Womens College Coaching Hotseat

Swoosh said:
Care to elaborate? He has all of zero wins as a head coach.
Click to expand...

Yup and beggers can't be choosers. It is not like any program can ask for the established, winning track record, head coaches to up and leave. "Hey, Paul! Hey, Anson! Hey, Amanda! Come and coach up here!" Obviously it does not work like that and it is one reason why successful head coaches tend to stay put for a good while.

In this case, if you take a close look at Oregon's scores over the last two years, you see something that is pretty consistent. Most losses are one-goal, many of those goals (and tying goals in 4 of their 5 ties this year) came on late (70+ min) goals. Despite a poor record, the roster is competitive. Can it win? Can a coach make a difference? Can a new GK make a difference? Can a year of experience for a very good freshman class make a difference? Can a coach create a buzz that helps with recruiting? If they follow up with wins, yes.

I look at the "coaching hotseat" discussion really differently than most b/c the criticisms are usually logically sound but practically unrealistic. The criticisms assume that each vacancy has an abundance of candidates, that the right coach can recruit in Stockton or Moraga or anywhere else and compete, that the resources and interest of the athletic department are fungible among sports (maybe there is some acknowledgment that football and men's hoops are different), etc. I look at it more practically - what type of coach can Program X attract. And I think Oregon has done a really good job in getting someone who knows the game, has worked in college and has coached the most important position on the field. Those are ingredients to make a big change in a year and that can create momentum. So, yeah. I think it is a good hire.
 
dk_b said:
Yup and beggers can't be choosers. It is not like any program can ask for the established, winning track record, head coaches to up and leave. "Hey, Paul! Hey, Anson! Hey, Amanda! Come and coach up here!" Obviously it does not work like that and it is one reason why successful head coaches tend to stay put for a good while.

In this case, if you take a close look at Oregon's scores over the last two years, you see something that is pretty consistent. Most losses are one-goal, many of those goals (and tying goals in 4 of their 5 ties this year) came on late (70+ min) goals. Despite a poor record, the roster is competitive. Can it win? Can a coach make a difference? Can a new GK make a difference? Can a year of experience for a very good freshman class make a difference? Can a coach create a buzz that helps with recruiting? If they follow up with wins, yes.

I look at the "coaching hotseat" discussion really differently than most b/c the criticisms are usually logically sound but practically unrealistic. The criticisms assume that each vacancy has an abundance of candidates, that the right coach can recruit in Stockton or Moraga or anywhere else and compete, that the resources and interest of the athletic department are fungible among sports (maybe there is some acknowledgment that football and men's hoops are different), etc. I look at it more practically - what type of coach can Program X attract. And I think Oregon has done a really good job in getting someone who knows the game, has worked in college and has coached the most important position on the field. Those are ingredients to make a big change in a year and that can create momentum. So, yeah. I think it is a good hire.
Click to expand...

I have other reasons why I think this is a good hire but they are more personal so not really relevant to the broader discussion.
 
If he’s able to maximize the talents of his roster and places kids in areas to succeed, can recruit and is a good person then I would say he’s a good hire.

Zero D1 victories and goal keeping coach are a concern but perhaps he was the best candidate that accepted the job. Maybe he works out.

I’m waiting to see who got the UW job.
 
dk_b said:
I think that is the part that is often overlooked when people discuss these coaching openings. I, for one, will be rooting hard for him to succeed in Eugene.
Click to expand...

If you're looking for the big time college experience, Oregon doesn't get much better than that. State of the art facilities, good sport culture and the college scene is great. Not sure why they haven't been able to turn the tide. While he has good NT credentials, not sure how well he'll do in the X's and O's category...will probably hire a great assistant to help in that area.
 
Agreed on the points above.

Curious to see who goes to pacific and SMC also.
Both good jobs for an assistant that has NOT been given a chance.

Pacific started mostly F/S out there and looked competitive vs. USF/USF/Gonzaga.

