MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Gregory Sager]

For another, Bosko -- as I mentioned in my previous post -- was also the head baseball coach at North Park during the latter period of Dan McCarrell's tenure as the head men's basketball coach of the Vikings.

There was a time when the majority of athletes were multi-sport athletes and later became multi-sport coaches.

Yep. It was the rule rather than the exception in D3.

[north central]

Something I just cant understand is how coaches are evaluated and how and why certain people are perceived as good candidates or not for a certain job. For example with the NCC search, I think many people would have put Kennedy ahead of Vince as a candidate for that position. It baffles me as to why/ how someone like that is even under consideration for that position. Someone who has had 7 consecutive losing seasons as a coach and 4 consecutive losing seasons as a player and no experience as a head coach or even at the d3 level should not even be under consideration for a spot like that. With that background theres no way you could expect him to do anything but lose. VK on the other hand has had 7 consecutive winning seasons as a coach and 4 consecutive winning seasons as a player so how are those two even looked at as comparable or even in the same stratosphere as a potential head D3 coach, IF YOUR GOAL IS TO WIN BASKETBALL GAMES. Someone please explain that to me.

Two thoughts on this.

First, you bring a guy like Kennedy into the interview process if you want your four finalists to all look very different from one another.  This is actually not a bad idea, as you can learn from individual candidates and can make an informed choice about what type of professional experience you may feel will best set your program up for success.  I have long thought that this is preferable to bringing in four candidates who all look really similar on paper.  He didn't get the offer, so clearly that trajectory was not what the hiring team felt was the best option.  No harm, no foul.  And potentially a useful exercise.

This, BTW, is one of the reasons why Todd Kelly was dead wrong with his righteous indignation a couple of years ago about the CalTech coach being part of the Augie consideration set when he was a finalist there.

Second, I am neither a Vince Kmiec fan nor a critic, but let's be honest here: he doesn't have seven consecutive winning seasons as a coach.  Todd Raridon does.  Vince played a part in that, for sure, but it is a stretch to credit these to the assistant -- especially when one of the main cogs on almost all of those teams shares DNA with the head coach.  And any committee that projects success as a coach from his success as a player would have no idea what they are doing

The point was if someone has been a member of a team or member of the coaching staff that has only won then that person is either part of the reason for the winning or at the very least has learned a great deal about what it takes to win and what winning culture looks like. BTW that comment was no shade on Todd Raridon who I have the utmost respect for.
In regards to the CAlTech comment, someone that has had 12 consecutive losing seasons has had more than enough time to prove if they can win and they have proven that they cant bottom line. No one with 12 consecutive losing seasons should ever have a chance to get a better position because they have clearly proved they cant get the job done. I stand on that

(modified by GS for formatting)

[kiko]

Something I just cant understand is how coaches are evaluated and how and why certain people are perceived as good candidates or not for a certain job. For example with the NCC search, I think many people would have put Kennedy ahead of Vince as a candidate for that position. It baffles me as to why/ how someone like that is even under consideration for that position. Someone who has had 7 consecutive losing seasons as a coach and 4 consecutive losing seasons as a player and no experience as a head coach or even at the d3 level should not even be under consideration for a spot like that. With that background theres no way you could expect him to do anything but lose. VK on the other hand has had 7 consecutive winning seasons as a coach and 4 consecutive winning seasons as a player so how are those two even looked at as comparable or even in the same stratosphere as a potential head D3 coach, IF YOUR GOAL IS TO WIN BASKETBALL GAMES. Someone please explain that to me.

Two thoughts on this.

First, you bring a guy like Kennedy into the interview process if you want your four finalists to all look very different from one another.  This is actually not a bad idea, as you can learn from individual candidates and can make an informed choice about what type of professional experience you may feel will best set your program up for success.  I have long thought that this is preferable to bringing in four candidates who all look really similar on paper.  He didn't get the offer, so clearly that trajectory was not what the hiring team felt was the best option.  No harm, no foul.  And potentially a useful exercise.

