- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 1,240
- Reaction Score
- 5,965
Let me preface this by saying I don't like Randy Edsall, both as a human being (I think he's a narcissistic fraud, and anything that comes out of his mouth regarding apologies on Friday are solely due to the situation he currently finds himself in to make it work) and his style of play in his career to date (conservative to the point where the games are boring on both sides of the ball). I didn't like the hire initially but came to a realization after the contract terms were made public.
There is one thing that Randy Edsall has clearly proven he can do - win at UConn, generally with less highly regarded players than his opponents. Randy is a known quantity, and you could argue that the roster as a whole is on par or even more highly regarded than what he has worked with at UConn in the past. Out of our available options, he was the only one that you could say with confidence can get us back to at least 6-6/7-5 and respectability in short order.
When you combine this with the terms of his contract, it was something that Benedict and Herbst had to do. Financially, paying another up and comer Diaco money who failed would potentially permanently cripple the program, and with the program further in a perception hole this would also completely wipe out any chance of a conference upgrade. With Edsall at $1M per, they essentially washed out the Diaco buy-out loss, and with the $0 buy-out for Randy in year 3, you essentially give the AD an opportunity to evaluate the program with a financial blank slate at year 3: If Randy does really well, you lock him up for the duration of his career: If he does so-so, you have conversations with potential high upside replacements and if you can get one to bite based on the damage control Edsall has done, you make that hire and go for the gold. If he does terrible, there is no financial buy-out implications and you swing for the fences with an unproven up and comer.
So overall: I still don't love the hire, but it was the correct call by the administration and the best, most responsible option to extend the well being of the program long term. Thought this line of thinking may convert some fans who are still angry with the hire.
There is one thing that Randy Edsall has clearly proven he can do - win at UConn, generally with less highly regarded players than his opponents. Randy is a known quantity, and you could argue that the roster as a whole is on par or even more highly regarded than what he has worked with at UConn in the past. Out of our available options, he was the only one that you could say with confidence can get us back to at least 6-6/7-5 and respectability in short order.
When you combine this with the terms of his contract, it was something that Benedict and Herbst had to do. Financially, paying another up and comer Diaco money who failed would potentially permanently cripple the program, and with the program further in a perception hole this would also completely wipe out any chance of a conference upgrade. With Edsall at $1M per, they essentially washed out the Diaco buy-out loss, and with the $0 buy-out for Randy in year 3, you essentially give the AD an opportunity to evaluate the program with a financial blank slate at year 3: If Randy does really well, you lock him up for the duration of his career: If he does so-so, you have conversations with potential high upside replacements and if you can get one to bite based on the damage control Edsall has done, you make that hire and go for the gold. If he does terrible, there is no financial buy-out implications and you swing for the fences with an unproven up and comer.
So overall: I still don't love the hire, but it was the correct call by the administration and the best, most responsible option to extend the well being of the program long term. Thought this line of thinking may convert some fans who are still angry with the hire.
Last edited: