Really? Tell that to a certain Wisconsin commit that decided to back out because Wisky fans were "too excited to win"...
Pollard question
- Thread starter jenclone
- Start date
Really? Tell that to a certain Wisconsin commit that decided to back out because Wisky fans were "too excited to win"...
Seriously, you're 26. All you've really known is the "good times" with the last few years of WTF thrown in. Every single college athletic program will have hard times, some of them worse than others.
One of the biggest fans I know is my dad, who is 68, and has seen ISU through decades of ups and downs. When he quits being a fan is when I will start worrying.
Yeah, but you are still judging the Chizik hire based on what a bunch of fans (the vast majority of whom did not know anything about Chizik when he was hired) thought about the hire. I am judging the hire based on the results of his coaching tenure (5-19, losses to UNI, the Toledo game, exiting with a 10 game losing streak, etc.).
Personally, I think the best way to judge the quality of a hire is based on the results produced by the hire. You think the best way to judge the quality of a hire is based on the immediate reaction of the fan-base to the hire. We'll have to disagree on the best way to judge a hire, but I am pretty certain that judging a hire based on its results rather than the immediate reaction of the fan-base is a little more accurate and thoughtful way to judge it.
So long as you never have an opinion originally as to whether as hire was a good hire or bad hire at the actual time of hiring, agree to disagree. Using this logic however makes EVERY athletic director at Iowa State bad at hiring. We've sucked forever and had a couple years that were exceptions, not the rule.
No, real fans support there school, or team no matter how well or bad they are doing. Fans that only support winning are called "Jumping on the bandwagon". Don't lump the loyal majority with your idiotic reasoning.
This is called the "Hindsight is 20/20" method of judging a hire, as opposed to the fans in the post from more than two years ago that were basing their judgments of Chizik based on his performances as the DC at both Auburn and Texas. Basically you are saying "I'm right now and everyone else is wrong because they thought that Chizik was a great hire 2.5 years ago, and I'm going to use his 5-19 record to justify my opinion from 2.5 years ago." Well, that's great that you think he's a bad coach now because of his 5-19 record - WE ALL think that. What we want is for you to justify why you thought he was a horrible coach 2.5 years ago without using his 5-19 record after the fact as your justification...
The funny thing is - if Paul Rhodes was hired 3 years ago as a relatively unknown d-coord from Pitt over the hottest prospect in the country from Auburn and UT in Gene Chizik - then went on to have a similar start, the same fans critizing JP for the Chizik failure, would most likely be on here today saying "why the heck did we take CPR when a Gene Chizik was there to be had".
Point being, the vast majority of fans wanted change, the vast majority were thrilled to beat all that the coup of Gene Chizik comesing to Ames.... but now that it didn't pan out - alot of those fans are pointing the finger solely at JP.
Predictable as the sun coming up in the morning.
Same holds true for wrestling and MBB - although I'll admit the reception for GMac wasn't quite as overwhelming.
Point being, the vast majority of fans wanted change, the vast majority were thrilled to beat all that the coup of Gene Chizik comesing to Ames.... but now that it didn't pan out - alot of those fans are pointing the finger solely at JP.
Predictable as the sun coming up in the morning.
Same holds true for wrestling and MBB - although I'll admit the reception for GMac wasn't quite as overwhelming.
Last edited:
Precisely. The lesson learned from this thread: A vast minority-yet-vocal subset of the ISU populous will not be happy until ISU is going at worst 10-2 in football and 32-5 in basketball every single year - oh, and there had better be championships thrown in there for good measure - otherwise the coaches and administration is a failure and must be replaced.
My main concern when JP was hired is that he had no background in football or basketball as a player or coach, even at the high school level. He fired the football coach and hired somebody worse. He fired the basketball coach and hired somebody that at least so far has done worse. That's the bottom line, and every a.d at a major college is judged by the success of the football and/or basketball programs. JP will be given more time (fortunately for him), and Rhoads and McDermott can still save his job. But so far his tenure can only be described as very poor considering we're coming off the worst several years of football/basketball in ISU history.
Really? That worries you? I don't think playing/coaching has a direct bearing on managing an athletic department.
