Exactly.
Official IF Romar Steps Down Who Do You Hire if You are Pool Boy Thread
- Thread starter Tequilla
- Start date
Exactly.
d2d
New Fish
What a wonderful thread. Remember Babs hired LoRo. I would give Poolboy a B+ in hiring coaches with an Incomplete for football.
Poolboy has facilities, NO SONICS, money...
I have complete faith that he will make a solid choice on paper. Will it be a home run? Time will tell. See Peterman.
Poolboy has facilities, NO SONICS, money...
I have complete faith that he will make a solid choice on paper. Will it be a home run? Time will tell. See Peterman.
Last edited:
ThomasFremont
New Fish
Nice to see your dumbfuckery knows no bounds.
You have faith in Pool Boy???
See Sark. Ya dumb faggot.
Please be killing yourself ASAP.
Tequilla
Active poster
Howland's 57 years old ... I think that like Romar who is at a similar age, there's a definite question of how much of a drive Howland would have going forward.
You can't argue with the fact that Howland went to 3 straight Final Fours (although I think that had as much or more to do with the fact that he was at UCLA versus his own abilities). However, I think that there's a pattern throughout his career that establishes what he is and what he would be going forward.
In both of his stops at Northern Arizona and Pitt, he started those tenures out slow before turning the program around in his 3rd year. After 3 solid years at Northern Arizona, Howland left for Pitt. After 2 solid years at Pitt he left for UCLA. At UCLA, a similar path also took place with 2 weak years (1st round NCAA exit in Year 2) before heading to the Final Four 3 straight years. It's what happened after those trips that is what is interesting to me and why I'm sour on Howland.
Over the next 5 years after the 3 straight trips to the Final Four, Howland made it to 3 NCAA Tournaments winning a total of 2 games. In a period where Howland should be able to have as strong of a reputation as possible from a recruiting standpoint given his accomplishments, combined with the fact that he's recruiting to UCLA, he instead showed an inability to sustain excellence in his program. That's a MASSIVE red flag to me.
When you have a premier job in America (UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Indiana) you shouldn't have problems recruiting there if you are a great coach. You shouldn't have a problem being a player in the national picture. You should have no problem sustaining excellence. It's why I have so much respect for Bill Self ... the number of consecutive Big 12 titles that he has won is flat out amazing. Even when you look at his team this year, which is definitely not a great Kansas team, they find a way to play at a consistently high level in what is one of the deeper top to bottom conferences in the country.
However, when you have the wrong coach in these jobs, they'll prove it to you over time. And moreover, when they take their next job, they never show to be much more than mediocre. A great example of this is Tubby Smith. Tubby took over a stacked team left to him by Pitino and won a National Title. Over the next 9 years, Tubby never got himself back to a Final Four (did get to the Regional Finals 3x). Instead of hanging on to get fired eventually, Tubby left on his own terms to go to Minnesota (we all know that that's a lateral move) where he went through 6 mediocre seasons (Big 10 conference record of 46-62) before getting fired. Now he's coaching one of the arguably worst power conference teams in the nation in Texas Tech and is working on a probable 2-16 conference record in his 2nd year on the job.
In my opinion, this isn't that bad of a comparable to Ben Howland. Is Howland better than Romar? I think that's a fair comment. But when you factor in that depending on when you fire Romar you are looking at a $3.5 to $4.2M immediate buyout (plus who knows what other provisions are in the contract), I would think that if you're going to make a move, you need to go after someone that you think can be a potential home run hire versus someone that is probably not much more than a short-term improvement.
You can't argue with the fact that Howland went to 3 straight Final Fours (although I think that had as much or more to do with the fact that he was at UCLA versus his own abilities). However, I think that there's a pattern throughout his career that establishes what he is and what he would be going forward.
In both of his stops at Northern Arizona and Pitt, he started those tenures out slow before turning the program around in his 3rd year. After 3 solid years at Northern Arizona, Howland left for Pitt. After 2 solid years at Pitt he left for UCLA. At UCLA, a similar path also took place with 2 weak years (1st round NCAA exit in Year 2) before heading to the Final Four 3 straight years. It's what happened after those trips that is what is interesting to me and why I'm sour on Howland.
Over the next 5 years after the 3 straight trips to the Final Four, Howland made it to 3 NCAA Tournaments winning a total of 2 games. In a period where Howland should be able to have as strong of a reputation as possible from a recruiting standpoint given his accomplishments, combined with the fact that he's recruiting to UCLA, he instead showed an inability to sustain excellence in his program. That's a MASSIVE red flag to me.
When you have a premier job in America (UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Indiana) you shouldn't have problems recruiting there if you are a great coach. You shouldn't have a problem being a player in the national picture. You should have no problem sustaining excellence. It's why I have so much respect for Bill Self ... the number of consecutive Big 12 titles that he has won is flat out amazing. Even when you look at his team this year, which is definitely not a great Kansas team, they find a way to play at a consistently high level in what is one of the deeper top to bottom conferences in the country.
However, when you have the wrong coach in these jobs, they'll prove it to you over time. And moreover, when they take their next job, they never show to be much more than mediocre. A great example of this is Tubby Smith. Tubby took over a stacked team left to him by Pitino and won a National Title. Over the next 9 years, Tubby never got himself back to a Final Four (did get to the Regional Finals 3x). Instead of hanging on to get fired eventually, Tubby left on his own terms to go to Minnesota (we all know that that's a lateral move) where he went through 6 mediocre seasons (Big 10 conference record of 46-62) before getting fired. Now he's coaching one of the arguably worst power conference teams in the nation in Texas Tech and is working on a probable 2-16 conference record in his 2nd year on the job.
