Ye Olde Green Wave Forum

The DEFINITIVE Tulane discussion forum
It is currently Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:19 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: How long to keep coaches
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:39 pm 
Offline
Navigator Level
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:05 pm
Posts: 1445
Location: Naples, FL
tjtlja wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:
6 out of 8 hired and/or kept too long by RD/SC. And if you want to stick your chin out for that slap, realize you said two to three years and it's been two, so you can't complain too much yet. However, that whole concept is ridiculous, only SEC schools fire coaches after two years. Tulane isn't in that realm of foolishness.


Look at the results after years 2 and 3. Look at the recruiting, especially after year one. Davis, Toledo, CJ, English, Finney, and Conroy all fit that profile. Cutting your losses after two years is not foolish. It is done to CEO’s, CFO’s, etc., everyday over a wide range of industries. The RD/SC era obviously contributed to this, but there is nothing wrong with admitting your mistakes. Who are you referring to in the SEC (football only)? Arkansas kept Biliema for five long agonizing years. Butch Jones was at UT for 4 years. The only guy I can think of is Derek Dooley who deserved to go after a couple of years.


Cutting your losses after two years is not foolish, tjtlja, if you are sure the coach is not going to work out. But that really isn't so easy to do. How about this record in football:
year 1 2-9
year 2 3-8
year 3 4-7
Is that "steady improvement" or a "losing coach"?
Well, in the case of Larry Smith, the next year was 9-2 in the regular season and a Liberty Bowl invite against Penn State.

Or how about this record in football:
year 1 1-10
year 2 4-7
Another "losing coach" or "building a program"?
Well, in the case of Mack Brown, the next year was only 6-6, but the fifth bowl for Tulane in 50 years. Amazingly, UNC saw something in this "non-winning" coach to hire him away and the rest is history.

Or how about this record in football:
year 1 2-10
year 2 7-6 with a bowl game
Wow! Here is a coach that really turned it around in a hurry. Except that for Curtis Johnson, the next two seasons were both 3-9.

These two positive examples are from the time before P6 branding, and so it was much easier for Smith and Brown to build their programs than it is today for Fritz. So yeah, I agree with cutting our losses, but don't want to change coaches just to make a change.

I continue the civil discussion in a new thread.

_________________
"You're not here on scholarship to lose. I didn't recruit you to lose. Losing is abnormal; losing is unusual; losing is unacceptable. That's not what we're here for."
Bob Knight


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:45 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:13 pm
Posts: 20730
Location: Chicago
6-5-1
6-6
7-5

Keep or fire that loser?

_________________
Using big words is not a personal attack


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:22 pm 
Offline
Coach Level

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:26 pm
Posts: 2482
windywave wrote:
6-5-1
6-6
7-5

Keep or fire that loser?


Well when the team went 0-11 the season before he got there, I’d say the decision to keep him is pretty easy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:31 pm 
Offline
Cornerstone
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:30 pm
Posts: 30898
Location: 30°37'40.6"N 81°27'02.4"W
I'm not gonna bring up Virginia Tech's experience with Frank Beamer. If Prof were here, he might.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:42 pm 
Offline
Coach Level

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:26 pm
Posts: 2482
Roller wrote:
I'm not gonna bring up Virginia Tech's experience with Frank Beamer. If Prof were here, he might.


Frank Beamer is an exception to the rule.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:05 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm
Posts: 14683
visualmagic wrote:
Roller wrote:
I'm not gonna bring up Virginia Tech's experience with Frank Beamer. If Prof were here, he might.


Frank Beamer is an exception to the rule.


I agree with the caveat that most schools don’t give a guy 7 years to really get it going.

_________________
Seize the day


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:58 pm 
Offline
President's Circle

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:07 am
Posts: 2927
From a Tulane standpoint, time is not on our side. One of the keys to me when it comes to Tulane is whether or not we are progressing in recruiting. If the class falls from year 1 to year 2, and even further in year 3, that spells disaster - we have seen that so many times. I also like to compare recruiting within our league. What I love about Fritz is his classes have improved. Most of us can tell when things are going south. Unfortunately, we have too much experience with it. I think after year two, you can get a feeling whether or not it will work. That is why I didn’t even mention Smith, Brown, or Teevens.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:42 pm 
Offline
Coach Level

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:26 pm
Posts: 2482
OGSB wrote:
visualmagic wrote:
Roller wrote:
I'm not gonna bring up Virginia Tech's experience with Frank Beamer. If Prof were here, he might.


Frank Beamer is an exception to the rule.


I agree with the caveat that most schools don’t give a guy 7 years to really get it going.


Nor should they


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:52 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:20 pm
Posts: 21100
Location: North Kenner
There’s no exact science to keeping coaches that would apply to every situation as every one is unique. A coach taking the Alabama job today, for example, would have much higher expectations than those placed on Fritz at his arrival. While expectations are much higher now, most fans would agree that there’s been progress in the 2 years Fritz has been here.

_________________
Tulane Greenbackers

"It's my job to prepare the coaches. It's their job is to prepare the players and the players' job is to play lights out." Willie Fritz

"If you want to win you have to have good players." Vince Gibson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:57 pm 
Offline
Navigator Level

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm
Posts: 900
Actually Beamer had winning seasons in years 3 and 4. So there was reason to keep him.

_________________
Gladly it's over


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:45 am 
Offline
Navigator Level
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:05 pm
Posts: 1445
Location: Naples, FL
waverider wrote:
There’s no exact science to keeping coaches that would apply to every situation as every one is unique. A coach taking the Alabama job today, for example, would have much higher expectations than those placed on Fritz at his arrival. While expectations are much higher now, most fans would agree that there’s been progress in the 2 years Fritz has been here.

I surely agree that there's been progress. Yet there are others who seem dissatisfied.

_________________
"You're not here on scholarship to lose. I didn't recruit you to lose. Losing is abnormal; losing is unusual; losing is unacceptable. That's not what we're here for."
Bob Knight


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:49 am 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm
Posts: 14683
wavedom wrote:
Actually Beamer had winning seasons in years 3 and 4. So there was reason to keep him.


Season 6 was a 2 win season. He couldn't have had too many defenders.

_________________
Seize the day


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:59 am 
Offline
Navigator Level

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm
Posts: 900
OGSB wrote:
wavedom wrote:
Actually Beamer had winning seasons in years 3 and 4. So there was reason to keep him.


Season 6 was a 2 win season. He couldn't have had too many defenders.


He got beyond that b/c of winning early when the program was hit with many NCAA sanctions from the previous staff. There was good reason to believe he could come through.

_________________
Gladly it's over


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:04 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 10037
With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:25 pm 
Offline
President's Circle

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:07 am
Posts: 2927
We have played football for 125 years at Tulane. Over that period, we have had 40 coaches. That is life span of 3.125 years per coach. Clark Shaugnessy had the longest tenure which covered 11 years. The next two coaches on that list would be Chris Scelfo and Andy Pilney at 8 years apiece. Take them out the mix and the remaining 37 coaches lasted 2.65 years. That is Tulane football history in a nutshell.


Last edited by tjtlja on Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:26 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 20790
Location: Cincinnati, OH
ml wave wrote:
With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.

Exactly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:27 pm 
Online
Regent's Circle

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:48 am
Posts: 6021
ml wave wrote:
With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.


For someone who claims to be first to market with statistical support, I don't see any data points here. Without them it's just an opinion which is cool but that's all it is. I don't know the answer here. Please educate us as with objective proof to why you're right and the other folk(s) aren't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:31 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 20790
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Baywave1 wrote:
ml wave wrote:
With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.


For someone who claims to be first to market with statistical support, I don't see any data points here. Without them it's just an opinion which is cool but that's all it is. I don't know the answer here. Please educate us as with objective proof to why you're right and the other folk(s) aren't.

So you don't think the game is COMPLETELY different than it was 30 years ago? Even 20? No stats are needed for that. If it's not obvious, you are in denial.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:35 pm 
Offline
President's Circle
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 8:43 pm
Posts: 2652
Location: Baton Rouge
There are way too many variables to compare different points over the past 125 years.

My oversimplification is this. Review the past 3 seasons and gauge program trajectory. This can be done to a coach who has 1 year under his belt or 30.

_________________
Quote:The Good - TULANE
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:56 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 10037
Baywave1 wrote:
ml wave wrote:
With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.


For someone who claims to be first to market with statistical support, I don't see any data points here. Without them it's just an opinion which is cool but that's all it is. I don't know the answer here. Please educate us as with objective proof to why you're right and the other folk(s) aren't.

Lol, where's the "objective proof" that I claim to be first to market with statistical support?

Anyway, you want data points to things which are common knowledge enough to the point that anyone even approaching a functioning understanding of sports wouldn't need data points? Whoops, guess I just answered my own question there.

NCAA FB scholarship limits:
pre-1973: unlimited
1973-77: 105
1978-91: 95
1992-present: 85

Grad transfer rule: 2011


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:50 am 
Offline
Breaker Level
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:16 am
Posts: 297
ml wave wrote:
Baywave1 wrote:
ml wave wrote:
With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.


For someone who claims to be first to market with statistical support, I don't see any data points here. Without them it's just an opinion which is cool but that's all it is. I don't know the answer here. Please educate us as with objective proof to why you're right and the other folk(s) aren't.

Lol, where's the "objective proof" that I claim to be first to market with statistical support?

Anyway, you want data points to things which are common knowledge enough to the point that anyone even approaching a functioning understanding of sports wouldn't need data points? Whoops, guess I just answered my own question there.

