Coaching Carousel 5 - You have to look through the rain to see the rainbow

[dtm1997]

How so?

@dtm1997 what does your list mean? Order of those that need changing? Sorry, I may be overthinking.

It was suggested that staff changes be mandatory. Staff, to me, means assistants. That's the order I'd consider making the changes.

 

[lv20gt]

I'm more worried about the zero sum game of getting players than whether Crean will be successful and Swartz would help with that.

With Chad Dollar already there, doubling up on relationships with Swartz, and Crean a relentless recruiter, it could facilitate a couple of more years where we don't get our fair share of in-state talent, while our new staff or assistants or whatever have to build relationships.

Are we getting our fair share of in state talent with him on our staff?

Also, with Dollar and Crean already I don't think they'd add Swartz. Diminishing returns and all that. You usually want to address issues with hires, and I don't think he addresses any of theirs.

I don't think it makes sense to replace him at the moment, unless we're going with a new HC, but if we hired a new coach who brought in his own staff I wouldn't lose a moment of sleep over the idea of Swartz going to UGA from either perspective.

 

[dtm1997]

Are we getting our fair share of in state talent with him on our staff?

Also, with Dollar and Crean already I don't think they'd add Swartz. Diminishing returns and all that. You usually want to address issues with hires, and I don't think he addresses any of theirs.

I don't think it makes sense to replace him at the moment, unless we're going with a new HC, but if we hired a new coach who brought in his own staff I wouldn't lose a moment of sleep over the idea of Swartz going to UGA from either perspective.

I agree. There's almost no chance anyone sticks in a wholesale change. If there's no change, we don't want to remove the point person on local recruiting.

 

[kg01]

It was suggested that staff changes be mandatory. Staff, to me, means assistants. That's the order I'd consider making the changes.

Got it. I'm all caught up. I tend to agree with your assessment.

 

[dtm1997]

Got it. I'm all caught up. I tend to agree with your assessment.

 

[kg01]

You're so weird.

 

[dtm1997]

You're so weird.

 

[GTpdm]

Is that Mayfield?

 

[dtm1997]

Is that Mayfield?

Close, but slightly better.

 

[GTsports1819]

It was suggested that staff changes be mandatory. Staff, to me, means assistants. That's the order I'd consider making the changes.

If we really are making a plan to wait and change coaches after next year, why dish out more money on new assistants for a lame duck season? I get the idea - we obviously want to win as much as possible regardless of who the head coach is, but to me, it seems like we either ride it out and save the money, or proceed with the overhaul (assuming the right coach is available...no flyers)

 

[dtm1997]

If we really are making a plan to wait and change coaches after next year, why dish out more money on new assistants for a lame duck season? I get the idea - we obviously want to win as much as possible regardless of who the head coach is, but to me, it seems like we either ride it out and save the money, or proceed with the overhaul (assuming the right coach is available...no flyers)

I'm not advocating for it, just noting the order I'd consider replacing.

It's altogether possible one of the coaches will choose to pursue other opptys because they want to.

 

[dtm1997]

For all those seeking an opportunity to state their opinion...

 

[THWG16]

I guess it is what it is with the financial situation , but it’s still absolutely ridiculous that we’re in this position . We’ve made some
Of the dumbest contract decisions ever . Even with that being said I still can’t figure why GT is lacking for $$ to this degree , (if the rumors are true) , & don’t blame it all on Braine cause pastner shouldn’t have gotten jack crap after taking us to the NIT tourney

 

[dtm1997]

 

[RamblinRed]

I guess it is what it is with the financial situation , but it’s still absolutely ridiculous that we’re in this position . We’ve made some
Of the dumbest contract decisions ever . Even with that being said I still can’t figure why GT is lacking for $$ to this degree , (if the rumors are true) , & don’t blame it all on Braine cause pastner shouldn’t have gotten jack crap after taking us to the NIT tourney

Pastner didn't really get that much. A one year contract extension and a $500K bonus if GT retains him after next season. No bump in his salary. He's the second lowest paid coach in the ACC (only Christian at BC is paid less).

