I have seen several comments after disappointing seasons this year in several sports that Chad needs to hold coaches accountable. I was wanting to start a conversation as to what that looks like.
All of these Coaches are under contract, so they know if they are going to get fired they have a buyout to be paid to them. Look at Doc Rivers response after the 76ers lost to Boston. They really have no fear of a buyout, it is part of the business. All HC's know eventually they do get fired. Threats don't mean much to them, most always land on their feet in the same or some other Coaching role if they want to continue to Coach. MB gets fired he will get hired by somebody, may or may not be as a HC. Les Miles was recycled at Kansas before his LSU past nuked that for him.
I think in terms of what a conversation looks like is this:
1. Chad needs to be able to define to that HC what success looks like, I think a 5 year period seems fair. If Chad is unable to communicate what that looks like and if the HC and AD are not on the same page you have a problem. Current year and progress toward past and future 5 year goals needs to be reviewed. Chad needs to go in to the meeting with his thoughts of what can be improved and what went wrong for the current season. The Coach needs to give their thoughts on both of those items as well. The real conversation comes down to the difference of opinions on the answers to those questions and how is it resolved or not? Do both parties learn from that conversation problems neither considered?
2. Hopefully the HC for those points he agrees with Chad on he takes corrective action, and the same with Chad. If it involves removal of an assistant, Chad has to have the funding in place to even bring it up, or maybe the HC can help fundraise the funds needed to make a change. As an example, if Walton's contract is up this year, or if Chad has the funding for a buyout and he tells Josh we need a new pitching coach and Josh refuses? At that point you tell Josh his contract will not be renewed, and Josh should be smart enough to know Chad will be fundraising to buy him out before his contract expires if he can. Josh may decide to start looking, and again OSU should be ok with that.
If shortcomings exist in terms of facilities, recruiting budget, NIL, etc... Again, this is on Chad and the University to correct, they may see eye to eye on this and if Chad and the University has not performed in meeting what needs to happen to make the program successful, then the next question becomes how much has this held back performance and results? How much is the HC responsible for any shortcomings, what can be attributed to the HC? Let's assume (and hopefully not), the Softball team does not make it our of their regional this year, I have to believe Chad on that one has a lot of listening to do, trying to understand if the HC can explain such a collapse and what is the plan to fix it, and as AD how can I help? Personally, I think the conversation with John Smith is how do we transition you to retirement very quickly, you can't address MB without addressing John first, institutional fairness demands that. From where I sit? This is Chad's biggest test right now, if he does not have the management ability to address John Smith he has no business to be in his current role, in this role you have to be ok with moving people on.
3. For the area of performance shortcomings Chad believes can be assigned to the HC, and let's hope the HC agrees, the next step is an agreeable action plan, Chad needs to uphold whatever he needs to do to allow that to happen, if anything. If they do not see eye to eye? Coach does not agree? Now you have a question of alignment of purpose and results, and that may result in the HC to start looking for another job (Chad needs to be ok with that), or Chad needs to start fundraising to buyout the HC.
4. Bottom line, the AD and the University, if they can't get a HC to do what they believe is needed to improve performance, you are left with buying them out if you can afford it, or like they did with Littell, let them ride out their current contract and not renew it. Personally, I am not a fan of riding out a contract while the program tanks if you can afford to avoid that.
5. Recent high level success obviously has to be considered, and that is why a 5 year evaluation period is important as well.
One real problem with NIL and the portal, like it or not, it now makes the performance evaluation more difficult for the AD and the school, because Coaches are going to walk in for that evaluation armed with how well the school is supporting them in their role as HC compared to either peer schools, or if your benchmark performance is blueblood status (like it is for Wrestling, Golf, Baseball, Softball, and Cross Country) those Coaches will expect to be funded at that same level as those schools you are competing against for Natty's every year.
My bottom line for firing any HC, if you set a minimum bar of achieving a conference title, that HC needs to be moved on once you determine that HC can no longer project to achieving that goal in the future. Basketball I would include the Big 12 tourney, baseball I am 50/50 on that. Baseball the goal seems to be hosting super regionals, all other goals flow from that. What are the expectations over a 5 year period for baseball and super regionals? For sports like Wrestling and Golf it seems NC's is all that matters.
So, when you say X coach needs to be held accountable, what are you really saying? What is the specific criteria, and what is the illness causing the symptoms to address? And does what you want for the AD to do, is the funding in place if needed? Ultimately, a scolding by the AD does nothing, you need a really good agreed upon action plan that all parties (University, Foundation, PWAP, AD, and HC) can carry out with great focus, trust, and alignment.