SMC loses a good number of senior starters and contributors.

Pacific probably the better job to succeed.
 
SoccerJones said:
If you're looking for the big time college experience, Oregon doesn't get much better than that. State of the art facilities, good sport culture and the college scene is great. Not sure why they haven't been able to turn the tide. While he has good NT credentials, not sure how well he'll do in the X's and O's category...will probably hire a great assistant to help in that area.
Click to expand...
Problem with Oregon is they are in a conference with:

USC, CAL, UCLA, Stanford, etc. all elite schools.
 
eastbaysoccer said:
Problem with Oregon is they are in a conference with:

USC, CAL, UCLA, Stanford, etc. all elite schools.
Click to expand...

most recruiters use that as an advantage. Playing in the best conference (arguably) in the nation, national exposure...should be an easy sell. I would exclude Cal from there...they haven't been a factor in a long time. They had a good bounce back year but still a ways to go. Next year's recruiting classs should be good and it'll be interesting to see what transfers they get.
 
Swoosh said:
They literally hired a zero everything. If it were a place like Davis, I would understand, but its Oregon and they're in the Pac 12.
Click to expand...

So whom do you hire in the pac 12? Or, at least, who appears on your list of target candidates?

I have zero way of knowing the level of responsibility of a coaching candidate with years as an assistant and none as a HC. He may have been involved in all aspects or in limited ways. We just don’t know (well, I’ll just speak for myself). But those who interview the candidates do and those who act as references do. Unless one is an insider and knows all the candidates who were turned away or who turned them away, it’s folly to speculate. Until we see what happens. And that’s always the risk with a new hire who has not been a HC at a power 5 school.
 
dk_b said:
So whom do you hire in the pac 12? Or, at least, who appears on your list of target candidates?

I have zero way of knowing the level of responsibility of a coaching candidate with years as an assistant and none as a HC. He may have been involved in all aspects or in limited ways. We just don’t know (well, I’ll just speak for myself). But those who interview the candidates do and those who act as references do. Unless one is an insider and knows all the candidates who were turned away or who turned them away, it’s folly to speculate. Until we see what happens. And that’s always the risk with a new hire who has not been a HC at a power 5 school.
Click to expand...

TBH, like you i don't know who's good, upcoming crummy, or just plain old lucky. I made a comment last year that I thought Jen Klien would get run out of Michigan because I thought she was a TERRIBLE X's and O's coach (saw her at many ODP/regional trainings through the years) and they had a hell of a run.

One old college football coach once said (paraphrasing) that you can have the best coach on a team full of unathletic people and will have the same results. On the flip side, you can have a coach who's a GREAT recruiter and subpar coach and he/she will do wonders. I think that college soccer is full of subpar coaches that can recruit. It's no wonder why Stanford, UNC, UCLA, Duke, Virginia, Florida State have are always in the mix. Great location with great college life AND more importantly, pretty good degree after all is said and done. Who wouldn't be chompiin at the bit to go to one of these schools??
 
SoccerJones said:
TBH, like you i don't know who's good, upcoming crummy, or just plain old lucky. I made a comment last year that I thought Jen Klien would get run out of Michigan because I thought she was a TERRIBLE X's and O's coach (saw her at many ODP/regional trainings through the years) and they had a hell of a run.

One old college football coach once said (paraphrasing) that you can have the best coach on a team full of unathletic people and will have the same results. On the flip side, you can have a coach who's a GREAT recruiter and subpar coach and he/she will do wonders. I think that college soccer is full of subpar coaches that can recruit. It's no wonder why Stanford, UNC, UCLA, Duke, Virginia, Florida State have are always in the mix. Great location with great college life AND more importantly, pretty good degree after all is said and done. Who wouldn't be chompiin at the bit to go to one of these schools??
Click to expand...
Jen Klein was the reason they did as well as they did at SC. How are the X's and O's at SC now? They have been playing donkey ball for the last 2 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top