The simple truth is GT hasn't ever really been a big budget AA program. If you look at its revenue and spending against other ACC programs it is pretty much in the middle of the league. if you look at power conference teams nationally it is in the bottom third.

Given that simple fact it is important for GT not to have a large buyout at the time of a coaching change to make sure it has money to hire someone solid.

 

[RamblinRed]

Couple of other GT BB thoughts.

First, it'n not like it is a new thing that GT is not a winning program. The last 3-yr streak of better than .500 records was 2002-2005.
The last time GT had a consistent winning program was a quarter of a century ago.

Also, it is not like Pastner's record is any worse than anything else we have seen for 15 years.
Gregory's ACC winning percentage was 30.7%. Hewitt was 32.8% in his last 4 yrs, 36.2% his last 5 and 34.4% his last 6. Over his 11 years his ACC winning percentage was 40.9%.
Pastner is currently at 37.3%.

This year's team has clearly underperformed in its record, especially when you look at its metrics. By metrics it is right on pace with Pastner's first team and trails only Gregory's last team in terms of best metrics over the last 10 yrs.

We need to decide when we really want to play ACC basketball. Since we are never flush with money we need to make sure we have a plan and have everything to implement it. Then execute the plan once everything is in place. Until then, we should just stay on what we are on as all we do otherwise is make a change and continue on the same treadmill.

I hope we will be ready to execute a plan after next season, but if not i would rather wait out until we are. As frustrating as it is I really want to get back to having a winning program like in the 80's an early 90's.

 

[slugboy]

I can see why people think “that’s so much”. Not many people see a $500k bonus, and for an NCAA head coach, it’s small. For P5, he’s not highly paid, but for G5 (not Gonzaga) he would be.
Regarding the assistant coaches: like the head coach, it’s more what you add than just cutting someone loose. I’m not happy with our offensive scheme or guard skills progress


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gte447f]

This year's team has clearly underperformed in its record, especially when you look at its metrics. By metrics it is right on pace with Pastner's first team and trails only Gregory's last team in terms of best metrics over the last 10 yrs.

I agree with most of what you stated in your post about the BB program. Just wondering what metrics you are talking about?

 

[lv20gt]

If we really are making a plan to wait and change coaches after next year, why dish out more money on new assistants for a lame duck season? I get the idea - we obviously want to win as much as possible regardless of who the head coach is, but to me, it seems like we either ride it out and save the money, or proceed with the overhaul (assuming the right coach is available...no flyers)

I could be mistaken but I believe most basketball assistant coaches are on 1 year deals in which case the only real increase in spending would be any increase in the yearly pay.

In any case even if we are planning to make a hire after next year the problem with switching coaches is that it is unpredictable by its very nature. Look at UGA. By most accounts Crean should have been a good hire, and he's looking at 4-23 in conference play inheriting a program that had won at least 7 conferences games in each of the previous 6 years. Even if we land what looks like a good hire, there is a level of uncertainty that will always be there.

Nobody should want to go through a coaching change. Sometimes it's necessary but if there is an option that could potentially make it not necessary then it's usually worth looking in to. It's not like this team is all that far away from where it needs to be in terms of play on the court. We need more depth, which should somewhat be addressed just through the numbers of losing 2 and adding/returning 4. We need to address the offense. Bringing in an assistant that could help transition the offense to be more centered around creating open looks from outside vs working the ball in close could make a big difference, as it probably fits our team composition better now where as the former style fit it better when we had Lammers/Gueye inside and Jackson/Okogie slashing.

Is it guaranteed to work? No. But the cost seems pretty low for the chance of being able to avoid the need to switch coaches all together.

 

[RyanS12]

So John Beilien is available I see

Was hoping that would drag out one more in case we had an opening