say the lacrosse coach should have stayed because he's considered "one of the top D3 lacrosse coaches in America" (arguably, I can think of a number who seem to have better results on the field) he should have stayed despite what was apparently going on with his team? When I read the accusations I was sick to my stomach and flashed back to my high school prep days when some of my white classmates acted like they were better than everyone else and their actions, no matter how reprehensible, could never be questioned. Thankfully, higher ups thought wiser of that. The fact that we are now three decades past that point and still trying to defend individuals responsible for the actions of their teams - if that is indeed the case here - is incredible disappointing.

And maybe you can argue that in some sports there were better qualified candidates, but you are also assuming those candidates were all wiling to take the job. From what I've heard, some of the lacrosse candidates didn't want the job. I've written here that Larry Anderson was probably out of the mix when the time came to choose for men's basketball. And I'd argue that Mike Maker or Marlon Spears is a toss up based on the fact that Maker didn't have the success many hoped he would have at Marist and he hasn't been coaching since (though, I know the reasons behind the lack of coaching are more financial in nature than interest in working). Pretending Spears doesn't have a good resume, though, is possibly laughable. Opinions I've read on here about his resume have come across as fishing for reasons to hate it more than what is actual. Of the rest of the list, I'm not sure you can say they are equal to Spears or Maker and that is no disrespect to those men. Not everyone is equal in every search.

(By the way, none of us can say how any of these individuals performed in the interview process through any of the stages. I can think of a recent search I knew a lot about where one of the candidates I was sure was going to be the top choice ... until I heard they bombed in the final interview process and immediately was eliminated. Another case where the "demands" of one of the finalists who may have gotten the job turned off the committee and suddenly that person wasn't even a viable candidate.)

But finally, who cares if the school is looking to be more diverse. Good for them. If they chose the wrong coach, they will learn soon enough and make a decision based on it ... but trying to say a school shouldn't hire these coaches with excuses of "there were better candidates" is a pretty popular way many use as an argument when minorities are hired. As Ryan indicated early on, it happens nearly every time a minority is hired. The minority person's resume is ripped apart and other resumes are inflated to find a way to make the hire look bad while hiding the fact people don't like the fact a minority was hired. As much as I have hoped people weren't doing that in these chat boards, the simple fact the topic continues blows my mind and leaves less options as to the reasoning. I have seen white coaches with less than stellar resumes hired over minorities and not a peep from people that better candidates were not chosen ... but in this case, there have been pages spent on the decision(s) with the same topics constantly circling back to the top.

I would hope people here would be better than that. But I am also realizing many people in this world aren't, sadly.

[Bucket]

One only has to look at the last five coaching hires at Amherst to know what the primary criteria was for hiring.   It is not for me to question whether that is appropriate or not - clearly the administration felt that having the best track record and strongest qualifications were not the most important criterion.  Again, to be clear, it is not for me to judge whether the school's criteria is appropriate or not.  They run the school, I just went there and for 42 years gave money to the school.  I do not any longer as excellence is not the primary driver in athletics.

Check out the reports in the Greenfeld Reporter by Chip Ainsworth on the lacrosse debacle.   That will provide an additional sense of the situation at Amherst as one of the top D3 lacrosse coaches in America was run out of town on the basis of an absurdly bad process.

AMH63 and some other posters are, like me, ready for a change at the top of the school.

Considering the accusations of what was going on by the men's lacrosse team and the fact the buck stops with the head coach of a team, I don't think many care what the argument is about the process. That decision had to be made to let the coach go. Amherst isn't the first to do this. Coaches have been fired for hazing still going on with programs and certainly for behavior the lacrosse team at Amherst is accused of in this case. Are you trying to say the lacrosse coach should have stayed because he's considered "one of the top D3 lacrosse coaches in America" (arguably, I can think of a number who seem to have better results on the field) he should have stayed despite what was apparently going on with his team? When I read the accusations I was sick to my stomach and flashed back to my high school prep days when some of my white classmates acted like they were better than everyone else and their actions, no matter how reprehensible, could never be questioned. Thankfully, higher ups thought wiser of that. The fact that we are now three decades past that point and still trying to defend individuals responsible for the actions of their teams - if that is indeed the case here - is incredible disappointing.

