The Coaching Carousel

ramster · Unread post by **ramster** » 5 years ago

Al Skinner out at Kennesaw State at end of the season

https://www.tribuneledgernews.com/sport ... 69cbb.html

Dino611 · Unread post by **Dino611** » 5 years ago

ramster wrote: ↑5 years ago Al Skinner out at Kennesaw State at end of the season

https://www.tribuneledgernews.com/sport ... 69cbb.html

Might sound really dumb, but any chance that Thorr might ask him to come back to be an Assistant help Cox at least learn how to be a head coach/teach him how to run an offense

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 5 years ago

Good old one-in-four Al.

Always liked the guy.

We've had FAR worse as coaches here.

His flex offense worked pretty well at BC, for sure.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 5 years ago

Sutton and Carroll are supposed to know how to run an offense...experienced hands....

They've shown nothing like that so far, though.

Cameron_Dollar · Unread post by **Cameron_Dollar** » 5 years ago

That means Silk Owens is available. Here is a great pool of assistants from which to choose. Carlton Owens, Tyson Wheeler, Kenny Green (getting degree in May) and possibly Bonzie Colson. Rid the staff of the AAU culture. If anyone wants to leave because of Boswell, open the door for them. If he was so valuable, Dapper Dan would have taken him. As it stands now there looks to be a few player defections coming down the road. Let's clean house by bringing in quality assistant coaches that have an allegiance to the school and the program.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 5 years ago

Quality assistants will be hard to get here due to the fact that we pay crumbs compared to the top programs in the A10.

Thorr has stated that he wants us to be the top program in the A10...only way to start would be PAY like the top program....that also means when it's time for a new HC, same thing....

Like I've said before, we're getting what we pay for...and that's not much.

section(105) · Unread post by **section(105)** » 5 years ago

.......where is the increased money to get off the porch and run like the bigger boys?......the GA/Gina, increased ticket prices, seat licenses, parking fees, sell outs of the RC, donors, NCAA appearance money, other?......I don’t think any of these are practical in our situation, and that creates the cycle of under paid coaches, hoping for an occasional lightning in a bottle of high level recruit coming here to get the ball rollong, then the cycle repeats......selling out the RC year after year is a start, but how likely is that?.....we have previously kicked this around before, but is anything new out there now?

RF1 · Unread post by **RF1** » 5 years ago

rambone 78 wrote: ↑5 years ago Quality assistants will be hard to get here due to the fact that we pay crumbs compared to the top programs in the A10.

Thorr has stated that he wants us to be the top program in the A10...only way to start would be PAY like the top program....that also means when it's time for a new HC, same thing....

Like I've said before, we're getting what we pay for...and that's not much.

If you recall, an increase to the assistant coaches salary pool was something that both Hurley and Cox fought for last year in negotiations. URI and Thorr ultimately raised the already very low budget just 6.25% (400k to 425k) to address the issue after two back to back NCAA runs. This is not an action that truly supports wanting to be one of the best programs in the A-10.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 5 years ago

The total assistant budget should be in the range of 550-650K to put us in line with the top A10 programs.

I know we have a first time HC also...but the next coach needs to be offered at least 1 mil a year to start.....

This is called putting your money where your mouth is. Thorr talks a good game, but the school's actions don't support it.

We are well on our way back to square one.....

Cameron_Dollar · Unread post by **Cameron_Dollar** » 5 years ago

Silk Owens is coming from Keenesaw State and Tyson from Fairfield. I guarantee TY (AAU) Boswell is making more than both of them. Kenny Green is currently unemployed earning his final credits and I don't think Bonzie Colson would be doing it for the money. It is unrealistic to think that we would have all former Rhody players as assistants, but I am merely identifying what I would consider major improvements to the staff.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 5 years ago

We could use a big man coach....hell a guard coach wouldn't hurt either.

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 5 years ago

There are a lot of good people involved in AAU ball, and taking a shot at the whole thing is just lazy.

hrstrat57 · Unread post by **hrstrat57** » 5 years ago

The ex URI player coaching list is long.

Does seem odd that more of them haven't been on the sidelines here....and only 2 ex URI players in head coaching position in school history I believe?

CD does raise an interesting point.

I could see Wheeler as a huge help for example.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 5 years ago

Since we're in the business of hiring rookie coaches, why not Preston Murphy?

Could he be any worse?

Never happen, but hey just throwing it out there lol.

hrstrat57 · Unread post by **hrstrat57** » 5 years ago

rambone 78 wrote: ↑5 years ago Since we're in the business of hiring rookie coaches, why not Preston Murphy?

Could he be any worse?

Never happen, but hey just throwing it out there lol.

Preston was my 1st choice and I thought was the front runner.

I know for sure we would see the Harrick offense deployed and players recruited to run it.

Still also odd that we didn't offer Oats nearly what we offered Hurley to stay I believe money would have spoken.....but I thought URI hoops was on the cusp of greatness. Has become clear most here disagreed with me.

