MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Gregory Sager]

The reason I pointed out the lack of playing experience and successful assistant coaching experience is because the most successful guys in the league have that blueprint and I think that blueprint obviously leads to consistency . Of course there's not just one formula for success but if the top teams are doing something completely different than what your doing and you have consistently been bad then why not switch it up. The bigger point is how many college head coaches get hired with no successful playing or coaching experience. That's really rare.

Correlation doesn't equal causation, though. As I said, when you've been out of college for 20 years, which sport you played back when you were an undergraduate is irrelevant. What matters is which sport you've been coaching over those 20 years since college; where and at what level were you coaching it; and do you have parallel experience at the job you're now seeking. And in those last two matters we both agree that Noonan comes up short. He can obviously coach this sport well -- his St. Theresa's record conclusively proves that -- but college is a different matter, because the most important part of a D3 head coaching job is recruiting, something you don't have to do as a high school coach. And in terms of his college coaching experience, his assistant coaching résumé is limited (and not very successful) while his head coaching résumé is nonexistent.

There are ways to hold your boss accountable. At the interview you ask questions and/or requests of things you need to be successful and if they agree to those things and don't follow thru you have to call them out.

That explains the "accountability" part, but it doesn't explain the "holding them" part. Calling out someone for not fulfilling a promise is useless when you not only don't have power over that other person, but the other person has power over you. If Tom Noonan says to Lori Kerans three years from now, "You promised me I'd have A, B, and C for Millikin men's basketball when I took this job, and yet you've failed to give me A and B and you've only given me half of C, and as I said three years ago I can't compete in this league without A and B and all of C," she will then reply, "Well, things change. Times are hard right now, Millikin is struggling, and the school can't give me a budget sufficient to provide what each of my coaches want, so I can't give you A, B, and all of C. If that's not good enough you can walk away from this job with no hard feelings on our end."

That's why I put in that Moneyball clip in my last post. If you tell the boss that you can't compete with what you have and you need more resources, your boss explains that the money's not there for those resources, and you still persist, your boss will just look at you like Steve Schott (Bobby Kotick) looked at Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) and say, "Is there something else I can help you with?" And then you either slink out of the boss's office mumbling under your breath or you quit. Either way, you're not holding the boss accountable ... because that's a functional impossibility.

I think this is where a coach or former coach needs to call out the administration publicly because that's the only way stuff will change . As you mentioned it seems like Millikin is doing the same ol thing with this hire and Lori knows Tom is just happy to have the job and won't ruffle feathers . But until someone publicly embarrasses Millikin and its administration nothing will change.  This is why I think Millikin didn't go after a more high profile experienced coach because a more experienced coach would have made certain demands prior to taking the job .

That's a fall-on-your-sword move, because if you publicly embarrass the administration you won't have a job anymore. And the problem is that doing so, either while you still have the job or after you're already out the door, could jeopardize your chances of getting a new gig, because a lot of ADs will be wary of hiring someone who comes off as a malcontent or an excuse-maker. That's especially true in an environment like the one we're in now, in which a huge swath of small-college basketball programs are going to be under the gun in terms of resources because of the steep demographic decline that is dramatically shrinking the pool of American 18-year-olds. It's going to push a lot of small colleges to the brink ... and many of them are going to go over the cliff entirely. The last thing that an AD will want in those conditions is to have one of his or her coaches whining about how he or she can't win without more resources.

[north central]

The reason I pointed out the lack of playing experience and successful assistant coaching experience is because the most successful guys in the league have that blueprint and I think that blueprint obviously leads to consistency . Of course there's not just one formula for success but if the top teams are doing something completely different than what your doing and you have consistently been bad then why not switch it up. The bigger point is how many college head coaches get hired with no successful playing or coaching experience. That's really rare.