All of these Coaches are under contract, so they know if they are going to get fired they have a buyout to be paid to them. Look at Doc Rivers response after the 76ers lost to Boston. They really have no fear of a buyout, it is part of the business. All HC's know eventually they do get fired. Threats don't mean much to them, most always land on their feet in the same or some other Coaching role if they want to continue to Coach. MB gets fired he will get hired by somebody, may or may not be as a HC. Les Miles was recycled at Kansas before his LSU past nuked that for him.
I think in terms of what a conversation looks like is this:
1. Chad needs to be able to define to that HC what success looks like, I think a 5 year period seems fair. If Chad is unable to communicate what that looks like and if the HC and AD are not on the same page you have a problem. Current year and progress toward past and future 5 year goals needs to be reviewed. Chad needs to go in to the meeting with his thoughts of what can be improved and what went wrong for the current season. The Coach needs to give their thoughts on both of those items as well. The real conversation comes down to the difference of opinions on the answers to those questions and how is it resolved or not? Do both parties learn from that conversation problems neither considered?
2. Hopefully the HC for those points he agrees with Chad on he takes corrective action, and the same with Chad. If it involves removal of an assistant, Chad has to have the funding in place to even bring it up, or maybe the HC can help fundraise the funds needed to make a change. As an example, if Walton's contract is up this year, or if Chad has the funding for a buyout and he tells Josh we need a new pitching coach and Josh refuses? At that point you tell Josh his contract will not be renewed, and Josh should be smart enough to know Chad will be fundraising to buy him out before his contract expires if he can. Josh may decide to start looking, and again OSU should be ok with that.
If shortcomings exist in terms of facilities, recruiting budget, NIL, etc... Again, this is on Chad and the University to correct, they may see eye to eye on this and if Chad and the University has not performed in meeting what needs to happen to make the program successful, then the next question becomes how much has this held back performance and results? How much is the HC responsible for any shortcomings, what can be attributed to the HC? Let's assume (and hopefully not), the Softball team does not make it our of their regional this year, I have to believe Chad on that one has a lot of listening to do, trying to understand if the HC can explain such a collapse and what is the plan to fix it, and as AD how can I help? Personally, I think the conversation with John Smith is how do we transition you to retirement very quickly, you can't address MB without addressing John first, institutional fairness demands that. From where I sit? This is Chad's biggest test right now, if he does not have the management ability to address John Smith he has no business to be in his current role, in this role you have to be ok with moving people on.
3. For the area of performance shortcomings Chad believes can be assigned to the HC, and let's hope the HC agrees, the next step is an agreeable action plan, Chad needs to uphold whatever he needs to do to allow that to happen, if anything. If they do not see eye to eye? Coach does not agree? Now you have a question of alignment of purpose and results, and that may result in the HC to start looking for another job (Chad needs to be ok with that), or Chad needs to start fundraising to buyout the HC.
4. Bottom line, the AD and the University, if they can't get a HC to do what they believe is needed to improve performance, you are left with buying them out if you can afford it, or like they did with Littell, let them ride out their current contract and not renew it. Personally, I am not a fan of riding out a contract while the program tanks if you can afford to avoid that.
5. Recent high level success obviously has to be considered, and that is why a 5 year evaluation period is important as well.
One real problem with NIL and the portal, like it or not, it now makes the performance evaluation more difficult for the AD and the school, because Coaches are going to walk in for that evaluation armed with how well the school is supporting them in their role as HC compared to either peer schools, or if your benchmark performance is blueblood status (like it is for Wrestling, Golf, Baseball, Softball, and Cross Country) those Coaches will expect to be funded at that same level as those schools you are competing against for Natty's every year.
My bottom line for firing any HC, if you set a minimum bar of achieving a conference title, that HC needs to be moved on once you determine that HC can no longer project to achieving that goal in the future. Basketball I would include the Big 12 tourney, baseball I am 50/50 on that. Baseball the goal seems to be hosting super regionals, all other goals flow from that. What are the expectations over a 5 year period for baseball and super regionals? For sports like Wrestling and Golf it seems NC's is all that matters.
So, when you say X coach needs to be held accountable, what are you really saying? What is the specific criteria, and what is the illness causing the symptoms to address? And does what you want for the AD to do, is the funding in place if needed? Ultimately, a scolding by the AD does nothing, you need a really good agreed upon action plan that all parties (University, Foundation, PWAP, AD, and HC) can carry out with great focus, trust, and alignment.
Last edited:
