(11-03-2019 12:01 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder what are Leebron's performance benchmarks for Karlgaard. Does he have any? Which of them has Karlgaard met?
"Don't rock the boat or do anything much different, and results be damned, you'll keep your cushy job."
That's what prior AD's were told, pretty much in those words.
(11-03-2019 12:01 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder what are Leebron's performance benchmarks for Karlgaard. Does he have any? Which of them has Karlgaard met?
"Don't rock the boat or do anything much different, and results be damned, you'll keep your cushy job."
That's what prior AD's were told, pretty much in those words.
Welcome to Rice Athletics post-1970: Meet the new Boss, same as the old boss.
Artist: The Who
Album: Who's Next
Song: "Won't Get Fooled Again" (Live at Kilburn 1977)
August 14, 1971 Track Records/Decca Records
(11-03-2019 12:01 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder what are Leebron's performance benchmarks for Karlgaard. Does he have any? Which of them has Karlgaard met?
"Don't rock the boat or do anything much different, and results be damned, you'll keep your cushy job."
Keep pretending that the admin supports Athletics so that the move to Div III can be blamed on anything but the admin.
(11-03-2019 12:01 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder what are Leebron's performance benchmarks for Karlgaard. Does he have any? Which of them has Karlgaard met?
"Don't rock the boat or do anything much different, and results be damned, you'll keep your cushy job."
That's what prior AD's were told, pretty much in those words.
(11-06-2019 06:14 PM)75src Wrote: [ -> ]Keep the costs down (even if down the road the revenues decline because we are no longer competitive so the fans lose interest).
(11-03-2019 12:01 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder what are Leebron's performance benchmarks for Karlgaard. Does he have any? Which of them has Karlgaard met?
"Don't rock the boat or do anything much different, and results be damned, you'll keep your cushy job."
That's what prior AD's were told, pretty much in those words.
75src-u are right. Emphasize the amount of spending and not what happens with such funds. I talked with Mike Pede once in the late 90's or early 00's and he told me that the focus was on spending and not what such spending generated.
Was told that by a former director of accounting for the athletic department that they were doing good by keeping spending below 5% of the total university budget. What was missing was the recognition that we were not keeping facilities in good shape and falling behind everyone else.
(11-06-2019 06:14 PM)75src Wrote: [ -> ]Keep the costs down (even if down the road the revenues decline because we are no longer competitive so the fans lose interest).
(11-03-2019 12:01 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder what are Leebron's performance benchmarks for Karlgaard. Does he have any? Which of them has Karlgaard met?
"Don't rock the boat or do anything much different, and results be damned, you'll keep your cushy job."
That's what prior AD's were told, pretty much in those words.
75src-u are right. Emphasize the amount of spending and not what happens with such funds. I talked with Mike Pede once in the late 90's or early 00's and he told me that the focus was on spending and not what such spending generated.
I am not sure what more you expect from the AD. Women's basketball; volleyball; and soccer are all at very high levels of success right now.
Here is a number for you all: 35-2-3. That is the aggregate conference record of those 3 teams' most recent seasons (basketball in 2018/2019; soccer and volleyball this year). I doubt you could find a better conference record by any D-1 school in the country for those 3 sports. Getting a base of successful teams is a start to building a winning culture. Now, anyone can diminish that record by pointing to our conference, but what exactly is an AD supposed to do about that?
Now, onto higher revenue sports. Baseball ought to be better and needs to be better. That all comes down to (a) whether the WG retirement/termination was handled the way you like, and (b) whether Bragga is the right guy. Item (a) has been talked about too much to be interesting any more, and (b) is still open, pending more data. There is no doubt that in the last 15 years our baseball program has gone from a top 5 national program to not being in the top 5 in the state, but that slide (just graph it) started way before this current AD got here, and blaming it on him seems silly.
Basketball is a tougher one. I think we could be better, and last year, in part because our ex-coach grabbed a bunch of players off the roster after recruiting was pretty much done, was a hot, ugly mess. I see nothing that makes me think our current coach was the wrong hire, so again I am not sure what the AD is supposed to do. The job here in men's basketball will always be a stepping stone for somewhere else, as about 90% of D-1 basketball jobs are (look at VCU, who took our guy; everyone keeps taking their guy, too), so I think you just have to suck it up and hope for nice runs every couple of years.
