It doesn’t help that I don’t trust the AD and our Pres is a little green in the way of university athletics.
Possible Contract extension for Haith
- Thread starter TULSARISING
- Start date
I can't believe that these kids (and more importantly their parents) wouldn't understand that the extension of coaches is all but illusory unless the coaches have a MASSIVE buyout or they've been at the school for a decade already.
Maybe we should be telling the kids to ask the other coaches "what's your buyout?"
Maybe we should be telling the kids to ask the other coaches "what's your buyout?"
In regards to Haith balancing the classes; the way our scholarship breakdown looks going forward is hardly different from what Haith was supposed to have "fixed" we look like we will lose 6 contributing players in the same class:
Moore
Hewitt
Jackson
Joiner
Barnes
Horne
Will all be in the same class. That's only one fewer contributing player than we lost with the Shaq + Juice class.
Moore
Hewitt
Jackson
Joiner
Barnes
Horne
Will all be in the same class. That's only one fewer contributing player than we lost with the Shaq + Juice class.
Fortunately people in the real world engage their brains, unlike internet posters. The buyout isn’t binary, it’s probabilistic and I’m sure most know that. If the coach has a 5 year contract is he more likely, less likely or equally likely to be there in 4 years than if he has a 1 year contract? It’s not a trick question, the answer is really that obvious. There’s no guarantee but it matters, a lot. Especially at places outside the top 20 largest athletics departments where funding buyouts is actually prohibitive. How many times have we had the conversation on this board “fire coach X,” “give $1,000,000 otherwise we don’t have the $$ to pay out his contract”.
And not giving an extension is tantamount to announcing “we’re firing him after this year”, so it pretty much guarantees he’s gone. The extension means it’s unclear.
Didn’t we get a nice payout from some school who took a coach? It’s like a transfer or whatever they call it in soccer when one team buys the contract of a player from another.
It’s kind of a catch 22. Great coaches need to believe deeply they’re the best at what they do. But those people aren’t likely to stay at a place that’s not Kentucky, Kansas, etc. so either you have a guy who thinks he’s more or less hit his ceiling (and is probably right so who wants him) or someone who wants to move on and no contract will keep him. There are some exceptions but not a lot.
That's not necessarily true. If he makes the NCAA's next year it's likely he would be extended then. You're just arguing a question of optics.
I would argue that the optics of having a mediocre coach who doesn't make postseason play and loses to low level teams in non conference would be MUCH worse to prospective recruits than having a coach on a short contract. Kid's aren't going to worry as much about "will I play for him for 4 years" as they will about "how good of a coach is he and what can I do under him". Don't hesitate to think that opposing recruiters won't point to the same faults that I am. Giving Haith an extension is ignoring that fact.
Not sure I’d put Jackson in the category of “cobtributing player” until he actually shows he can contribute.
I haven't seen anyone on the boards who thinks he won't contribute going forward. He doesn't seem to be in the same cast away category that guys like Brown, Dew, Atson, or Battle ended up in. More like Korita.
Also, it doesn't seem (from the recruiting news we've been getting) that the staff are actively looking to have to fill 2 scholarships this late in the cycle.
The only reason a coach is more or less likely to remain at a school is the buyout cost. Either the cost of a larger program buying the right to hire him, or the University buying him out to fire him. In our present situation, it doesn't make sense to increase the cost of the University's ability to move on in order to give him a chance to avoid being fired.
I get his reasoning, not sure how much it really matters but I do understand there is a potential benefit to TU. But in what other profession do you get more money because your employer might have to part ways with you? "Hey Joe, we are disappointed with your performance so far. Good chance you won't be here in 2 years, so lets go ahead and guarantee your salary for 5 to try to make sure those last 2 go well. After we do that, we'll see how it goes."
Extension, fine... but don't change the buyout. If this doesn't work out the University shouldn't pay a penalty for giving him a chance to save his own job.
I get his reasoning, not sure how much it really matters but I do understand there is a potential benefit to TU. But in what other profession do you get more money because your employer might have to part ways with you? "Hey Joe, we are disappointed with your performance so far. Good chance you won't be here in 2 years, so lets go ahead and guarantee your salary for 5 to try to make sure those last 2 go well. After we do that, we'll see how it goes."