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 5 years ago

hrstrat57 wrote: ↑5 years ago
rambone 78 wrote: ↑5 years ago Since we're in the business of hiring rookie coaches, why not Preston Murphy?

Could he be any worse?

Never happen, but hey just throwing it out there lol.
Preston was my 1st choice and I thought was the front runner.

I know for sure we would see the Harrick offense deployed and players recruited to run it.

Still also odd that we didn't offer Oats nearly what we offered Hurley to stay I believe money would have spoken.....but I thought URI hoops was on the cusp of greatness. Has become clear most here disagreed with me.

What did Harrick’s offense look like? Who were the best players he had in it? Educate me on old URI stuff, please!

RhodysRelevant · Unread post by **RhodysRelevant** » 5 years ago

ace wrote: ↑5 years ago
hrstrat57 wrote: ↑5 years ago
rambone 78 wrote: ↑5 years ago Since we're in the business of hiring rookie coaches, why not Preston Murphy?

Could he be any worse?

Never happen, but hey just throwing it out there lol.
Preston was my 1st choice and I thought was the front runner.

I know for sure we would see the Harrick offense deployed and players recruited to run it.

Still also odd that we didn't offer Oats nearly what we offered Hurley to stay I believe money would have spoken.....but I thought URI hoops was on the cusp of greatness. Has become clear most here disagreed with me.

What did Harrick’s offense look like? Who were the best players he had in it? Educate me on old URI stuff, please!

I'm not well versed in actual offensive schemes a bit more casual than that i guess, but god it was fun watching Tyson Wheeler and Cuttino Mobley in the back court together. 2 guards that can shoot the lights out from deep and break down a defense off the dribble at will. Tyson was such a great passer and then we brought in Preston Murphy off the bench who himself could beat anyone off the dribble and get into the teeth off a defense. As im under 40, that was the team i fell in love with URI hoops for and the best run i have ever seen from a Rhody team.

hrstrat57 · Unread post by **hrstrat57** » 5 years ago

ace wrote: ↑5 years ago
What did Harrick’s offense look like? Who were the best players he had in it? Educate me on old URI stuff, please!

Lots of Harrick links on YouTube all his history is there. Interesting character for sure....

He is another Wooden guy with twists and wrinkles added. As far as URI goes he fell into a perfect group of players recruited by another coach.
Probably why he agreed to come here, the talent was there to mold. The perfect storm of talent in place to build his complete offense.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct- ... story.html

Here's a little Harrick in action:

I like motion better but hard to argue with all the National Championships won with the UCLA high post offense. If Cox long range plan is to run it confidently and recruit players to run it I'd be hard pressed to argue. I haven't seen any technical discussion of Cox's long term system plans. Worthy of a unique thread if anyone has it. At the moment I really don't know what it is we are doing......but Thorr wouldn't have made the hire if he didn't have a plan/playbook presented to him.

If you have a link or info on Coach Cox's long term playbook please link it in a stand alone thread. I see some high post offense being run by URI but other than that I am way too dumb to figure out what our overall plan / philosophy for a basketball system is with what I've seen so far. Help me out with understanding it?

Cameron_Dollar · Unread post by **Cameron_Dollar** » 5 years ago

Ace,
AAU culture is toxic. It's bad enough that it has to be dealt with during recruiting. Even worse when it becomes entrenched in your staff. I'm saying that our play resembles more of an AAU team than a college team and a lot of it has to do with coaching. You either have to buy into wanting to bring back significant contributors that are capable coaches from our past who are willing and readily available or you don't. I for one do and even the many that dislike me, I think will agree.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 5 years ago

I find it ironic that of the two most hard headed posters with respect to who should be coaching the program, one thinks that we should have interviewed 75 coaches, including D3 coaches, and the other guy only wants to consider people who played at URI.

We also have people clamoring for a “Harrick offense” that can’t even give a general definition as to what that is, and using their desire for the “Harrick offense” to bring back someone (who I love on a personal level, btw) that hasn’t ever been a head coach and I don’t believe is even the top assistant at a good-but-not-great non-P5 program. We have a whole segment of people that are now convinced we should never hire another first-time coach, even though plenty of first time coaches have done well in college basketball. And then on the other hand we were supposed to hire a different first time coach that wouldn’t even have offered the kind of roster and program continuity as the guy we did hire and for whom there was no evidence that anyone could point to that he is more capable or more likely to succeed?

This whole board has lost its collective mind. Yes, this team has had a disappointing season. I think there are real questions about whether the coach has whatever it is he would need to have to get this program back to where it was the last few years. There are also questions if he has the players to do it even if he were capable. That much is inarguable based on the results on the floor. At the same time, at least some of the difficulties of this team have to be attributable to what happens to a young team when a bunch of shit goes against them. Contagious shooting struggles and too many minutes on the floor spread among too few guys have pushed this team off a cliff. At the beginning of the year they were inconsistent but not straight up bad. We thought they’d get better as it went along and they could be a tough out in Brooklyn. Instead it went the other way.

