I still don't see what your point is. Anyone who was paying attention knew when Konkol was hired that this was a high risk hire, he'd never made the tournament and never was the best coach in his lower conference. I'm not going to be an apologist for the prior AD whose hiring was dismal but I assume he thought there was a lot of upside if Konkol worked out, with his great personality and team oriented approach. Saying that you knew that it was a risky hire shows nothing and neither does saying that you know in hindsight that it didn't work out. You know what everyone knows/knew. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
Rice Thread
- Thread starter I.I.
- Start date
He criticizes our hires before the ink is dry, heck the name is only half spoken and he's already criticizing. Already saying I don't like his first name, why should I wait to hear his last.
Not of fan of Aston gloating but understand how he feels. He was criticized for his negative comments at time of the hiring and his opinions were mocked.
I just wish all would remember this is an opinion board and try to gain insight from everyone’s thoughts and opinions rather than ignoring or ridiculing.
I just wish all would remember this is an opinion board and try to gain insight from everyone’s thoughts and opinions rather than ignoring or ridiculing.
That is true. This is an opinion board and we all have one even if it isn’t a popular one. That said, some people just come on here to be D-bags. Sometimes we just don’t know if you are actually sharing a well analyzed thought or just being a D-Bag. The aforementioned party blurs those lines at times.
Let's do a little math. 1/2 of coaches in the conference are average or below (more than half but let's stay simple). If you say a "good" coach finishes in the top 1/3 of the conference, then 2/3 of the coaches are not good. Statistically, if we sample randomly from the pool of potential AAC coaches, we'll hire a "not good" coach 2/3 of the time, so by guessing "not good" for every hire, you're giving yourself a 67% chance of being right. You're basically looking at games where one team is favored by 10+ points and taking the favored team with no points. Hardly proof of a great prognosticator.
Even "surefire" hires go bad (looking at you L. Riley and J. Fisher). But we're not able to hire "surefire" candidates, any hire we make is risky (i.e., more likely than the average hire to go bad). The 3 you've pointed out had substantial hair on them and were widely criticized at the time of hiring. You're chance of being right on them was more than 67%. Well done, Sherlock.
Here's the painful truth - any hire we make until we "turn it around" has a 75%+ chance of failing. Sorry, that's just statistically the truth. To get a good coach, we need to make an excellent hire from the pool we have available. Betting against us is easy, it's shooting fish in a barrel. What takes courage is not being a panty waist and supporting the coach even though you understand the odds and the hair on the hire. That's what it means to be a fan, not waving the statistical truths that we all know in our faces so you feel "smart" by being captain obvious and we all feel crappy about every decision all the time. It's called suspending disbelief, aka not being a d bag to quote loca.
Great, he likes Tre. I'd talked myself into liking the hire and now I hear this.
I approach every TU hire the same as the last one. I like them all,(whether or not it would have been my choice) and find their good points. Then I pray they don't disappoint me. It's about all you can do. No matter how hard you close your eyes and wish it, they will never turn into your choice. I'm in prayer a lot.
1000%. Anyway most of us can't tell if a coach will be good or not. I don't now about you guys, but I don't get invited to the interviews and don't see their application information so how can we know? For me I pretty much just don't want an A hole and then have to hope that the admin knows what they're doing bc my opinion isn't very valuable.