Correlation doesn't equal causation, though. As I said, when you've been out of college for 20 years, which sport you played back when you were an undergraduate is irrelevant. What matters is which sport you've been coaching over those 20 years since college; where and at what level were you coaching it; and do you have parallel experience at the job you're now seeking. And in those last two matters we both agree that Noonan comes up short. He can obviously coach this sport well -- his St. Theresa's record conclusively proves that -- but college is a different matter, because the most important part of a D3 head coaching job is recruiting, something you don't have to do as a high school coach. And in terms of his college coaching experience, his assistant coaching résumé is limited (and not very successful) while his head coaching résumé is nonexistent.

There are ways to hold your boss accountable. At the interview you ask questions and/or requests of things you need to be successful and if they agree to those things and don't follow thru you have to call them out.

That explains the "accountability" part, but it doesn't explain the "holding them" part. Calling out someone for not fulfilling a promise is useless when you not only don't have power over that other person, but the other person has power over you. If Tom Noonan says to Lori Kerans three years from now, "You promised me I'd have A, B, and C for Millikin men's basketball when I took this job, and yet you've failed to give me A and B and you've only given me half of C, and as I said three years ago I can't compete in this league without A and B and all of C," she will then reply, "Well, things change. Times are hard right now, Millikin is struggling, and the school can't give me a budget sufficient to provide what each of my coaches want, so I can't give you A, B, and all of C. If that's not good enough you can walk away from this job with no hard feelings on our end."

That's why I put in that Moneyball clip in my last post. If you tell the boss that you can't compete with what you have and you need more resources, your boss explains that the money's not there for those resources, and you still persist, your boss will just look at you like Steve Schott (Bobby Kotick) looked at Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) and say, "Is there something else I can help you with?" And then you either slink out of the boss's office mumbling under your breath or you quit. Either way, you're not holding the boss accountable ... because that's a functional impossibility.

I think this is where a coach or former coach needs to call out the administration publicly because that's the only way stuff will change . As you mentioned it seems like Millikin is doing the same ol thing with this hire and Lori knows Tom is just happy to have the job and won't ruffle feathers . But until someone publicly embarrasses Millikin and its administration nothing will change.  This is why I think Millikin didn't go after a more high profile experienced coach because a more experienced coach would have made certain demands prior to taking the job .

That's a fall-on-your-sword move, because if you publicly embarrass the administration you won't have a job anymore. And the problem is that doing so, either while you still have the job or after you're already out the door, could jeopardize your chances of getting a new gig, because a lot of ADs will be wary of hiring someone who comes off as a malcontent or an excuse-maker. That's especially true in an environment like the one we're in now, in which a huge swath of small-college basketball programs are going to be under the gun in terms of resources because of the steep demographic decline that is dramatically shrinking the pool of American 18-year-olds. It's going to push a lot of small colleges to the brink ... and many of them are going to go over the cliff entirely. The last thing that an AD will want in those conditions is to have one of his or her coaches whining about how he or she can't win without more resources.

That is true but how else will anything change because if no one ever says anything then it will be the same. And look at the last 35 years . No one has said anything so it will keep going the same way. I guess I'm here to be the one who calls out those AD's

[north central]

AD's know potential coaches won't say anything for fear of never getting another job but someone has to speak up for those coaches so that bad AD's get exposed. I've worked for some good AD's and some bad ones. The good ones have thriving athletic programs and the bad ones have crappy programs .

[Gregory Sager]

That is true but how else will anything change because if no one ever says anything then it will be the same. And look at the last 35 years . No one has said anything so it will keep going the same way. I guess I'm here to be the one who calls out those AD's

I hear you. But, alas, internet gadflies aren't the movers and shakers of small-college athletics.

[devildog29]

But I don't mean to be hard on Tom Noonan.

He might say that he was talking to someone from a school that benefited from having only two coaches since Division III became a thing, more or less.  I have to think though that Tom Noonan would agree that everything you said was fair.



Also, very interesting points about the recruiting plans.

The erasure of the Scott Trost era continues.

[WUPHF]

The erasure of the Scott Trost era continues.

Thanks, and well played...