This, BTW, is one of the reasons why Todd Kelly was dead wrong with his righteous indignation a couple of years ago about the CalTech coach being part of the Augie consideration set when he was a finalist there.

Second, I am neither a Vince Kmiec fan nor a critic, but let's be honest here: he doesn't have seven consecutive winning seasons as a coach.  Todd Raridon does.  Vince played a part in that, for sure, but it is a stretch to credit these to the assistant -- especially when one of the main cogs on almost all of those teams shares DNA with the head coach.  And any committee that projects success as a coach from his success as a player would have no idea what they are doing

The point was if someone has been a member of a team or member of the coaching staff that has only won then that person is either part of the reason for the winning or at the very least has learned a great deal about what it takes to win and what winning culture looks like. BTW that comment was no shade on Todd Raridon who I have the utmost respect for.
In regards to the CAlTech comment, someone that has had 12 consecutive losing seasons has had more than enough time to prove if they can win and they have proven that they cant bottom line. No one with 12 consecutive losing seasons should ever have a chance to get a better position because they have clearly proved they cant get the job done. I stand on that

(modified by GS for formatting)

I don't doubt that Vince played a part in North Central's relative level of success in recent years.  And I have no doubt that when he gets the chance to be a head coach, he has a strong chance to be successful.  I would have been fine had he been chosen to lead the program.

But I would have had more doubts about him than about the candidate who was chosen.  To me a bigger flag (too strong of a word, but I mean it in the sense that 'this is what I would be most concerned about') is that he had collegiate experience, as a player and as an assistant, at one institution under one coach.  If I saw someone in my professional setting who had (1) a ton of potential to be great in their field, (2) experience in one setting, and (3) experience under one manager, I would encourage them to look for a change of scenery as their next move, as IMO it would be the best thing for their professional development.  Same context here, albeit in a basketball and education setting.  Knowing the school, its  ways of working, its recruiting territory, etc. are all pluses.  But as a coach, a breadth of experience and exposure to more ideas in different settings would make him an even stronger candidate for success as a head coach going forward.

I assume the second part of your msg relates to the candidate who North Central evaluated (who I have no POV on other than what I mentioned earlier that it was a useful exercise to look at someone with a D1 assistant background) rather than Caltech.  In case it wasn't: from my POV, the progress that Caltech has made (and sustained) in being competitive under Oliver Eslinger speaks extremely highly of him as a coach and leader of a program.  He has not yet had a winning season, but he's changed what was a calcified, no-hope culture and moved it considerably far along the spectrum versus where it once was.  Todd Kelly's comments in the immediate aftermath of the Augustana search that Eslinger shouldn't have been a finalist in the Vikings' search process were myopic at best, were ignorant as to some of the broader context around that candidate's resume, and showed a considerable amount of professional immaturity.  Instead of publicly whinging about how a competing candidate should not have been part of the process, IMO he would have been better served to seek to understand what that candidate brought to the table that may have attracted a school's attention.

[Next Man Up]

Something I just cant understand is how coaches are evaluated and how and why certain people are perceived as good candidates or not for a certain job. For example with the NCC search, I think many people would have put Kennedy ahead of Vince as a candidate for that position. It baffles me as to why/ how someone like that is even under consideration for that position. Someone who has had 7 consecutive losing seasons as a coach and 4 consecutive losing seasons as a player and no experience as a head coach or even at the d3 level should not even be under consideration for a spot like that. With that background there's no way you could expect him to do anything but lose. VK on the other hand has had 7 consecutive winning seasons as a coach and 4 consecutive winning seasons as a player so how are those two even looked at as comparable or even in the same stratosphere as a potential head D3 coach, IF YOUR GOAL IS TO WIN BASKETBALL GAMES. Someone please explain that to me.

Goals might not be to win basketball games? When you get administrators, who are removed from the day to day and have little to no relationships with current players/coaches, the goalposts can move dramatically.