Guys look gassed, they look frustrated, and they (and the fans) look like they just want it to be over. That, as much as anything, is what I’m worried about with the coach. And that’s why I’m kind of surprised that this place finally lost its mind after the Davidson game. Sure, it sucks to lose, but everyone knew they were going to lose the game, right? URI lost its last two games to top A10 teams by a combined 63 points. At least they fought on Friday. At least the effort appeared to be there, from my view in 204. It won’t be good enough just to fight next year. It won’t be good enough just to play hard on Tuesday (that’s as much of a “must win” as a 12-14 team can have). But I wouldn’t have been shocked if we lost by 30 on Friday. Losing always sucks but people need to get ahold of themselves.

daytonflyerfan · Unread post by **daytonflyerfan** » 5 years ago

TruePoint wrote: ↑5 years ago
This whole board has lost its collective mind.

Losing always sucks but people need to get ahold of themselves.

Having a rough year or 2 while transitioning to a new coach from a successful departed coach can be absolutely brutal...it is very easy for posters to lose their minds.

It is a very helpless, infuriating feeling.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 5 years ago

A lot of questions will be answered next season.....

Only a couple of posters are calling for Cox's head after this season.

I think the rest, including myself, are fine with giving DC another year....

But next year is a different story.

Seawrightspostgame · Unread post by **Seawrightspostgame** » 5 years ago

TruePoint wrote: ↑5 years ago We have a whole segment of people that are now convinced we should never hire another first-time coach, even though plenty of first time coaches have done well in college basketball. And then on the other hand we were supposed to hire a different first time coach that wouldn’t even have offered the kind of roster and program continuity as the guy we did hire and for whom there was no evidence that anyone could point to that he is more capable or more likely to succeed?

This whole board has lost its collective mind. Yes, this team has had a disappointing season. I think there are real questions about whether the coach has whatever it is he would need to have to get this program back to where it was the last few years.

Does URI/KB Message board accept/want Dan Hurley back in three/four years?

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 5 years ago

TruePoint wrote: ↑5 years ago I find it ironic that of the two most hard headed posters with respect to who should be coaching the program, one thinks that we should have interviewed 75 coaches, including D3 coaches, and the other guy only wants to consider people who played at URI.

Who wanted 75 interviews? I get that you liked the fake national search and hand the job to Cox process. God forbid we actually looked under a few rocks for the next great coach before crowning DC. Big John Thompson was a high school coach. The Belmont coach who just won his 800th game came from D2. I will never get why someone will push back against the idea of starting with a huge pool of candidates instead of the lazy "let's pretend to consider a few small major head coaches and then hire the guy already here to save a recruiting class" process. That worked out well.

RhowdyRam02 · Unread post by **RhowdyRam02** » 5 years ago

TruePoint wrote: ↑5 years ago I find it ironic that of the two most hard headed posters with respect to who should be coaching the program, one thinks that we should have interviewed 75 coaches, including D3 coaches, and the other guy only wants to consider people who played at URI.

We also have people clamoring for a “Harrick offense” that can’t even give a general definition as to what that is, and using their desire for the “Harrick offense” to bring back someone (who I love on a personal level, btw) that hasn’t ever been a head coach and I don’t believe is even the top assistant at a good-but-not-great non-P5 program. We have a whole segment of people that are now convinced we should never hire another first-time coach, even though plenty of first time coaches have done well in college basketball. And then on the other hand we were supposed to hire a different first time coach that wouldn’t even have offered the kind of roster and program continuity as the guy we did hire and for whom there was no evidence that anyone could point to that he is more capable or more likely to succeed?

This whole board has lost its collective mind. Yes, this team has had a disappointing season. I think there are real questions about whether the coach has whatever it is he would need to have to get this program back to where it was the last few years. There are also questions if he has the players to do it even if he were capable. That much is inarguable based on the results on the floor. At the same time, at least some of the difficulties of this team have to be attributable to what happens to a young team when a bunch of shit goes against them. Contagious shooting struggles and too many minutes on the floor spread among too few guys have pushed this team off a cliff. At the beginning of the year they were inconsistent but not straight up bad. We thought they’d get better as it went along and they could be a tough out in Brooklyn. Instead it went the other way.

Guys look gassed, they look frustrated, and they (and the fans) look like they just want it to be over. That, as much as anything, is what I’m worried about with the coach. And that’s why I’m kind of surprised that this place finally lost its mind after the Davidson game. Sure, it sucks to lose, but everyone knew they were going to lose the game, right? URI lost its last two games to top A10 teams by a combined 63 points. At least they fought on Friday. At least the effort appeared to be there, from my view in 204. It won’t be good enough just to fight next year. It won’t be good enough just to play hard on Tuesday (that’s as much of a “must win” as a 12-14 team can have). But I wouldn’t have been shocked if we lost by 30 on Friday. Losing always sucks but people need to get ahold of themselves.