Football at the higher levels is a cesspool, and with paydays now coming to higher ranked recruits, it will only get more so. I cannot wait to see the UT alum who decides he wants to buy 100,000 jerseys with UT's #1 recruiting target's name on the back of a UT jersey, for his family and friends, only to be frustrated by the A&M alum who is willing to buy 102,000 of those jerseys, only with that same name on the back of an A&M jersey.
The only way I see for a school like Rice to succeed in football is to find a coach with a distinctive style that is difficult to prepare for, teach that style to perfection, and hope for the best. Getting the little things right (we are among the least penalized teams in the country, right now) is a big start to that, and we are getting there. Last year, we were outscored by 225 points. This year, we are sitting at 116. Can anyone claim we have not improved fairly dramatically in that period? I wish we had more wins, too, but being close at the end is a big start. I am not convinced we do not have the right guy for our job; I think we need to let him have a full array of his recruits here and under his system, to see where he is.
If I see graduation rates plummeting; if I see knuckle-headed recruits assaulting area citizens and somehow remaining in school (I am looking at you, Baylor); I will fuss at the AD for setting and/or promoting the wrong culture. I do not see that now, and what I see so far, I am fine with.
(11-07-2019 01:33 AM)75src Wrote: [ -> ]Was told that by a former director of accounting for the athletic department that they were doing good by keeping spending below 5% of the total university budget. What was missing was the recognition that we were not keeping facilities in good shape and falling behind everyone else.
(11-06-2019 06:14 PM)75src Wrote: [ -> ]Keep the costs down (even if down the road the revenues decline because we are no longer competitive so the fans lose interest).
(11-03-2019 09:54 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]"Don't rock the boat or do anything much different, and results be damned, you'll keep your cushy job."
That's what prior AD's were told, pretty much in those words.
75src-u are right. Emphasize the amount of spending and not what happens with such funds. I talked with Mike Pede once in the late 90's or early 00's and he told me that the focus was on spending and not what such spending generated.
I remember a meeting of alumni with university and athletics administrators--IIRC it was about replacing Ray--at which Dr. Hackerman and I got into it a bit. He kept insisting that athletics was overspending its budget. I asked him if it was a gross number, with just expenses, or a net number, where it was revenues minus expenses. He said it was net. I then asked whether expenses were exceeding budget or revenues were falling short. He answered that it was all due to revenues falling short, as he was happy to say that expenses were actually coming in under budget. So, not enough revenues means we are spending too much, even though we are spending less than budget? Umm, I think we see the problem. And that was mid-1980s, when we were still in the SWC.
(11-06-2019 11:32 PM)texowl2 Wrote: [ -> ]75src-u are right. Emphasize the amount of spending and not what happens with such funds. I talked with Mike Pede once in the late 90's or early 00's and he told me that the focus was on spending and not what such spending generated.
I had a number of conversations with Mike and with Steve Moniaci, who both had some great ideas but were stifled from implementing them. I know Mike took a lot of heat in some quarters for some of his absurd promotions, but this were basically all he could do, and at least he did something. They've both landed in pretty good spots.
One of Todd's moves that really pissed me off was getting rid of both of them. I thought that Todd and Chris (after he got there) were on a path to do proper athletic promotion and marketing, finally, and that Mike and Steve would have been incredibly helpful in doing so. But Todd was all about himself, and letting them have and implement ideas conflicted with that. Rice athletics needed a shakeup, badly, and Todd gave us one. We had a Parliament get-together at Homecoming one year at Damian's, and somebody said, "If Todd hadn't come we might not still have Rice football." I replied, "And if Todd hadn't left we might not still have Rice football." I'm glad Todd was here for 12 months. I'm equally glad he wasn't here for 13.
(11-17-2019 08:33 AM)owlsfan Wrote: [ -> ]Now, anyone can diminish that record by pointing to our conference, but what exactly is an AD supposed to do about that?
(11-17-2019 08:33 AM)owlsfan Wrote: [ -> ]Now, anyone can diminish that record by pointing to our conference, but what exactly is an AD supposed to do about that?
Plenty. See Del Conte, Chris, TCU section.
Probably some lessons that can be learned from Tulane, also. They were a surprise AAC selection.
There are macro issues at the BoT/Leebron level and micro pros/cons w/ JK specifically.
JK is a good man, a smart man, and a capable leader of a stable D-1 Athletic Dept. JK did not create the mess, he inherited it. That is the macro problem.