And maybe you can argue that in some sports there were better qualified candidates, but you are also assuming those candidates were all wiling to take the job. From what I've heard, some of the lacrosse candidates didn't want the job. I've written here that Larry Anderson was probably out of the mix when the time came to choose for men's basketball. And I'd argue that Mike Maker or Marlon Spears is a toss up based on the fact that Maker didn't have the success many hoped he would have at Marist and he hasn't been coaching since (though, I know the reasons behind the lack of coaching are more financial in nature than interest in working). Pretending Spears doesn't have a good resume, though, is possibly laughable. Opinions I've read on here about his resume have come across as fishing for reasons to hate it more than what is actual. Of the rest of the list, I'm not sure you can say they are equal to Spears or Maker and that is no disrespect to those men. Not everyone is equal in every search.

(By the way, none of us can say how any of these individuals performed in the interview process through any of the stages. I can think of a recent search I knew a lot about where one of the candidates I was sure was going to be the top choice ... until I heard they bombed in the final interview process and immediately was eliminated. Another case where the "demands" of one of the finalists who may have gotten the job turned off the committee and suddenly that person wasn't even a viable candidate.)

But finally, who cares if the school is looking to be more diverse. Good for them. If they chose the wrong coach, they will learn soon enough and make a decision based on it ... but trying to say a school shouldn't hire these coaches with excuses of "there were better candidates" is a pretty popular way many use as an argument when minorities are hired. As Ryan indicated early on, it happens nearly every time a minority is hired. The minority person's resume is ripped apart and other resumes are inflated to find a way to make the hire look bad while hiding the fact people don't like the fact a minority was hired. As much as I have hoped people weren't doing that in these chat boards, the simple fact the topic continues blows my mind and leaves less options as to the reasoning. I have seen white coaches with less than stellar resumes hired over minorities and not a peep from people that better candidates were not chosen ... but in this case, there have been pages spent on the decision(s) with the same topics constantly circling back to the top.

I would hope people here would be better than that. But I am also realizing many people in this world aren't, sadly.

I'm repeating a sentence I bolded above:

And I'd argue that Mike Maker or Marlon Spears is a toss up based on the fact that Maker didn't have the success many hoped he would have at Marist and he hasn't been coaching since

That's just really, really dumb. Gregg Popovich wouldn't have won at Marist.

And do you think he's forgotten how to coach in the past two years? For starters, he's been quite active, attending many, many collegiate practices in the Twin Cities area. And I guarantee you he's been thinking about coaching and basketball more days than not during the past two years.

Further, regarding the Spears-Maker resume comparison: Much is made of Spears's ability to recruit "high academic" kids at Columbia and Cornell. Fair point. Not just fair point. Good point! But so does Maker, and it's more extensive given his experience at Dartmouth and Williams.

And then compare how the two fared as a head coach at the D3 level. The only person in the history of D3 with a better level of success than Mike Maker is a guy named Bo Ryan. And while Williams is a storied program, the Ephs weren't exactly tearing it up before Maker arrived. In Dave Paulsen's last game, I watched the Panthers stomp Williams by 30+ in Pepin. Maker subsequently took Williams squads to two national title games (one with Paulsen's "guys"; one with his). For further comparison there is Maker's work with Dana Altman at Creighton and John Beilein at West Virginia.

Mike Maker's resume is not inflated. Not in the least. And I am not tearing down Marlon Sears's resume. It's impressive, it is. And being a successful coach requires more than a great resume, obviously. But if we are strictly basing a comparison on won-loss results as you do in citing Maker's record as a coach at Marist, then this is an asinine argument.