Do I think we should have interviewed a D2 coach? Yes, I think Patrick Beilein is going to be a star and even at 35 has more college head coaching experience than David Cox. I do wonder if we should stop hiring people with no head coaching experience. If David Cox is and was as qualified as everyone said then we should be getting better results. So perhaps we don't have the proper resources going to basketball to support a first time head coach. These are reasonable opinions, not "losing one's mind"

hrstrat57 · Unread post by **hrstrat57** » 5 years ago

In “general” oversimplified terms Harrick is a devoted John Wooden disciple and runs the UCLA high post offense.

Tons of unsecure video on YouTube that will demonstrate this in non “general” terms.

I like to limit my way off topic stuff to one post. Further, I try not to link unsecured stuff here. It’s all out there have at it.

More relevant is what Cox’s coaching philosophy is.

I’m waiting for a explanation....

Go Rhody

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 5 years ago

Gonebarongone wrote: ↑5 years ago
TruePoint wrote: ↑5 years ago I find it ironic that of the two most hard headed posters with respect to who should be coaching the program, one thinks that we should have interviewed 75 coaches, including D3 coaches, and the other guy only wants to consider people who played at URI.

Who wanted 75 interviews? I get that you liked the fake national search and hand the job to Cox process. God forbid we actually looked under a few rocks for the next great coach before crowning DC. Big John Thompson was a high school coach. The Belmont coach who just won his 800th game came from D2. I will never get why someone will push back against the idea of starting with a huge pool of candidates instead of the lazy "let's pretend to consider a few small major head coaches and then hire the guy already here to save a recruiting class" process. That worked out well.

The problem is that this isn't 40 years ago.
In today's world, programs like URI are typically offering their coaching vacancies to one of two people:
1) A low-major coach who has had some level of success
2) A higher-level assistant coach who is respected and considered a successful recruiter.
Low-majors are the ones who should be offering the tryouts on these D2/D3/HS coaches.
That's not to say I disagree with your greater point ... It felt like URI interviewing other coaches last year was just a formality.

Blue Man · Unread post by **Blue Man** » 5 years ago

rambone 78 wrote: ↑5 years ago The total assistant budget should be in the range of 550-650K to put us in line with the top A10 programs.

I know we have a first time HC also...but the next coach needs to be offered at least 1 mil a year to start.....

This is called putting your money where your mouth is. Thorr talks a good game, but the school's actions don't support it.

We are well on our way back to square one.....

While I agree with your previous post that we don't invest enough in the program, it's misguided to direct it at Thorr.

This is on 3 things: The State of RI, the RIBGHE, and our donors - specifically the big/biggest ones.

The state gives about $100 mil of a nearly $800M budget to support URI. Around 12%. It provides more money to CCRI and RIC combined - $105M, which accounts to 30% of each of their budgets. As has been discussed ad naseum on here - that doesn't affect much of the coach salaries/perks/non-physical program investments (charter flights, etc), it does affect infrastructure and what athletics can/can't do as a whole.

URI has the lowest investment percentage from it's state in the region, while trying to compete at the 2nd highest level for public schools around here.

On top of that, URI can't even control their own budget, the RIBGHE does.

All of that said, you can lay all of this at the feet of our donors, specifically the big ones.

You think that athletics had $2M a year laying around to throw at Danny and invest in the program?

Had our donors ponied up that cash a year earlier, had they offered up the investments of charter flights and a practice facility a year earlier, we're not having this discussion and we're on pace to have a year where most of us expected to be. We're continuing to be a brand name in the basketball world with a calling card defense and an outside chance to go to our third tournament.

Instead we're on a fast track to being an embarrassment again.

It takes boosters to be a successful program. That's the one thing every consistently successful college program always has. Not to say that our boosters don't care as much as the ones at other programs - but we just don't have enough of them/it seems like they invest after we show success, instead of before to ensure it happens. It makes it difficult to be good.

The only billionaire in the state went to Brown.

Unless one of the posters wins hundreds of millions of dollars in powerball, URI will continue to meddle in mediocrity until that changes.

I'm just going to start targeting my sights a little lower I guess.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 5 years ago

RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑5 years ago
TruePoint wrote: ↑5 years ago I find it ironic that of the two most hard headed posters with respect to who should be coaching the program, one thinks that we should have interviewed 75 coaches, including D3 coaches, and the other guy only wants to consider people who played at URI.

We also have people clamoring for a “Harrick offense” that can’t even give a general definition as to what that is, and using their desire for the “Harrick offense” to bring back someone (who I love on a personal level, btw) that hasn’t ever been a head coach and I don’t believe is even the top assistant at a good-but-not-great non-P5 program. We have a whole segment of people that are now convinced we should never hire another first-time coach, even though plenty of first time coaches have done well in college basketball. And then on the other hand we were supposed to hire a different first time coach that wouldn’t even have offered the kind of roster and program continuity as the guy we did hire and for whom there was no evidence that anyone could point to that he is more capable or more likely to succeed?