To solve the macro problem IMO what is needed is bold, outgoing, risk taking leadership that could fail but the failure is occurring organically with the current approach if the goal is to be relevant on the national stage in athletics similar to Duke, Stanford, TCU, etc. It will never happen in C-USA. JK is a solid, data driven, steady set of hands. However, a steady set of hands is not what is needed to accomplish the goal. It is what is needed once the goal has been achieved and to keep achieving it. Even though it is much bigger job, I think JK’s skills are better suited to be the Stanford AD vs. Rice AD.
In the Rice AD position, Rice needs more assertiveness/urgency with the administration, conference situation, fundraising/endowment, bolder vision (vs. platitude vision), etc. JK is not a pound the table, shake hands/kiss babies, charismatic kind of guy that is going to inspire and lead people to accomplish great things like making Rice relevant in athletics on a national stage. The kind of guy that could go to John Doerr and get 20% of his contribution to athletics and the numerous other Brian Patterson-like folks out there. Then get the administration to match it. CDC had more of that swagger and leadership style but given he did not ultimately have the $ and vision that TCU was willing to offer-up (from both alums and admin) so he left and is now the highest paid AD in the country. I would like to see some vision and solutions (even if require bold commitments by the Alums and University) on how to solve the conference situation to get to the relevance goal.
So I keep coming back to the BoT and Leebron on putting the right type of leader with the right type of $$/support in that position as the necessary macro solution. That is their job, not JK’s. Good managers are different than good leaders and leaders come in many flavors and what is needed here is change agent leadership.
For those micro things that JK can control, he deserves credit and made nice turns in the sports that are under-the-radar, improved the overall quality of management and administration of the staff, improved facilities, and improved the look/feel of the brand. It is materially better than under prior administrations. Give him props for that.
However the ‘Big 3’ sports are arguably all equal or worse than when he started six-years ago and I do think he is accountable for handling the OG situation, knee-jerk hire w/ Pera, and waiting too long on addressing DB past his prime. My biggest critique of JK specifically is that there is a common theme of the current budget $ and current players emotions driving more of the coaching decisions on hire/fire than what is best for long-term interests of program. If he did not value those inputs so much, you would have seen a longer search for MBB coach, and quicker triggers/solutions to FB and Baseball. And you could argue that for all three major sports to be no better than six-years ago (not one, two or even five years), that is on the AD to be accountable. But even if the sports were marginally better and Football was consistently going to whocares.com bowl game, MBB was playing in some postseason alphabet named tournament, and baseball was playing in a Super Regional, I don’t think it changes the macro outlook to address the structural issues.
That is more of where I would like to see the focus. Winning a few more FB, MBB, Baseball games on the field/court in the current C-USA situation will not address the structural issues. And I’m skeptical as we enter year seven of his tenure, if JK will be able to fix those despite the fact he is a good, competent, smart man.
(11-17-2019 12:44 PM)owl40 Wrote: [ -> ]I think we have a square peg/round hole problem.
There are macro issues at the BoT/Leebron level and micro pros/cons w/ JK specifically.
JK is a good man, a smart man, and a capable leader of a stable D-1 Athletic Dept. JK did not create the mess, he inherited it. That is the macro problem.
To solve the macro problem IMO what is needed is bold, outgoing, risk taking leadership that could fail but the failure is occurring organically with the current approach if the goal is to be relevant on the national stage in athletics similar to Duke, Stanford, TCU, etc. It will never happen in C-USA. JK is a solid, data driven, steady set of hands. However, a steady set of hands is not what is needed to accomplish the goal. It is what is needed once the goal has been achieved and to keep achieving it. Even though it is much bigger job, I think JK’s skills are better suited to be the Stanford AD vs. Rice AD.
In the Rice AD position, Rice needs more assertiveness/urgency with the administration, conference situation, fundraising/endowment, bolder vision (vs. platitude vision), etc. JK is not a pound the table, shake hands/kiss babies, charismatic kind of guy that is going to inspire and lead people to accomplish great things like making Rice relevant in athletics on a national stage. The kind of guy that could go to John Doerr and get 20% of his contribution to athletics and the numerous other Brian Patterson-like folks out there. Then get the administration to match it. CDC had more of that swagger and leadership style but given he did not ultimately have the $ and vision that TCU was willing to offer-up (from both alums and admin) so he left and is now the highest paid AD in the country. I would like to see some vision and solutions (even if require bold commitments by the Alums and University) on how to solve the conference situation to get to the relevance goal.