Now, Marlon Spears may turn out to be a very good coach. He brings intangibles that perhaps Mike Maker does not. But to call his candidacy a toss up with that of Makers's because of Marist?! I've read some dumb stuff on these boards. That may be the most absurd comment of all.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I didn't say it was a good reason ... just a feeling I have. That is all. Maker hasn't been in the mix for a lot of jobs and Marist didn't go well - it didn't look good going in and he was canned probably before he had a chance to fix it. I am not saying in the slightest way that it is his fault ... I'm simply portraying how individuals likely look at it. Maker likely got screwed in that deal - other than financially.

As I said to someone else recently off of these boards: if Maker had been hired by Amherst, I would have been smirking for a very long time. It would have been the perfect added note to the Amherst/Williams rivalry. When I saw his name, I thought there was a legit chance. That doesn't mean he should have been hired, though.

And I think it is a toss up for many reasons, but you are only focused on one element while making a passing comment that Spears brings in intangibles "that perhaps Maker did not." Wouldn't that possibly make the thing a toss up? Are there elements maybe you aren't considering? We have no idea how interviews went, either. In a COVID-19 world, things are different as well ... are you sure that didn't make a difference in the process?

Sure, Maker had a great run at Williams. I don't think you have seen me say otherwise. I also don't think you see me say Maker didn't deserve the job. However, to your comment about Paulson's last game ... Maker in the semifinals of his last season was coaching a Williams team that spanked Amherst (after being beaten in three straight games against Amherst that season). It wasn't even a game. Is that to say Amherst wasn't any good or Hixon couldn't coach?

One game doesn't make any argument especially in the sport of basketball.

Williams was 17-8 in the season you are comparing. Maker went 17-9 the next season with those guys. I think both coaches did pretty well with that group. There are teams that would die to have back-to-back 17-win seasons. Trying to pretend Paulson didn't have a good team and Maker turned them into something that Paulson couldn't might be a stretch. Maker had a terrific second season, but couldn't it be argued that the pieces brought in by Paulson helped? My point isn't to say Paulson is better than Maker or the other way around, but simply that your comparison of one game at the end being an ugly loss doesn't suddenly make Maker a savior that Paulson couldn't do.

[Bucket]

And I think it is a toss up for many reasons, but you are only focused on one element while making a passing comment that Spears brings in intangibles "that perhaps Maker did not." Wouldn't that possibly make the thing a toss up? Are there elements maybe you aren't considering? We have no idea how interviews went, either. In a COVID-19 world, things are different as well ... are you sure that didn't make a difference in the process?

But you see, Dave, you didn't say it was a toss-up for many reasons. You specifically said it was a toss-up because of Maker's tenure at Marist and the two years that have followed. That's it. That's what you wrote.

Your words, exactly: And I'd argue that Mike Maker or Marlon Spears is a toss up based on the fact that Maker didn't have the success many hoped he would have at Marist and he hasn't been coaching since.

The purpose of my post was to say it's ludicrous to argue that won-loss records made the choice between Maker and Sears a toss-up, while specifically saying that other intangibles could make it so! You didn't say it. I did. Talk about gaslighting!

[ThumannsOwn]

I didn't say it was a good reason ... just a feeling I have. That is all. Maker hasn't been in the mix for a lot of jobs and Marist didn't go well - it didn't look good going in and he was canned probably before he had a chance to fix it. I am not saying in the slightest way that it is his fault ... I'm simply portraying how individuals likely look at it. Maker likely got screwed in that deal - other than financially.

As I said to someone else recently off of these boards: if Maker had been hired by Amherst, I would have been smirking for a very long time. It would have been the perfect added note to the Amherst/Williams rivalry. When I saw his name, I thought there was a legit chance. That doesn't mean he should have been hired, though.

And I think it is a toss up for many reasons, but you are only focused on one element while making a passing comment that Spears brings in intangibles "that perhaps Maker did not." Wouldn't that possibly make the thing a toss up? Are there elements maybe you aren't considering? We have no idea how interviews went, either. In a COVID-19 world, things are different as well ... are you sure that didn't make a difference in the process?