USee has us pointed in the right direction. Now we're getting somewhere.

When the VP of Athletics only talks to the head basketball coach 2 or 3 times during the entire school year, and the team players wouldn't know her from the old lady who lives in the shoe you have a disconnect right from the get go.

And, while the goal might always be to win, you definitely have a problem when you have people in charge that have no idea how to properly assemble the parts needed to consistently get the job done.

Even worse, when the people overseeing athletics might want to win, but those wins they would like are secondary to another goal, the problem grows even bigger.

Now ask the question of why an institution having an Athletic Director who is admired by his staff, and who was voted National D3 AD of the Year, would 1) not have that AD be the loudest voice in the selection of a new head coach, and 2) value the opinion of his Assistant AD over that of the National AD of the Year.

Now understand that the Assistant AD is the wife of the President who brought in the new VP of Athletics. Also, that they undoubtedly shared the same opinion as to the qualities they wanted in the VP, as well as the same vision as to the type of agenda they wanted the VP to implement. And while implementing this vision does not, in itself, preclude maximizing athletic victories, it's at least as important of a goal, if not more so, than achieving any certain number of wins.
Plus, now you see why the opinion of the Athletic Director might be subordinate to the Assistant Athletic Director. This despite the rumor many have heard that the Board of Trustees has a certain idea in mind regarding this office as of May 27th.

Furthermore, while doing so doesn't necessarily preclude wins, what does it look like the Vice President of Athletics cares most about when she tells the new Head Football Coach that he needs to hire a minority for his old position of offensive coordinator? Wins?
And this incident pales in comparison to another involving $$ which is always a shady proposition. Especially when a student-athlete is involved.
The sum of the parts is enough to make one wonder just what the heck is going on. 

For dessert consider that the head coaches of three major sports have all resigned within a few months, and others are reported to not be their usual cheerful selves. It's pretty naive to think there wasn't more than just a better opportunity or some other generic euphemism involved in all these resignations and feelings. Especially when, in exit interviews, the expression "working here just isn't a lot of fun anymore" has been heard.

[deepthroat]

Boy, you gotta be a Navajo wind talker to understand what's going on around here.

[Next Man Up]

Something I just cant understand is how coaches are evaluated and how and why certain people are perceived as good candidates or not for a certain job. For example with the NCC search, I think many people would have put Kennedy ahead of Vince as a candidate for that position. It baffles me as to why/ how someone like that is even under consideration for that position. Someone who has had 7 consecutive losing seasons as a coach and 4 consecutive losing seasons as a player and no experience as a head coach or even at the d3 level should not even be under consideration for a spot like that. With that background theres no way you could expect him to do anything but lose. VK on the other hand has had 7 consecutive winning seasons as a coach and 4 consecutive winning seasons as a player so how are those two even looked at as comparable or even in the same stratosphere as a potential head D3 coach, IF YOUR GOAL IS TO WIN BASKETBALL GAMES. Someone please explain that to me.

Two thoughts on this.

First, you bring a guy like Kennedy into the interview process if you want your four finalists to all look very different from one another.  This is actually not a bad idea, as you can learn from individual candidates and can make an informed choice about what type of professional experience you may feel will best set your program up for success.  I have long thought that this is preferable to bringing in four candidates who all look really similar on paper.  He didn't get the offer, so clearly that trajectory was not what the hiring team felt was the best option.  No harm, no foul.  And potentially a useful exercise.

This, BTW, is one of the reasons why Todd Kelly was dead wrong with his righteous indignation a couple of years ago about the CalTech coach being part of the Augie consideration set when he was a finalist there.