So I keep coming back to the BoT and Leebron on putting the right type of leader with the right type of $$/support in that position as the necessary macro solution. That is their job, not JK’s. Good managers are different than good leaders and leaders come in many flavors and what is needed here is change agent leadership.
For those micro things that JK can control, he deserves credit and made nice turns in the sports that are under-the-radar, improved the overall quality of management and administration of the staff, improved facilities, and improved the look/feel of the brand. It is materially better than under prior administrations. Give him props for that.
However the ‘Big 3’ sports are arguably all equal or worse than when he started six-years ago and I do think he is accountable for handling the OG situation, knee-jerk hire w/ Pera, and waiting too long on addressing DB past his prime. My biggest critique of JK specifically is that there is a common theme of the current budget $ and current players emotions driving more of the coaching decisions on hire/fire than what is best for long-term interests of program. If he did not value those inputs so much, you would have seen a longer search for MBB coach, and quicker triggers/solutions to FB and Baseball. And you could argue that for all three major sports to be no better than six-years ago (not one, two or even five years), that is on the AD to be accountable. But even if the sports were marginally better and Football was consistently going to whocares.com bowl game, MBB was playing in some postseason alphabet named tournament, and baseball was playing in a Super Regional, I don’t think it changes the macro outlook to address the structural issues.
That is more of where I would like to see the focus. Winning a few more FB, MBB, Baseball games on the field/court in the current C-USA situation will not address the structural issues. And I’m skeptical as we enter year seven of his tenure, if JK will be able to fix those despite the fact he is a good, competent, smart man.
I agree with most of this. But I think Pera is looking more and more like a really good hire. I’m hoping our AD will reflect on the macro picture and adjust if he can.
(11-17-2019 12:44 PM)owl40 Wrote: [ -> ]I think we have a square peg/round hole problem.
There are macro issues at the BoT/Leebron level and micro pros/cons w/ JK specifically.
JK is a good man, a smart man, and a capable leader of a stable D-1 Athletic Dept. JK did not create the mess, he inherited it. That is the macro problem.
To solve the macro problem IMO what is needed is bold, outgoing, risk taking leadership that could fail but the failure is occurring organically with the current approach if the goal is to be relevant on the national stage in athletics similar to Duke, Stanford, TCU, etc. It will never happen in C-USA. JK is a solid, data driven, steady set of hands. However, a steady set of hands is not what is needed to accomplish the goal. It is what is needed once the goal has been achieved and to keep achieving it. Even though it is much bigger job, I think JK’s skills are better suited to be the Stanford AD vs. Rice AD.
In the Rice AD position, Rice needs more assertiveness/urgency with the administration, conference situation, fundraising/endowment, bolder vision (vs. platitude vision), etc. JK is not a pound the table, shake hands/kiss babies, charismatic kind of guy that is going to inspire and lead people to accomplish great things like making Rice relevant in athletics on a national stage. The kind of guy that could go to John Doerr and get 20% of his contribution to athletics and the numerous other Brian Patterson-like folks out there. Then get the administration to match it. CDC had more of that swagger and leadership style but given he did not ultimately have the $ and vision that TCU was willing to offer-up (from both alums and admin) so he left and is now the highest paid AD in the country. I would like to see some vision and solutions (even if require bold commitments by the Alums and University) on how to solve the conference situation to get to the relevance goal.
So I keep coming back to the BoT and Leebron on putting the right type of leader with the right type of $$/support in that position as the necessary macro solution. That is their job, not JK’s. Good managers are different than good leaders and leaders come in many flavors and what is needed here is change agent leadership.
For those micro things that JK can control, he deserves credit and made nice turns in the sports that are under-the-radar, improved the overall quality of management and administration of the staff, improved facilities, and improved the look/feel of the brand. It is materially better than under prior administrations. Give him props for that.