Sure, Maker had a great run at Williams. I don't think you have seen me say otherwise. I also don't think you see me say Maker didn't deserve the job. However, to your comment about Paulson's last game ... Maker in the semifinals of his last season was coaching a Williams team that spanked Amherst (after being beaten in three straight games against Amherst that season). It wasn't even a game. Is that to say Amherst wasn't any good or Hixon couldn't coach?

One game doesn't make any argument especially in the sport of basketball.

Williams was 17-8 in the season you are comparing. Maker went 17-9 the next season with those guys. I think both coaches did pretty well with that group. There are teams that would die to have back-to-back 17-win seasons. Trying to pretend Paulson didn't have a good team and Maker turned them into something that Paulson couldn't might be a stretch. Maker had a terrific second season, but couldn't it be argued that the pieces brought in by Paulson helped? My point isn't to say Paulson is better than Maker or the other way around, but simply that your comparison of one game at the end being an ugly loss doesn't suddenly make Maker a savior that Paulson couldn't do.

It is very possible that the committee viewed Maker's resume more favorably than Sears', as I heard from a pretty reliable source that Maker's final interview went horribly. That might have been the difference, assuming these were the final 2 candidates. I also heard from a D1 head coach with very strong NE ties that Jean Bain was in the mix at some point before dropping out of the race to leverage some better terms at Brandeis.

[SpringSt7]

Maker was extended for a 5th year despite being let go after 4. If you didn't hear about him in the mix in many spots, it was probably because he wasn't looking for any. Additionally, his wife is entering her 3rd year as the head women's cross country and track and field coach at St. Olaf's in Minnesota. They have other stuff going on.

I agree wholeheartedly---the Marlon Sears discussion has gone on entirely too long. He brings a wealth of experience from a number of different places, including both the Ivy League and as a D3 head coach, both of which should serve him well. It is also not my place to comment on the goings on at Amherst, which seem incredibly messy and complicated. I'll leave that to the Amherst posters who know their school much better than I or anyone else on the outside does.

But we can drop the BS about Maker's resume not being up to snuff.

[nescac1]

Agree with SpringSt7's comments.  Just one more thing on Maker though: regarding 2009 (which Dave downplayed), despite implementing a new system, with only one significant senior contributor, and after the prior year's team graduated two guys who had been all-league players (Rose and Shalvoy), Maker duplicated the success of his predecessor (who has since been a very successful D1 coach, so obviously he could coach as well).   That's a pretty darn good season.  And of course, in his next five years he had two title game appearances, an Elite 8, and an narrow loss in the Final Four despite his two stars both playing through serious injuries.  That's a ridiculous D3 resume. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I didn't say it was a good reason ... just a feeling I have. That is all. Maker hasn't been in the mix for a lot of jobs and Marist didn't go well - it didn't look good going in and he was canned probably before he had a chance to fix it. I am not saying in the slightest way that it is his fault ... I'm simply portraying how individuals likely look at it. Maker likely got screwed in that deal - other than financially.

As I said to someone else recently off of these boards: if Maker had been hired by Amherst, I would have been smirking for a very long time. It would have been the perfect added note to the Amherst/Williams rivalry. When I saw his name, I thought there was a legit chance. That doesn't mean he should have been hired, though.

And I think it is a toss up for many reasons, but you are only focused on one element while making a passing comment that Spears brings in intangibles "that perhaps Maker did not." Wouldn't that possibly make the thing a toss up? Are there elements maybe you aren't considering? We have no idea how interviews went, either. In a COVID-19 world, things are different as well ... are you sure that didn't make a difference in the process?