Second, I am neither a Vince Kmiec fan nor a critic, but let's be honest here: he doesn't have seven consecutive winning seasons as a coach.  Todd Raridon does.  Vince played a part in that, for sure, but it is a stretch to credit these to the assistant -- especially when one of the main cogs on almost all of those teams shares DNA with the head coach.  And any committee that projects success as a coach from his success as a player would have no idea what they are doing

The point was if someone has been a member of a team or member of the coaching staff that has only won then that person is either part of the reason for the winning or at the very least has learned a great deal about what it takes to win and what winning culture looks like. BTW that comment was no shade on Todd Raridon who I have the utmost respect for.
In regards to the CAlTech comment, someone that has had 12 consecutive losing seasons has had more than enough time to prove if they can win and they have proven that they cant bottom line. No one with 12 consecutive losing seasons should ever have a chance to get a better position because they have clearly proved they cant get the job done. I stand on that

(modified by GS for formatting)

I don't doubt that Vince played a part in North Central's relative level of success in recent years.  And I have no doubt that when he gets the chance to be a head coach, he has a strong chance to be successful.  I would have been fine had he been chosen to lead the program.

But I would have had more doubts about him than about the candidate who was chosen.  To me a bigger flag (too strong of a word, but I mean it in the sense that 'this is what I would be most concerned about') is that he had collegiate experience, as a player and as an assistant, at one institution under one coach.  If I saw someone in my professional setting who had (1) a ton of potential to be great in their field, (2) experience in one setting, and (3) experience under one manager, I would encourage them to look for a change of scenery as their next move, as IMO it would be the best thing for their professional development.  Same context here, albeit in a basketball and education setting.  Knowing the school, its  ways of working, its recruiting territory, etc. are all pluses.  But as a coach, a breadth of experience and exposure to more ideas in different settings would make him an even stronger candidate for success as a head coach going forward.

1. Gee, it's very perceptive that you don't doubt Vince played a part in NCC's success over the last several years. Especially when we all know how important recruiting is to team success, and Vince has been in charge of recruiting for the last four years. Ya think?

2. So lets give Vince a check mark in the minus column because he has only worked under one head coach. Of course all this coach has done is win 581 games-30th most in the history of D3. Seems like he knew what he was doing. But of course if Vince had experience working under three head coaches instead of just one, and none of them had a winning record, and their combined record was 150-300 that would have been more desirable because working under 3 coaches who didn't know what they were doing is a better guarantee of future head coaching success than working under only one coach despite the fact he certainly did know what he was doing. Sure, that makes sense. 

Do you have any more theories of management that you would like to enlighten us with?

[Next Man Up]

Boy, you gotta be a Navajo wind talker to understand what's going on around here.

The fact is deepthroat, that the NCC situation is a tangled mess. Also that it's hard to both understand and explain even if you're deeply embedded in the situation rather than being an outsider. And it's unfortunate that when you try to explain it that some people who don't know anything about either what is going on, or anything about the history involved will criticize you as being biased or politically incorrect when all you've done is to try to present an accurate account.   

[kiko]

Do you have any more theories of management that you would like to enlighten us with?

Yes.  Spreading an institution's dirty laundry all over a message board is perhaps not as helpful as you seem to think.

Note the part where I said I would have been fine if Vince had been chosen for the role.  You are arguing with strawmen that badly twist what I posted.

[Gregory Sager]

In regards to the CAlTech comment, someone that has had 12 consecutive losing seasons has had more than enough time to prove if they can win and they have proven that they cant bottom line. No one with 12 consecutive losing seasons should ever have a chance to get a better position because they have clearly proved they cant get the job done. I stand on that

You clearly know nothing about Caltech and how they do things out there in Pasadena. Piggybacking on what kiko said, what Oliver Eslinger has done at Caltech is not only one of the most remarkable coaching performances in D3 men's basketball, it's one of the most remarkable coaching performances in all of college basketball, period.