However the ‘Big 3’ sports are arguably all equal or worse than when he started six-years ago and I do think he is accountable for handling the OG situation, knee-jerk hire w/ Pera, and waiting too long on addressing DB past his prime. My biggest critique of JK specifically is that there is a common theme of the current budget $ and current players emotions driving more of the coaching decisions on hire/fire than what is best for long-term interests of program. If he did not value those inputs so much, you would have seen a longer search for MBB coach, and quicker triggers/solutions to FB and Baseball. And you could argue that for all three major sports to be no better than six-years ago (not one, two or even five years), that is on the AD to be accountable. But even if the sports were marginally better and Football was consistently going to whocares.com bowl game, MBB was playing in some postseason alphabet named tournament, and baseball was playing in a Super Regional, I don’t think it changes the macro outlook to address the structural issues.
That is more of where I would like to see the focus. Winning a few more FB, MBB, Baseball games on the field/court in the current C-USA situation will not address the structural issues. And I’m skeptical as we enter year seven of his tenure, if JK will be able to fix those despite the fact he is a good, competent, smart man.
I think this is very interesting and well-thought out, and I think I agree with what you say. However, as I read it, it occurs to me that the current AD could be performing very well in the context of what he was hired to do, but still not be the right person to do what you (and many others) feel is the right thing to do.
If that is the case, then what you disagree with is what the people who are hiring the AD (and who have the power to fire the AD, and who sign his checks) are giving the AD as his job description.
And if that is the case, why in the world would anyone be mad at the AD and want to fire the AD?
If you do not change the mind of the people writing the job description, then you are never going to have an AD who is doing what you (generically) feel must be done; you will only have people who fall somewhere on the spectrum of excellent to poor on running the department in the manner it has been run (find good coaches; field competitive teams; keep out the felons; keep on the current course). You will have idiots (the fat guy from Indiana) and you will have people who do it well, but you will never be satisfied with doing it well, because "it" isn't what it should be.
(11-17-2019 08:33 AM)owlsfan Wrote: [ -> ]I am not sure what more you expect from the AD. Women's basketball; volleyball; and soccer are all at very high levels of success right now.
Here is a number for you all: 35-2-3. That is the aggregate conference record of those 3 teams' most recent seasons (basketball in 2018/2019; soccer and volleyball this year). I doubt you could find a better conference record by any D-1 school in the country for those 3 sports. Getting a base of successful teams is a start to building a winning culture. Now, anyone can diminish that record by pointing to our conference, but what exactly is an AD supposed to do about that?
Now, onto higher revenue sports. Baseball ought to be better and needs to be better. That all comes down to (a) whether the WG retirement/termination was handled the way you like, and (b) whether Bragga is the right guy. Item (a) has been talked about too much to be interesting any more, and (b) is still open, pending more data. There is no doubt that in the last 15 years our baseball program has gone from a top 5 national program to not being in the top 5 in the state, but that slide (just graph it) started way before this current AD got here, and blaming it on him seems silly.
Basketball is a tougher one. I think we could be better, and last year, in part because our ex-coach grabbed a bunch of players off the roster after recruiting was pretty much done, was a hot, ugly mess. I see nothing that makes me think our current coach was the wrong hire, so again I am not sure what the AD is supposed to do. The job here in men's basketball will always be a stepping stone for somewhere else, as about 90% of D-1 basketball jobs are (look at VCU, who took our guy; everyone keeps taking their guy, too), so I think you just have to suck it up and hope for nice runs every couple of years.
Football at the higher levels is a cesspool, and with paydays now coming to higher ranked recruits, it will only get more so. I cannot wait to see the UT alum who decides he wants to buy 100,000 jerseys with UT's #1 recruiting target's name on the back of a UT jersey, for his family and friends, only to be frustrated by the A&M alum who is willing to buy 102,000 of those jerseys, only with that same name on the back of an A&M jersey.
The only way I see for a school like Rice to succeed in football is to find a coach with a distinctive style that is difficult to prepare for, teach that style to perfection, and hope for the best. Getting the little things right (we are among the least penalized teams in the country, right now) is a big start to that, and we are getting there. Last year, we were outscored by 225 points. This year, we are sitting at 116. Can anyone claim we have not improved fairly dramatically in that period? I wish we had more wins, too, but being close at the end is a big start. I am not convinced we do not have the right guy for our job; I think we need to let him have a full array of his recruits here and under his system, to see where he is.
If I see graduation rates plummeting; if I see knuckle-headed recruits assaulting area citizens and somehow remaining in school (I am looking at you, Baylor); I will fuss at the AD for setting and/or promoting the wrong culture. I do not see that now, and what I see so far, I am fine with.