Sure, Maker had a great run at Williams. I don't think you have seen me say otherwise. I also don't think you see me say Maker didn't deserve the job. However, to your comment about Paulson's last game ... Maker in the semifinals of his last season was coaching a Williams team that spanked Amherst (after being beaten in three straight games against Amherst that season). It wasn't even a game. Is that to say Amherst wasn't any good or Hixon couldn't coach?

One game doesn't make any argument especially in the sport of basketball.

Williams was 17-8 in the season you are comparing. Maker went 17-9 the next season with those guys. I think both coaches did pretty well with that group. There are teams that would die to have back-to-back 17-win seasons. Trying to pretend Paulson didn't have a good team and Maker turned them into something that Paulson couldn't might be a stretch. Maker had a terrific second season, but couldn't it be argued that the pieces brought in by Paulson helped? My point isn't to say Paulson is better than Maker or the other way around, but simply that your comparison of one game at the end being an ugly loss doesn't suddenly make Maker a savior that Paulson couldn't do.

It is very possible that the committee viewed Maker's resume more favorably than Sears', as I heard from a pretty reliable source that Maker's final interview went horribly. That might have been the difference, assuming these were the final 2 candidates. I also heard from a D1 head coach with very strong NE ties that Jean Bain was in the mix at some point before dropping out of the race to leverage some better terms at Brandeis.

That is a shame if it is true. My example of interviews not going well was not based on anything here, but other examples. I wasn't assuming Maker had a bad interview ... but if that is indeed the case ... guh.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Maker was extended for a 5th year despite being let go after 4. If you didn't hear about him in the mix in many spots, it was probably because he wasn't looking for any. Additionally, his wife is entering her 3rd year as the head women's cross country and track and field coach at St. Olaf's in Minnesota. They have other stuff going on.

Yes ... he is still being paid by Marist, but I also know he has been checking around and only applying to gigs that interest him ... so he was willing to forgo the Marist money. I am just surprised he didn't come up in more searches - but I don't have a list of what he was interested in. His wife is at St. Olaf, but I think he might start getting back into coaching soon.

I wondered if he was interested in the Augustana job ... I am not sure he was.
[/quote]

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Agree with SpringSt7's comments.  Just one more thing on Maker though: regarding 2009 (which Dave downplayed), despite implementing a new system, with only one significant senior contributor, and after the prior year's team graduated two guys who had been all-league players (Rose and Shalvoy), Maker duplicated the success of his predecessor (who has since been a very successful D1 coach, so obviously he could coach as well).   That's a pretty darn good season.  And of course, in his next five years he had two title game appearances, an Elite 8, and an narrow loss in the Final Four despite his two stars both playing through serious injuries.  That's a ridiculous D3 resume.

I didn't down play it at all ... I was trying to make sure Paulson's last season wasn't downplayed. I didn't do a damn thing to downplay Maker's first season at all. I pointed out the seasons were equal - if you are saying there was downplaying it's because bucket's example made it seem like Paulson's last year wasn't all that great ... which is what I was trying to say wasn't fair to say.

People seem to be confused with what I was saying about Maker, which is interesting considering I've been pretty blunt. In no way have I been downplaying his resume. None at all. I've been trying to say that I think Spears' is better than people are trying to portray. That I think with Maker's and each having different qualities that maybe to the committee it was a toss up. Bucket even admitted there are likely intangibles that Spears brings to the table that maybe makes him a stronger candidate. I wasn't bringing Maker down... I was trying to point out that Spears is strong than people are giving him credit.

You all are the ones thinking I'm trying to downplay Maker. Yes, I pointed out things didn't go well at Marist ... but that isn't to say he's suddenly a less than good coach... it's simply to say it didn't go as well as he or others hoped. Period. I also know that to some that has caused them to scratch their heads. Others will say he didn't have a chance and others that he did well considering. All valid points, but still a part of his resume I am sure even he wishes stood a little stronger - heck, I was ready to tout him as incredible had he turned that sinking ship around!

But again ... I am NOT downplaying Maker, I'm trying to point out Spears is better than many are giving him credit.