I wish BVDV were here to tell us if he ever played/coached. That may change my mind.
If one has talked to JP and witnessed what goes on behind the scenes then one shouldn't be worried about the future of ISU athletics. If one hasn't, then it is understandable looking at records that there is a reason for concern.
What I know for fact is that JP is very highly respected as one of the best. Be careful what you wish for...
What I know for fact is that JP is very highly respected as one of the best. Be careful what you wish for...
This is an absolute failure of a statement. McCarney's first three years - 0.182 winning % - were worse than Chizik's two - 0.286 winning %. Orr's first three years at ISU - 0.390 winning % - were worse than McDermott's first three - 0.463 winning %.
The past several years have not been unicorns and rainbows, but let's not pretend it's been the worst stretch of ISU sports in it's history, mmmkay?
Hired somebody worse in hindsight.
Fired the basketball coach because we really didn't have a whole lot of options. Look at how ridiculously horribly our APR still is even after we haven't had issues (after McDermott arrived). Our APR is on the rise and still below the threshhold level for punishment.
How well do you know your ISU history? We have NEVER been a powerhouse in either basketball or football. Ever.
I'm not saying that at all, not even close. I don't think you have any idea at all what I was saying... your not even close, so let me start over.
I'm not arguing over who thought Chizik was a good hire 2.5 years ago. The simple fact is, based on his results as head coach at Iowa State (terribe record and leaving us after 2 years at the bottom of the conference), we now know he was not a good hire. I.E., the results have shown, Chizik was not a good hire for Iowa State.
Now, as intelligent human beings, we can look back and say, its pretty clear Chizik was not a good hire for Iowa State. It may have looked that way to many 3 years ago, but now we now know (based on results and facts) that Chizik was not a good hire.
Now stay with me here. A hire is judged on the results of the hire, not what the fan base thought at the time of the hire. I think that is a pretty simple and logical point but some are apparently having a hard time grasping it. Chizik was not a good hire for Iowa State. The fact that fans believed he was a good hire 2.5 years ago does not change that fact one iota. Chizik was not a good hire, the facts proved it.
I have a hard time understanding how fans can believe a coach was a good hire based immediate fan reaction 2.5 years ago, when they have a mountain of facts and statistical information since that time that shows he was not a good hire. Just because the fans liked the guy doesn't mean he was a good choice.
I hope this clears up what I am saying.
Please re-read my post. I said we're coming off the worst several years of football/basketball in ISU history. That may or may not be a slight exageration, but I doubt you can find another 3 year period with a worse winning percentage when you combine the 2 sports, or worse finishes in the conference for the 2 sports over a 3 year period. And I absolutely believe an A.D. at a major college needs a background in football or basketball as that largely determines the success of the athletic program. When the a.d has to hire those coaches don't you think it would help if he has some experience in those sports to make good evaluations and judgments when hiring, as well as ongoing evaluation of those coaches. And anybody want to compare the winning percentage of our football and basketball programs under Bruce compared to JP?
I think that simply boils down to your personality. Some people are impressed by words, some have to see results.
+1
Hey, we are all different I guess. Some judge the quality of hires made by an AD based on the results produced by those hires. I fit into that category, as do most people I know.
Others judge the quality of a hire based on the immediate reaction of the fan-base. Still others judge the quality of an AD's work by talking with him personally.
Probably true...Some have no idea what is involved, but find the need to *****. We all have our own way of handling a situation that NOBODY is happy with.
Makes a lot more sense. Yes, you're right - a coach is ultimately judged by what his teams do on the field (thus why 2.5 years later we all think he's a horrible coach). I'm just saying that it wasn't necessarily so unreasonable for us to think that the guy was a great hire at the time based on his his resume - a resume that was at least parallel if not better than Bob Stoops when he took over the reins at Oklahoma. The guy was a DC at Iowa, K-State, and Florida (winning 1 NC as DC there) before he completely turned Oklahoma around - and he did it without a lick of head coaching experience. History will look kindly at Stoops because of his successes as a head coach, but that's not the point - my point is it's not necessarily unreasonable to think someone is a good hire when he doesn't have any head coaching experience in his background.