Why? Well, for one thing, Caltech is one of the most prestigious and exclusive STEM schools on the entire planet (or any planet, for that matter; seems like many or most of the extrasolar planets we've found out there in the Milky Way have been discovered by Caltech scientists, but that's another matter). It thus combines the elite admissions standards of a UAA or NESCAC school with the narrowly-tailored, hard-science-only academic focus of a STEM school. That's tough enough to recruit for as it is. But it gets worse. Caltech's admissions aren't controlled by admissions officers or a dean of admissions; they're controlled by the Caltech faculty. A faculty committee vets every applicant to the school and makes the yea-or-nay decision regarding that applicant's admission to Caltech. In a very real sense, Oliver Eslinger and his fellow Caltech coaches have their rosters controlled by real-life versions of Sheldon Cooper, Leonard Hofstadter, Howard Wolowitz, and Rajesh Koothrappali from The Big Bang Theory ... but if you're a Caltech coach and nine out of every ten prospects you convince to apply to your school fail to get admitted, that's one comedy at which you're not laughing.

I'd say that, in all of D3, the only schools that rival Caltech for recruiting obstacles are Principia and Maine-Presque Isle. You deride Eslinger for having twelve straight losing seasons. Are you aware that in the past Caltech has gone decades without recording wins in multiple sports?

Eslinger's now had three straight seasons of double-digit wins -- a double-digit-wins season at Caltech is the equivalent of a Sweet Sixteen season at another school -- and he's brought the Beavers up to the middle-of-the-pack level in the SCIAC, which is mind-boggling for a school that once lost 310 straight SCIAC games over a 26-season span.

Oliver Eslinger is one of the best basketball coaches in all of D3. And Augustana demonstrated shrewdness in giving him an interview when Grey Giovanine retired. I'd hire Eslinger to run my program in a New York minute ... and, no offense to Steve Schafer or Tom Jessee (both of whom I respect), but as a fan of a league rival, I'm happy that Augustana passed on Eslinger.

[WUPHF]

MIT sets the standard by which Caltech should succeed and cannot do so.  Dr. Eslinger is a good coach, but dang, hyperbole alert.

[Pat Coleman]

Spreading an institution's dirty laundry all over a message board is perhaps not as helpful as you seem to think.

I've been kind of wondering about this myself, and I'm sure a lot more is being said off this message board than on it.

[Mr. Ypsi]

MIT sets the standard by which Caltech should succeed and cannot do so.  Dr. Eslinger is a good coach, but dang, hyperbole alert.

My memory is vague on this, but I recall a number of years ago (perhaps before Eslinger) that a recruit Caltech REALLY wanted was denied admission - he went to his 'safety school' (MIT!) and became an all-american.  (Only at Caltech could MIT be considered a 'safety school'!

I think that Greg is UNDERSTATING the difficulty of being a Caltech coach.  MIT may be athletically what Caltech aspires to, but academically Caltech is what MIT aspires to.

[Gregory Sager]

MIT sets the standard by which Caltech should succeed and cannot do so.  Dr. Eslinger is a good coach, but dang, hyperbole alert.

MIT doesn't filter its admissions through its faculty the way that Caltech does. That makes a huge difference. As a result, MIT has been able to find success in multiple sports in ways in which Caltech coaches could only dream.

[WUPHF]

I am sorry guys, but they are basically the same schools admissions-wise.  Don't believe the Caltech is a smaller school hype.  The global admissions marketplace means they can both get the same students.

[Next Man Up]

Do you have any more theories of management that you would like to enlighten us with?

Yes.  Spreading an institution's dirty laundry all over a message board is perhaps not as helpful as you seem to think.

Note the part where I said I would have been fine if Vince had been chosen for the role.  You are arguing with strawmen that badly twist what I posted.

1. Does it not make sense that if the dirty laundry is left out of sight in the closet with no attempt made to clean it and hang it out in the fresh air, the dirty laundry will continue to stink and cause additional problems going forward?

2. If you start by saying you would have been fine if Vince had been hired why not just stop there rather than implying he would be an even better candidate if he jumped through a few more hoops that likely wouldn't have done anything to enhance his readiness for the position?