Extension, fine... but don't change the buyout. If this doesn't work out the University shouldn't pay a penalty for giving him a chance to save his own job.
Of course it’s a question of optics - that’s the whole point, what do recruits think about it. I agree that having a mediocre coach isn’t great for recruiting, the point isn’t that length of contract is the *ONLY* factor but rather that it’s A factor. I suspect for recruits they want a good coach, a coach they like, a place they can get playing time, and lots of other things. But I know I pick a job based in part on the manager even though she might move on and ask what her plans are and I’m sure recruits do too.
Seems to me that if you’re recruiting correctly, you’re reassuring recruits that you aren’t going to be bailing in 2 years bc you’ve had such fantastic success with them on your team.
Not that you won’t be bailing in 2 years bc you’re a failure and have been relieved of your duties.
Not that you won’t be bailing in 2 years bc you’re a failure and have been relieved of your duties.
What constitutes “failure” to justify being fired is hardly a black and white question. A coach with a one year contract is probably going to get fired. Then the question is, does a recruit want to go there knowing the coach will probably change right away? For some it won’t matter and for some it will. If a coach is coming off a bad year I’m sure he says “you’re the centerpiece of rebuilding, we’ll get another couple guys and be great in 2 years”. And the recruit might believe it and like the coach. And probably will ask, what’s the chance you’ll be here for that? If not you, will the next coach value me, run a scheme that works for me, etc. with a longer contract there’s a better chance the coach will be there for more of the eecruit’s time.
I know that for a CEO, it’s really hard to hire execs if the CEO is seen as a dead man walking. CEOs at least can offer other execs severance etc to bribe some of them to come anyway, a coach can’t (well at least in theory they can’t).
A lot of kids also want to play for a coach that can help them get into the league. Haith now has two players that started at TU and then under his tutelage signed multi-year contracts in the NBA (Clarkson and Shaq).
I don't disagree with your post, just adding a positive Haith can now use in recruiting.
I know many fans here don't like Clarkson because of things fell out in his TU tenure, but the fact he ended up being coached by Haith should help us in recruiting.
All that being said, recruiting has room for improvement.
It seems to me like the quality of the coach is MUCH more important than the length of his contract. And fixing one of those issues might make the more important issue harder to fix.
You and I both know that 2 of the 9 never contributed to the team other than being practice bodies. (Big E + Nick Wood)
I agree! Shaq (and Clarkson to a slightly lesser degree) should be good guys to be able to point to. Clarkson is complicated in that he left TU to try and up his stock.
Haith can also point to Brown + Pressey + English as guys he's put in the league. He also has a host of other guys playing overseas and making $$$.
That should be a big helper for Haith.
If that's how Haith is selling guys at this point in time; I don't want him here. That view was fine two years ago; but we're not in "rebuilding mode" anymore. We're in "win now" mode. Haith needs to be able to convince recruits and fans that they're going to be in a position for Tulsa to be in the postseason. With the massive whiffs he made in the last recruiting cycle; I'm not sure he's convinced anybody of that regardless of what his contract length says to recruits about how long his tenure will be.
So the only way to recruit effectively around that is having a perpetual 5 years left on a contract?
This just isn’t true and it’s a sorry excuse.
Wasn't talking about Wood, he was a walk-on if I recall correctly. What does the fact that he has to replace a non contributing player have to do with it. If Manning had recruited a contributing player to begin with, then he would have had him contributing during the first year or so of Haith's tenure, but either way he had to replace him.
If one of the six players that Haith has to recruit is a non contributor you will definitely lay that on Haith. Either way he had to replace a bunch of scholarship players. And most coaches who have to replace that many players in one year have one or two that don't pan out because they were forced to recruit so many players. You certainly laid that on Haiths shoulder, unjustly in my mind.(Battle & Atson)
I don't like that he has moved a little back in that direction. I will provide a bit of criticism in his direction for the one player, if that happens to him with this class of six. I don't like that so far Haith has not recruited a single freshman in this class. But I won't go so far as to say he has put it in almost as bad of a position as before. 9 players(8 recruits and one transfer) does not compare to 6.