This whole board has lost its collective mind. Yes, this team has had a disappointing season. I think there are real questions about whether the coach has whatever it is he would need to have to get this program back to where it was the last few years. There are also questions if he has the players to do it even if he were capable. That much is inarguable based on the results on the floor. At the same time, at least some of the difficulties of this team have to be attributable to what happens to a young team when a bunch of shit goes against them. Contagious shooting struggles and too many minutes on the floor spread among too few guys have pushed this team off a cliff. At the beginning of the year they were inconsistent but not straight up bad. We thought they’d get better as it went along and they could be a tough out in Brooklyn. Instead it went the other way.

Guys look gassed, they look frustrated, and they (and the fans) look like they just want it to be over. That, as much as anything, is what I’m worried about with the coach. And that’s why I’m kind of surprised that this place finally lost its mind after the Davidson game. Sure, it sucks to lose, but everyone knew they were going to lose the game, right? URI lost its last two games to top A10 teams by a combined 63 points. At least they fought on Friday. At least the effort appeared to be there, from my view in 204. It won’t be good enough just to fight next year. It won’t be good enough just to play hard on Tuesday (that’s as much of a “must win” as a 12-14 team can have). But I wouldn’t have been shocked if we lost by 30 on Friday. Losing always sucks but people need to get ahold of themselves.
Do I think we should have interviewed a D2 coach? Yes, I think Patrick Beilein is going to be a star and even at 35 has more college head coaching experience than David Cox. I do wonder if we should stop hiring people with no head coaching experience. If David Cox is and was as qualified as everyone said then we should be getting better results. So perhaps we don't have the proper resources going to basketball to support a first time head coach. These are reasonable opinions, not "losing one's mind"

I think you’re at risk of overlearning a lesson here. Any time you make a hire, there is some non-zero risk of failure. I think you have to take every hiring decision on a case-by-case and evaluate the individuals applying for the job only against one another and not a platonic ideal of a perfect resume.

If Cox ends up not getting it done here, then I think you have to take an objective look at why - whether the issue was something specific to him (and whether it could have been ascertained before he was hired), or whether the issue was with the process that led to the hire. A lot of people here seem to want to jump straight to blaming the process, seemingly as a shortcut to forever solving the hiring problem. Unfortunately I don’t think you can solve the hiring problem - there is always going to be an element of the unknown about how an individual will respond to and perform in your job. So overlearning and adjusting your process accordingly is probably only likely to cut you off from a whole segment of candidates that could produce a really good coach.

RhowdyRam02 · Unread post by **RhowdyRam02** » 5 years ago

I think we're in pretty strong agreement here. I'm not saying we shouldn't hire assistants ever again, but if Cox doesn't work out I think we have to examine if our particular situation lends itself to first time coaches being effective. We seem to be middle of the pack for resources in the conference and our fanbase seems to have champagne taste on a beer budget. What kind of coaches can do more with less and what kind of coaches are less successful in that environment

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 5 years ago

That’s a very fair way of putting it.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 5 years ago

RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑5 years ago I think we're in pretty strong agreement here. I'm not saying we shouldn't hire assistants ever again, but if Cox doesn't work out I think we have to examine if our particular situation lends itself to first time coaches being effective. We seem to be middle of the pack for resources in the conference and our fanbase seems to have champagne taste on a beer budget. What kind of coaches can do more with less and what kind of coaches are less successful in that environment

I think the issue is not assistants in general it is that we just happened to think our own assistant was the best one? What is the likelihood of that? Now, there are examples of in house hires working out well at college programs. Xavier has done it a few times, for example. But, I don't think URI has the built in institutional strength for that. Meaning, having a product that has been consistent for so long that the benefits of hiring inside outweigh the risks. This is still a coach driven place, which is pretty typical in this business.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 5 years ago

We've had most of our success in the past with experienced coaches who have taken over....and often with the previous coach's players.

Of course once they have that success they don't stay...but that's the way it is here.

daytonflyerfan · Unread post by **daytonflyerfan** » 5 years ago

Gonebarongone wrote: ↑5 years ago I think the issue is not assistants in general it is that we just happened to think our own assistant was the best one? What is the likelihood of that? Now, there are examples of in house hires working out well at college programs. Xavier has done it a few times, for example. But, I don't think URI has the built in institutional strength for that. Meaning, having a product that has been consistent for so long that the benefits of hiring inside outweigh the risks. This is still a coach driven place, which is pretty typical in this business.

Butler and VCU too, not just Xavier.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 5 years ago

A big reason why Cox was hired wasn't just the recruits...it was Dan who highly recommended him.

But you just don't know until he actually takes the reins.

We're finding out that maybe it wasn't the right decision for us at this time.

Rhode_Island_Red · Unread post by **Rhode_Island_Red** » 5 years ago

Wasn't Cox supposed to get a significant buyout if he wasn't promoted?

