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.