In 2015-16 we lost
1. Shaq
2. Juice
3. Smith
4. Curtis
5. Swanny
6. Wright
7. Ray
8. Big E (Didn't play)
9. Wood (Didn't play)
We effectively lost 7 guys in the rotation and had an extra spot for another contributor open up as well.
In 2020-21 we are scheduled to lose (barring attrition)
1. Horne
2. Hewitt
3. Barnes
4. Moore
5. Joiner
6. Jackson
Whether Jackson develops into a regular contributor or any / all of those players finish their careers at TU is left to be seen. But as of this moment it's pretty much like Haith never "fixed" the problem.
Also; I think it necessary to point out that two of the guys in the earlier class were there because of injury (Smith + Curtis) and another (Big E) was there because of NCAA eligibility issues. They weren't recruited to be part of that class like we've seen with Haith.
1. Shaq
2. Juice
3. Smith
4. Curtis
5. Swanny
6. Wright
7. Ray
8. Big E (Didn't play)
9. Wood (Didn't play)
We effectively lost 7 guys in the rotation and had an extra spot for another contributor open up as well.
In 2020-21 we are scheduled to lose (barring attrition)
1. Horne
2. Hewitt
3. Barnes
4. Moore
5. Joiner
6. Jackson
Whether Jackson develops into a regular contributor or any / all of those players finish their careers at TU is left to be seen. But as of this moment it's pretty much like Haith never "fixed" the problem.
Also; I think it necessary to point out that two of the guys in the earlier class were there because of injury (Smith + Curtis) and another (Big E) was there because of NCAA eligibility issues. They weren't recruited to be part of that class like we've seen with Haith.
The last time he had 5+ years left on the contract, we got Petar Rusic, Keondre Dew, and Kajon Brown. But sure, lack of years left on the contract is the thing holding back recruiting.
Come on, that’s not what I said. Different players care about different things and different coaches sell programs differently. As I said, it’s not black or white and you’re smart enough that you know that. There are certain things that make recruiting easier and things that make it harder and having a short term coach is a “make it harder”. And 1 year is harder than 2 which is harder than 3 and at some point it’s long enough it doesn’t matter. It’s balancing the desire to give the coach a fighting chance for recruiting against getting
locked in. As I said, I wouldn’t do a 3 year extension but might do 1, or a series of 1 year agreements that have free terminations annually (the contract that looks like 3 years but really is 1).
Ughh seriously you guys are being purposefully dense. There are of course diminishing returns on contract length (why would a player care if a coach had a 5 or 7 or 12 year contract??). And a long contract won’t make a bad recruiter into a good one. But a short contract can make recruiting harder of course. I know your analytics prowess ctt, you’re not going to convince me that you don’t understand the concept of a moderator variable in a correlation!
I WANT TO SEE MULTIVARIABLE ANALYSIS OF RECRUITING TACTICS + RESULTS!
LET'S GET SOME MULTI-DIMENSIONAL ANALYTICS IN THIS BIATCH!
LET'S GET SOME MULTI-DIMENSIONAL ANALYTICS IN THIS BIATCH!
SOFT!!!!!111
Note: Not at all applicable but anytime I can identify an excuse to use this response I choose too. This time it was because you used all caps. :grimace:
Do you not think “Tulsa’s coach won’t be sticking around” isn't a negative recruiting tactic all of our best coaches have had to overcome?
It’s something that 99% of coaches have to overcome. But there’s a difference between the usual background noise and having a target on your chest and blindfold on your eyes.
No. We had 8 scholarships to fill in one year. And one of those was a guy who wasn't doing anything for us; so any warm body who could contribute would have been an upgrade.
Silly Paduan, You forgot Scott. I even mentioned 8 recruits and one transfer earlier, but you didn't pay attention.
My apologies. That was because he ran off his own recruit in Kajon Brown. It had nothing to do with balancing the class sizes or there being 9 seniors. If he would have recruited a bit better the year before he would have helped himself out.
Always gots to find something to come back with. He had to replace 9 players. 8 were nothing to do with him one was a recruiting gamble that didn't pay off. At least you have something to bitch about.
Anything to save face and valiantly try to make Haith look bad.
Anything to save face and valiantly try to make Haith look bad.
Similar threads