NCAA FB scholarship limits:
pre-1973: unlimited
1973-77: 105
1978-91: 95
1992-present: 85
Grad transfer rule: 2011


Couldn't that also mean way more parity than ever before, thus talent spread out more evenly, which can make turnarounds harder in some cases?

_________________
You're killin' me Smalls!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 6:07 am 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 20790
Location: Cincinnati, OH
BACONWAVE wrote:
ml wave wrote:
Baywave1 wrote:
ml wave wrote:
With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.


For someone who claims to be first to market with statistical support, I don't see any data points here. Without them it's just an opinion which is cool but that's all it is. I don't know the answer here. Please educate us as with objective proof to why you're right and the other folk(s) aren't.

Lol, where's the "objective proof" that I claim to be first to market with statistical support?

Anyway, you want data points to things which are common knowledge enough to the point that anyone even approaching a functioning understanding of sports wouldn't need data points? Whoops, guess I just answered my own question there.

NCAA FB scholarship limits:
pre-1973: unlimited
1973-77: 105
1978-91: 95
1992-present: 85
Grad transfer rule: 2011


Couldn't that also mean way more parity than ever before, thus talent spread out more evenly, which can make turnarounds harder in some cases?

Yeah, that's exactly what the BCS and now "P/G" designations have done, made everything more fair and equal. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:08 am 
Offline
Navigator Level
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:05 pm
Posts: 1445
Location: Naples, FL
PeteRasche wrote:
BACONWAVE wrote:
ml wave wrote:
Baywave1 wrote:
ml wave wrote:
With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.


For someone who claims to be first to market with statistical support, I don't see any data points here. Without them it's just an opinion which is cool but that's all it is. I don't know the answer here. Please educate us as with objective proof to why you're right and the other folk(s) aren't.

Lol, where's the "objective proof" that I claim to be first to market with statistical support?

Anyway, you want data points to things which are common knowledge enough to the point that anyone even approaching a functioning understanding of sports wouldn't need data points? Whoops, guess I just answered my own question there.

NCAA FB scholarship limits:
pre-1973: unlimited
1973-77: 105
1978-91: 95
1992-present: 85
Grad transfer rule: 2011


Couldn't that also mean way more parity than ever before, thus talent spread out more evenly, which can make turnarounds harder in some cases?

Yeah, that's exactly what the BCS and now "P/G" designations have done, made everything more fair and equal. :roll:

Pete, the post from ml wave that started this chain stated that " it's much easier to execute a turnaround now". Baconwave is arguing turnarounds are now harder. Your point about P/G and the BCS branding support his that turnarounds are more difficult. At least, that's how I see it. (Even if talent spread is not all that even!)

_________________
"You're not here on scholarship to lose. I didn't recruit you to lose. Losing is abnormal; losing is unusual; losing is unacceptable. That's not what we're here for."
Bob Knight


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:37 am 
Offline
Emerald Circle

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:18 am
Posts: 18167
Location: Beautiful Dutchtown
Before there was Beamer, there was Bill McCartney: 2-8-1, 4-7, 1-10. Then came 9 bowls, 6 top 20s, 3 top 10s, 1 nc over the next 10 seasons.
The Tulane problem with keeping coaches around too long is fairly recent. Scelfo should have been fired after the blowout-ridden, sorry-excuse-ridden year 3 debacle that was 2001. Toledo should have clearly been removed after any of years 2-4 and not removing him after 4, if not 3, was beyond egregious.
Before that, while the program was declining under Greg Davis, we always seemed to do enough in November on the field (particularly in year 4, in which were horrible until late October, at which point we played our best ball since Mack Brown). Teevens probably held on for 1 year too long, but recruiting was improving and 1996 was supposed to be the break-out year; it didn’t happen and Tulane moved on.
The bigger problem has been the hiring: English, Davis, Scelfo and Curtis Johnson were questionable hires on paper: 0-4
Smith, Brown, Teevens, Bowden, Toledo (given the circumstances) and Fritz looked like decent to excellent hires, and Tulane is 3-2-tbd but looking good.
Gibson is in his own category; decent credentials, but not the man who should have been hired and probably shouldn't have been fired either.

_________________
A refreshing culture of standards, expectations and accountability is upon us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:49 am 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:13 pm
Posts: 20730
Location: Chicago
GSx wrote:
The bigger problem has been the hiring:


Yup. Also everything is contextual. CWF had 5 years in my mind when we was hired to completely clean house and install his guys and system. Two years is not enough and three is pushing it but people who agitate for fast changes forget the tortoise and the hare. Sure you can make an error in the hire but IMO you don't truly know that until after the third season is complete and you see the state of the program. Any change before that is premature (and daresay immature to demand it).

_________________
Using big words is not a personal attack


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: W5B7S4B3 and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group