In my opinion, this isn't that bad of a comparable to Ben Howland. Is Howland better than Romar? I think that's a fair comment. But when you factor in that depending on when you fire Romar you are looking at a $3.5 to $4.2M immediate buyout (plus who knows what other provisions are in the contract), I would think that if you're going to make a move, you need to go after someone that you think can be a potential home run hire versus someone that is probably not much more than a short-term improvement.
Tequilla
Active poster
If I was Poolboy at this point, I'd have a very direct conversation with Romar after the season to see where his mind is at going forward. The lifelessness in the program in all facets is beyond concerning. In my mind, hard for Romar to not see this as well.
Poolboy can directly mention to Romar that he's running a risk of tarnishing his legacy at the UW. If he puts up another 1-2 years that are completely in the shitter, his lasting legacy at the UW will be that of running it back into the ground instead of laying a foundation for the program when it comes to being a strong option for local players (which it wasn't really before he got the job - we can debate the BRoy, Nate, Will group, but you also have guys like Hawes, Brockman, and Jensen). Instead, I'd offer him an opportunity to enhance his legacy going forward by planting the following seeds in Romar's head:
1) Create a fundraising role within the AD specifically for Romar. Have him initially focus on securing funding for upgraded practice facilities for basketball.
2) Target the creation of setting up endowment funding tied first to the head coaching position in basketball (can even have a tie-in to his name if desired).
The article from Wilner the other day noting the difference between funding streams between the PAC and the Big10 and SEC are vast. But even more on top of that, the funding streams when it comes to alumni donations, etc. for PAC schools are also going to pale. Being pro-active about finding ways to make sure that athletic programs are properly funded to not only ensure competitiveness when it comes to recruiting the best players and coaches possible, but also when the effects of the O'Bannon case are felt with the greater funding for student-athletes either in the form of additional stipends, etc.
My sense is that Romar doesn't want to tarnish his legacy but he's got way too much invested to walk away from. If given an opportunity to do so gracefully and in a way that allows him to not only save face, but also restore the fullness of his reputation, this could end well for all parties.
Poolboy can directly mention to Romar that he's running a risk of tarnishing his legacy at the UW. If he puts up another 1-2 years that are completely in the shitter, his lasting legacy at the UW will be that of running it back into the ground instead of laying a foundation for the program when it comes to being a strong option for local players (which it wasn't really before he got the job - we can debate the BRoy, Nate, Will group, but you also have guys like Hawes, Brockman, and Jensen). Instead, I'd offer him an opportunity to enhance his legacy going forward by planting the following seeds in Romar's head:
1) Create a fundraising role within the AD specifically for Romar. Have him initially focus on securing funding for upgraded practice facilities for basketball.
2) Target the creation of setting up endowment funding tied first to the head coaching position in basketball (can even have a tie-in to his name if desired).
The article from Wilner the other day noting the difference between funding streams between the PAC and the Big10 and SEC are vast. But even more on top of that, the funding streams when it comes to alumni donations, etc. for PAC schools are also going to pale. Being pro-active about finding ways to make sure that athletic programs are properly funded to not only ensure competitiveness when it comes to recruiting the best players and coaches possible, but also when the effects of the O'Bannon case are felt with the greater funding for student-athletes either in the form of additional stipends, etc.
My sense is that Romar doesn't want to tarnish his legacy but he's got way too much invested to walk away from. If given an opportunity to do so gracefully and in a way that allows him to not only save face, but also restore the fullness of his reputation, this could end well for all parties.
Tequilla
Active poster
Seven did a handful of good things for the program ... the FREE PUB!!! that he brought I think we now take for granted. But the UW brand was dragged through the mud with the Gilby and Tyrone.
That being said, Pool Boy gets a bit of an incomplete in regards to Seven because we will never know ultimately what he would have done after the 2013 season if it wasn't for Pat Haden FS. After 2013 it was abundantly clear that Seven wasn't the long-term answer at Washington ... part of me really would like to see what Pool Boy would have done.
However, TF is right ... Woody has gotten a lot of his hires right ... Meggs being a great example.
HuskyInAZ
New Fish
Just read an old SI article on Howland. He's not the right guy......
si.com/more-sports/2012/02/29/ucla
si.com/more-sports/2012/02/29/ucla
ThomasFremont
New Fish
huh?
There was no chance he was firing Sark. Why is this even a question in your mind?
Tequilla
Active poster
Not sure why you say it was a foregone conclusion that Pool Boy wasn't going to fire Sark. There does not appear to be much evidence publically that he worked hard to refute the efforts of Pat Haden FS. I definitely agree that it would have been more likely than not that he would have retained him ... but it was a % that was greater than 0 ... and perhaps far greater than 0.
ThomasFremont
New Fish
The O/U is 5%
CokeGreaterThanPepsi
New Fish
It was over 5%
Sark wasn't getting fired. He wasn't getting an extension either. He was getting a sixth year.
ThomasFremont
New Fish
Argue the % all you want. He wasn't firing Sark.
ThomasFremont
New Fish
Disagree.
FreeChavez
Active poster
Obviously none of you do this for a living