RhowdyRam02 · Unread post by **RhowdyRam02** » 5 years ago

hrstrat57 · Unread post by **hrstrat57** » 5 years ago

http://turnto10.com/sports/content/sour ... t-24-hours

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 5 years ago

Blue Man wrote: ↑5 years ago
rambone 78 wrote: ↑5 years ago The total assistant budget should be in the range of 550-650K to put us in line with the top A10 programs.

I know we have a first time HC also...but the next coach needs to be offered at least 1 mil a year to start.....

This is called putting your money where your mouth is. Thorr talks a good game, but the school's actions don't support it.

We are well on our way back to square one.....
While I agree with your previous post that we don't invest enough in the program, it's misguided to direct it at Thorr.

This is on 3 things: The State of RI, the RIBGHE, and our donors - specifically the big/biggest ones.

The state gives about $100 mil of a nearly $800M budget to support URI. Around 12%. It provides more money to CCRI and RIC combined - $105M, which accounts to 30% of each of their budgets. As has been discussed ad naseum on here - that doesn't affect much of the coach salaries/perks/non-physical program investments (charter flights, etc), it does affect infrastructure and what athletics can/can't do as a whole.

URI has the lowest investment percentage from it's state in the region, while trying to compete at the 2nd highest level for public schools around here.

On top of that, URI can't even control their own budget, the RIBGHE does.

All of that said, you can lay all of this at the feet of our donors, specifically the big ones.

You think that athletics had $2M a year laying around to throw at Danny and invest in the program?

Had our donors ponied up that cash a year earlier, had they offered up the investments of charter flights and a practice facility a year earlier, we're not having this discussion and we're on pace to have a year where most of us expected to be. We're continuing to be a brand name in the basketball world with a calling card defense and an outside chance to go to our third tournament.

Instead we're on a fast track to being an embarrassment again.

It takes boosters to be a successful program. That's the one thing every consistently successful college program always has. Not to say that our boosters don't care as much as the ones at other programs - but we just don't have enough of them/it seems like they invest after we show success, instead of before to ensure it happens. It makes it difficult to be good.

The only billionaire in the state went to Brown.

Unless one of the posters wins hundreds of millions of dollars in powerball, URI will continue to meddle in mediocrity until that changes.

I'm just going to start targeting my sights a little lower I guess.

Some of this I agree with, some I don't. Yes there are not enough "big donors" for Rhody, as its the smallest state that also has largely chased away many of its most ambitious residents it makes sense in terms of a numbers game. But to pin the entire athletics program on a group of 10-20 people to basically fund is just not fair. Those same people basically keep things afloat, for multiple sports, but you cannot keep going back to that well endlessly. It's not Tom Ryan's responsibility to fund the URI athletics dept, nor the other dozen or two dozen people that give significant dollars.

Also, the school had a chance to renegotiate with Dan last season during the tail end of the year and did not do it and instead opted to wait it out until the season ended. Is that on the donors too? That decision was made by URI administration, not saying it would have helped but it may have made it much more difficult for him to entertain UConn/Pitt offer.

Donations tend to rise and fall with success, that is true at URI and at most other schools. There were numerous opportunities to increase the profile of the school, and raise money from the thousands of alumni in the state during the last 2 seasons and the school opted against doing some of those things. We had the chance to double down during 16-17/17-18 when we were pretty much assured of having a really good team, and yet we didn't do anything differently but try to sell game tickets. We didn't try to brand the program, raise the profile of Dan and the players or generate pride in the alumni base that maybe wasn't going to games (yet). Net net, the school missed an opportunity to capitalize om the success, and that doesn't all fall on the donors laps.

I agree with you in that the state does squat, and the answering to the RIBGE is a joke when the school is basically privately funded.

Blue Man · Unread post by **Blue Man** » 5 years ago

bigappleram wrote: ↑5 years ago
Blue Man wrote: ↑5 years ago
rambone 78 wrote: ↑5 years ago The total assistant budget should be in the range of 550-650K to put us in line with the top A10 programs.

I know we have a first time HC also...but the next coach needs to be offered at least 1 mil a year to start.....

This is called putting your money where your mouth is. Thorr talks a good game, but the school's actions don't support it.

We are well on our way back to square one.....
While I agree with your previous post that we don't invest enough in the program, it's misguided to direct it at Thorr.

This is on 3 things: The State of RI, the RIBGHE, and our donors - specifically the big/biggest ones.

The state gives about $100 mil of a nearly $800M budget to support URI. Around 12%. It provides more money to CCRI and RIC combined - $105M, which accounts to 30% of each of their budgets. As has been discussed ad naseum on here - that doesn't affect much of the coach salaries/perks/non-physical program investments (charter flights, etc), it does affect infrastructure and what athletics can/can't do as a whole.

URI has the lowest investment percentage from it's state in the region, while trying to compete at the 2nd highest level for public schools around here.