I follow the GLVC closely enough to know better.

[Gregory Sager]

But I don't mean to be hard on Tom Noonan.

He might say that he was talking to someone from a school that benefited from having only two coaches since Division III became a thing, more or less.  I have to think though that Tom Noonan would agree that everything you said was fair.



Also, very interesting points about the recruiting plans.

The erasure of the Scott Trost era continues.

Doesn't seem fair for a guy who is one of only four men to serve as the head coach of two different CCIW programs.

[blue_jays]

I think this is where a coach or former coach needs to call out the administration publicly because that's the only way stuff will change .

For a current coach, this would be an objectively crazy thing to do, literal career suicide. Unless you are sufficiently monied for the rest of your life, no one would ever do this.

[north central]

I think this is where a coach or former coach needs to call out the administration publicly because that's the only way stuff will change .

For a current coach, this would be an objectively crazy thing to do, literal career suicide. Unless you are sufficiently monied for the rest of your life, no one would ever do this.

You're right which is why AD's think they can do whatever they want to without being questioned.

[Gregory Sager]

I think this is where a coach or former coach needs to call out the administration publicly because that's the only way stuff will change .

For a current coach, this would be an objectively crazy thing to do, literal career suicide. Unless you are sufficiently monied for the rest of your life, no one would ever do this.

You're right which is why AD's think they can do whatever they want to without being questioned.

Athletic directors are middle management. They're no different than coaches in that they, too, have to answer to somebody further up the institutional food chain. For them it's often a vice-president or the equivalent, or some other presidential-cabinet-level officer. They, too, get job evaluations, submit reports on their activities to their immediate bosses, and have to deal with human resources stuff, attend show-the-flag events, etc.

[GusD]

I think this is where a coach or former coach needs to call out the administration publicly because that's the only way stuff will change .

For a current coach, this would be an objectively crazy thing to do, literal career suicide. Unless you are sufficiently monied for the rest of your life, no one would ever do this.

You're right which is why AD's think they can do whatever they want to without being questioned.

"is why AD's think they can do whatever they want," is a blanket statement that implies ALL ADs operate in this manner, which is shortsighted at best. In fact, I am aware of a fairly recent situation where the AD's plan/opinion was rendered inconsequential by collaborating incompetent administrators.

[Gregory Sager]

Yes, ADs aren't all of a piece. As in every other position, some of them are exceptionally good at their jobs, some of them are incompetent, and some fill the "adequate" space in between. Some are institutional yes-men who always color within the lines, some aren't afraid to go rogue (whether for good or for ill) to move a program or programs forward. Some are good people, some are people you'd rather avoid if at all possible. Some are martinets who have a "my way or the highway" mentality, some are team players and collaborator types. And so on.

As Mark said, you can't really make a blanket statement that encompasses all ADs, even if you restrict it to D3 ADs only.

[Gregory Sager]

This evening Noah Cleveland announced on social media that he is now an Illinois State Redbird.

[north central]

Yes, ADs aren't all of a piece. As in every other position, some of them are exceptionally good at their jobs, some of them are incompetent, and some fill the "adequate" space in between. Some are institutional yes-men who always color within the lines, some aren't afraid to go rogue (whether for good or for ill) to move a program or programs forward. Some are good people, some are people you'd rather avoid if at all possible. Some are martinets who have a "my way or the highway" mentality, some are team players and collaborator types. And so on.

As Mark said, you can't really make a blanket statement that encompasses all ADs, even if you restrict it to D3 ADs only.

Very true, I have worked for some really good AD's and some really bad ones too. And I don't mean to lump every AD into the same boat . The role of an AD is really evolving now . AD's used to just have to worry about hiring coaches, facilities, event management, budget stuff etc but now AD's biggest and most important job is fundraising and being innovative and creative with ways to enhance their sports programs. It's is really refreshing to have a progressive AD who wants to win and provides or at least tries to provide those resources. I know a few of the CCIW AD's and for the most part they are really good .