(11-17-2019 08:33 AM)owlsfan Wrote: [ -> ]Now, anyone can diminish that record by pointing to our conference, but what exactly is an AD supposed to do about that?
Plenty. See Del Conte, Chris, TCU section.
Probably some lessons that can be learned from Tulane, also. They were a surprise AAC selection.
Tulsa to the AAC was the real frustrating one. That might have been the spot we could have ridden out of CUSA on. But UH, who we helped back in the day, gave us the finger. Tulsa sucks eggs in the AAC. We could have done that as well, at least among a somewhat higher tier of schools and better road trips/home fan interest.
(11-17-2019 08:33 AM)owlsfan Wrote: [ -> ]The only way I see for a school like Rice to succeed in football is to find a coach with a distinctive style that is difficult to prepare for, teach that style to perfection, and hope for the best. Getting the little things right (we are among the least penalized teams in the country, right now) is a big start to that, and we are getting there.
Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and do something different on offense. And get the little things right. Pretty good formula.
(11-17-2019 08:33 AM)owlsfan Wrote: [ -> ]Getting the little things right (we are among the least penalized teams in the country, right now) is a big start to that, and we are getting there.
l know someone who was in the room for that meeting. He said that when Bryant said, "I expect nothing less," he could feel the hairs on the back of his neck standing up. But they did what he asked, and they were national champions.
(11-17-2019 08:33 AM)owlsfan Wrote: [ -> ]I am not sure what more you expect from the AD. Women's basketball; volleyball; and soccer are all at very high levels of success right now.
Here is a number for you all: 35-2-3. That is the aggregate conference record of those 3 teams' most recent seasons (basketball in 2018/2019; soccer and volleyball this year). I doubt you could find a better conference record by any D-1 school in the country for those 3 sports. Getting a base of successful teams is a start to building a winning culture. Now, anyone can diminish that record by pointing to our conference, but what exactly is an AD supposed to do about that?
Now, onto higher revenue sports. Baseball ought to be better and needs to be better. That all comes down to (a) whether the WG retirement/termination was handled the way you like, and (b) whether Bragga is the right guy. Item (a) has been talked about too much to be interesting any more, and (b) is still open, pending more data. There is no doubt that in the last 15 years our baseball program has gone from a top 5 national program to not being in the top 5 in the state, but that slide (just graph it) started way before this current AD got here, and blaming it on him seems silly.
Basketball is a tougher one. I think we could be better, and last year, in part because our ex-coach grabbed a bunch of players off the roster after recruiting was pretty much done, was a hot, ugly mess. I see nothing that makes me think our current coach was the wrong hire, so again I am not sure what the AD is supposed to do. The job here in men's basketball will always be a stepping stone for somewhere else, as about 90% of D-1 basketball jobs are (look at VCU, who took our guy; everyone keeps taking their guy, too), so I think you just have to suck it up and hope for nice runs every couple of years.
Football at the higher levels is a cesspool, and with paydays now coming to higher ranked recruits, it will only get more so. I cannot wait to see the UT alum who decides he wants to buy 100,000 jerseys with UT's #1 recruiting target's name on the back of a UT jersey, for his family and friends, only to be frustrated by the A&M alum who is willing to buy 102,000 of those jerseys, only with that same name on the back of an A&M jersey.
The only way I see for a school like Rice to succeed in football is to find a coach with a distinctive style that is difficult to prepare for, teach that style to perfection, and hope for the best. Getting the little things right (we are among the least penalized teams in the country, right now) is a big start to that, and we are getting there. Last year, we were outscored by 225 points. This year, we are sitting at 116. Can anyone claim we have not improved fairly dramatically in that period? I wish we had more wins, too, but being close at the end is a big start. I am not convinced we do not have the right guy for our job; I think we need to let him have a full array of his recruits here and under his system, to see where he is.
If I see graduation rates plummeting; if I see knuckle-headed recruits assaulting area citizens and somehow remaining in school (I am looking at you, Baylor); I will fuss at the AD for setting and/or promoting the wrong culture. I do not see that now, and what I see so far, I am fine with.
I actually think this is dead on. Of course, we all want better results in the big 3 men's sports but its gonna take time. Not a year or two or even three. I want a coach that wants to be here, I believe we have that.
Can the administration be more helpful, sure. But that's not the AD's fault.