On top of that, URI can't even control their own budget, the RIBGHE does.

All of that said, you can lay all of this at the feet of our donors, specifically the big ones.

You think that athletics had $2M a year laying around to throw at Danny and invest in the program?

Had our donors ponied up that cash a year earlier, had they offered up the investments of charter flights and a practice facility a year earlier, we're not having this discussion and we're on pace to have a year where most of us expected to be. We're continuing to be a brand name in the basketball world with a calling card defense and an outside chance to go to our third tournament.

Instead we're on a fast track to being an embarrassment again.

It takes boosters to be a successful program. That's the one thing every consistently successful college program always has. Not to say that our boosters don't care as much as the ones at other programs - but we just don't have enough of them/it seems like they invest after we show success, instead of before to ensure it happens. It makes it difficult to be good.

The only billionaire in the state went to Brown.

Unless one of the posters wins hundreds of millions of dollars in powerball, URI will continue to meddle in mediocrity until that changes.

I'm just going to start targeting my sights a little lower I guess.
Some of this I agree with, some I don't. Yes there are not enough "big donors" for Rhody, as its the smallest state that also has largely chased away many of its most ambitious residents it makes sense in terms of a numbers game. But to pin the entire athletics program on a group of 10-20 people to basically fund is just not fair. Those same people basically keep things afloat, for multiple sports, but you cannot keep going back to that well endlessly. It's not Tom Ryan's responsibility to fund the URI athletics dept, not the other dozen or two dozen people that give significant dollars.

Also, the school had a chance to renegotiate with Dan last season during the tail end of the year and did not do it and instead opted to wait it out until the season ended. Is that on the donors too? That decision was made by URI administration, not saying it would have helped but it may have made it much more difficult for him to entertain UConn/Pitt offer.

Donations tend to rise and fall with success, that is true at URI and at most other schools. There were numerous opportunities to increase the profile of the school, and raise money from the thousands of alumni in the state during the last 2 seasons and the school opted against doing some of those things. We had the chance to double down during 16-17/17-18 when we were pretty much assured of having a really good team, and yet we didn't do anything differently but try to sell game tickets. We didn't try to brand the program, raise the profile of Dan and the players or generate pride in the alumni base that maybe wasn't going to games (yet). Net net, the school missed an opportunity to capitalize om the success, and that doesn't all fall on the donors laps.

I agree with you in that the state does squat, and the answering to the RIBGE is a joke when the school is basically privately funded.

Completely fair points and criticisms BAR.

I think I've said it 14892309 times and I will continue to say it - that if we had offered the last-ditch contract to Dan we'd still have him.

Agreed somewhat on the opportunities missed - but then again, you're seeing us at least fill the seats this year when it almost doesn't seem warranted - so there was at least some of that "program building" that happened.

The part that we'll never know is a bit of a chicken or the egg; did we not negotiate earlier with Dan because the donors weren't willing to pony up the cash earlier? Or did we not negotiate earlier by just a sheer mistake?

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 5 years ago

Every time we have had short periods of success in the past, the opportunity was there for URI to take advantage of it, and every time they didn't.

Blue Man, not sure if just the cash would have kept him. The rumors were there months earlier that Dan was headed to UConn, but it was largely ignored.

I think Dan saw the writing on the wall, that URI just wasn't going to be able to fund the program at a level that would have made it possible to compete with the big dogs on a regular basis. In other words Gonzaga of the East wasn't going to happen.

URI's last ditch offer surprised him....but it was a case of too little, too late.

And now, Gonzaga of the East is nothing but a pipe dream, again.

Blue Man · Unread post by **Blue Man** » 5 years ago

rambone 78 wrote: ↑5 years ago Every time we have had short periods of success in the past, the opportunity was there for URI to take advantage of it, and every time they didn't.

Blue Man, not sure if just the cash would have kept him. The rumors were there months earlier that Dan was headed to UConn, but it was largely ignored.

I think Dan saw the writing on the wall, that URI just wasn't going to be able to fund the program at a level that would have made it possible to compete with the big dogs on a regular basis. In other words Gonzaga of the East wasn't going to happen.

URI's last ditch offer surprised him....but it was a case of too little, too late.

And now, Gonzaga of the East is nothing but a pipe dream, again.

Agree it wasn't the cash that would've kept him - I think that's why we lost him.

We could've offered Dan the same what UConn did in terms of financials, but if it doesn't come with charters for games, charters for recruiting, and a practice facility it's a non-starter.

Our final offer included a "promise' for a practice facility - which as we know isn't worth a ton around here.

I know football players who were recruited 10 years ago who were "promised" the reality of playing in a horseshoe stadium by their senior year.

Everyone's opinions are well known here by now, but I'll take it to my grave that it was about more than money for Dan.

If in 2017 we didn't give him a raise but we added $100k to his assistants pool, committed to away game charters, and physically broke ground on a practice facility - even if it was just a tootell renovation - Tom More is never hired here, UConn never fires Ollie, and we're a top tier A10 team.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 5 years ago

I think what everybody here needs to realize, is that URI will not, and will never be able to FUND THE PROGRAM well enough to compete with the top of the A10 on a regular basis, much less being the best program.

The BB budget is at least 2 million a year less than VCU's.....and less than several others in the conference. I've said it before, you get what you pay for....every once in a while URI hires a coach that can make up the difference on the court for a while...and then he leaves and we drop to the middle of the pack again [or worse]…...where our funding says we should be.....

Thorr is whistling in the wind if he's saying we want to be the best A10 program....well forget it unless we pay for it.....and we're not....practice facility anyone? Hello? And whatever else is needed. We don't have a big donor base, and a lot of the extra revenue from the last 2 NCAA invites needs to go to other cash strapped athletic programs here.

URI is a small cash strapped public school....and can't compete with the bigger public schools nor the privates.....

Sorry for the rant, but like ECR said, I call it like I see it. And this isn't anything new.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 5 years ago

Guys like Penders, Hurley, and Harrick outperformed the budget.....when they left so did the cheers.....

section(105) · Unread post by **section(105)** » 5 years ago

section(105) wrote: ↑5 years ago .......where is the increased money to get off the porch and run like the bigger boys?......the GA/Gina, increased ticket prices, seat licenses, parking fees, sell outs of the RC, donors, NCAA appearance money, other?......I don’t think any of these are practical in our situation, and that creates the cycle of under paid coaches, hoping for an occasional lightning in a bottle of high level recruit coming here to get the ball rollong, then the cycle repeats......selling out the RC year after year is a start, but how likely is that?.....we have previously kicked this around before, but is anything new out there now?

.......speaking of bigger dogs......

hrstrat57 · Unread post by **hrstrat57** » 5 years ago

rambone 78 wrote: ↑5 years ago I think what everybody here needs to realize, is that URI will not, and will never be able to FUND THE PROGRAM well enough to compete with the top of the A10 on a regular basis, much less being the best program.

The BB budget is at least 2 million a year less than VCU's.....and less than several others in the conference. I've said it before, you get what you pay for....every once in a while URI hires a coach that can make up the difference on the court for a while...and then he leaves and we drop to the middle of the pack again [or worse]…...where our funding says we should be.....

Thorr is whistling in the wind if he's saying we want to be the best A10 program....well forget it unless we pay for it.....and we're not....practice facility anyone? Hello? And whatever else is needed. We don't have a big donor base, and a lot of the extra revenue from the last 2 NCAA invites needs to go to other cash strapped athletic programs here.

URI is a small cash strapped public school....and can't compete with the bigger public schools nor the privates.....

Sorry for the rant, but like ECR said, I call it like I see it. And this isn't anything new.

Maybe 2 teams named Rams don't belong in the A10 if they refuse to pony up?
Weren't we recently discussing other A10 schools in multiple threads in the forums to toss out of our league?

Mirror, mirror?

RhowdyRam02 · Unread post by **RhowdyRam02** » 5 years ago

Stop it, that's still dumb. There's a difference between Fordham who is always bad, and URI who funds around 5th-6th in the league.

hrstrat57 · Unread post by **hrstrat57** » 5 years ago

RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑5 years ago Stop it, that's still dumb. There's a difference between Fordham who is always bad, and URI who funds around 5th-6th in the league.

Sigh

Just tired of climbing up the dang hill and never reaching the top RR2

Time for my school to win!

Go Rhody!

RF1 · Unread post by **RF1** » 5 years ago

Rhode_Island_Red wrote: ↑5 years ago Wasn't Cox supposed to get a significant buyout if he wasn't promoted?

Zagoria mentioned last year that the Cox buyout was 150K if he did not become head coach.

As for those lamenting that Oats was not hired - he wasn't interested and he also had a significant buyout (approx $1M) from Buffalo that URI was not likely to pay.

Cameron_Dollar · Unread post by **Cameron_Dollar** » 5 years ago

Blueman,
Believe what you want but the deal was done days before Ollie was fired. Tom Moore was placed here for him and Hurley to have a trial run. Also the Hurley family and close advisors perceived the UCONN job as a major upgrade. Based on the conference comparisons top to bottom it would be hard to disagree. Calhoun had his filthy hands all over this and to his and UCONN's credit they identified their target and locked him down. We were never in the hunt; and it is unfair to lay this on Thorr. He would have elevated his offer, but was never going to be in the ballpark with UCONN or Pittsburgh. It's not a criticism of our program but a harsh reality. This is nothing new. It happened with Penders, Harrick and to a lesser degree Skinner. You have a right to your opinion and your passion is obviously genuine. But I think you fail to see the forest beyond the trees. Cox is here for at least all of next year. Let's upgrade assistants and be ready to deal with some player defections. Right now it appears to be 2 or possibly 3, with one being devastating.
Next season will be another challenge.

Login • Register