Could Manuel find himself in a recruiting battle over Ollie next spring if he decides to keep him?

[dapriest]

I've read this thread most closely, and I think that a critical point of discussion has been completely overlooked.

And that is - nevermind who the purported, hypothetical successor to Ollie will be in April, which conference he derives from, or what challenges will face him; the question is - what about the putative replacement hypothetical coach for THAT purported, hypothetical successor to Kevin Ollie? How will that putative replacement handle what the purported, hypothetical successor to Kevin Ollie did to the program?

It's not that I mind meaningless musings being mulled about on a message board, after all, because that's what it's for, really.

But there's a difference between meaningless but based in reason and on real information, and interesting and, what we have here in this thread, which is meaningless and torturously spawned from the far fetched fiction of feckless fans.

Jesus. Show some respect and support. Let the man coach a game or two before discussing his replacement.

 

[upstater]

Wow, talk about a load of crap. Bury your head and cover your ass much?

If you don't think that potential recruits perceive the vacancy in the head coach position negatively, I don't know what to tell you. As but one example, what do you make of the passing mention by Amore in yesterday's article:

"As he rides to players now, Hobbs has the task of selling players on Ollie and the school, even though Jim Calhoun's successor is signed only through next April."

Do you think that the italicized part is viewed as a positive by anyone other than you? That's why he used "even though" as the lead in, right?

Gimme a freakin' break.

It's crazy. I think these guys are out to lunch. Recruiting is a tough game. Apparently, Ollie's contract is a well kept secret. Opposing coaches are too polite to bring something like that up. Now you know the caliber of the posters you're dealing with. Laughable.

 

[8893]

I'm not engaging in discussing potential replacements for KO. I agree that that is premature at best; misguided and potentially destructive at worst.

But for anyone on this board to suggest that discussion of how the instability in the head coaching position is perceived and how it may be affecting recruiting is somehow improper seems pretty hypocritical to me. This is the same board on which countless posters have for years urged Jim Calhoun--a man who was still under contract for future years--to reaffirm repeatedly his intention to remain here, lest the perceived instability negatively affect recruits. Now he has retired and we have a new head coach who does not have a contract beyond this season. Can someone please explain to me how the uncertainty about JC staying on as head coach was bad for recruiting, but the uncertainty whether KO will be allowed to remain head coach beyond this season is not? Especially when the recruits we have heard about so far have cited KO as one of the primary reasons--if not the primary reason--why they are (or have been) considering us?

 

[Huskymaniac]

I can't believe you think these posts are a problem, as though opposing recruiters won't point the obvious out to recruits. Really?

I'm aware of what the opposing coaches are saying to recruits. But can this endless negative crap bbeing psoted here help? It can only hurt, right? Maybe you think it won't but it is clear that the only affect it can possibly have is a negative one. We know players read this board. We know members of the media read this board. Do you really think it is impossible that recruits ever read it? If a current player reads this stuff or a current recruit does, do you think it will make them feel better about the program or worse, assuming it has any impact at all? If it had no impact, great. But if it has ANY impact at all, it won't be a positive one. And since bitching about the fact that people don't agree with the decisions won't actually change the decisions, where is the benefit to doing it? No upside, MAYBE some downside. Seems clear. People need to shut up and wait until they have something to either push for or complain about which could actually benefit the program.

 

[upstater]

I'm aware of what the opposing coaches are saying to recruits. But can this endless negative crap bbeing psoted here help? It can only hurt, right? Maybe you think it won't but it is clear that the only affect it can possibly have is a negative one. We know players read this board. We know members of the media read this board. Do you really think it is impossible that recruits ever read it? If a current player reads this stuff or a current recruit does, do you think it will make them feel better about the program or worse, assuming it has any impact at all? If it had no impact, great. But if it has ANY impact at all, it won't be a positive one. And since bitching about the fact that people don't agree with the decisions won't actually change the decisions, where is the benefit to doing it? No upside, MAYBE some downside. Seems clear. People need to shut up and wait until they have something to either push for or complain about which could actually benefit the program.

Good points. But, Manuel/Herbst need to be reminded they are with the program.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Wow, talk about a load of crap. Bury your head and cover your ass much?

If you don't think that potential recruits perceive the vacancy in the head coach position negatively, I don't know what to tell you. As but one example, what do you make of the passing mention by Amore in yesterday's article:

"As he rides to players now, Hobbs has the task of selling players on Ollie and the school, even though Jim Calhoun's successor is signed only through next April."

Do you think that the italicized part is viewed as a positive by anyone other than you? That's why he used "even though" as the lead in, right?

Gimme a freakin' break.

Suddenly Amore is all knowing? He's been savaged here endlessly. There is no vacancy. Kevin Ollie is the coach. Period. It is no different than rumors of JCs imminent retirement or health problems.

I'm sure the recruits know this simple fact. They won't replace him with somebody worse. If they don't see somebody obviously better he'll be back. There is no downside.

 

[Huskymaniac]

Good points. But, Manuel/Herbst need to be reminded they are with the program.

Again, I think that is speculation. But if one thought there was a benefit to telling them this, one should call them or email them directly. It still won't change anything in the short term so one would have to weigh what they believe to be the long term benefits against the potential negatives. What is clear to me is that a public airing of something like this has no potential positives and lots of potential negatives. A one on one discussion with them has less potential negatives and maybe some potential positives. It is a better way to handle it.

If his decisions turn out to have disasterous outcomes and I think he was negligent, I will be one of the loudest to call for his head. I have spoken with the liason to the board of directors about issues I had with past ADs and I would do it again. Right now, I don't see a reason to do so. I see a lot of people disagreeing on what exactly should have been done. That tells me this was a complex situation with lots of uncertainty. Who was right will be known soon enough. We will thrive no matter what happens.

 

[upstater]

Again, I think that is speculation. But if one thought there was a benefit to telling them this, one should call them or email them directly. It still won't change anything in the short term so one would have to weigh what they believe to be the long term benefits against the potential negatives. What is clear to me is that a public airing of something like this has no potential positives and lots of potential negatives. A one on one discussion with them has less potential negatives and maybe some potential positives. It is a better way to handle it.

If his decisions turn out to have disasterous outcomes and I think he was negligent, I will be one of the loudest to call for his head. I have spoken with the liason to the board of directors about issues I had with past ADs and I would do it again. Right now, I don't see a reason to do so. I see a lot of people disagreeing on what exactly should have been done. That tells me this was a complex situation with lots of uncertainty. Who was right will be known soon enough. We will thrive no matter what happens.

I just don't see any acknowledgement at all for the most basic of points.

One of the first people who didn't like the Ollie hire was positively shocked at what he described as the interim status he was given.

Again, I disagree with you that this is a discussion in which some people will eventually be proven right/wrong. The only point some are making is that given the small salary, it's a relatively small commitment to have extended him. Subtracting this year's salary from a 3 year extension, UConn would be out $600k if it fired him in early March. Or, they could have even put a buyout clause in there. Anything to improve the optics. Many anti-Ollie people even agreed with this.

So, in response to your last few sentences, the point many are making is totally irrelevant to what will happen in the future. It's more about what is happening right now.

 

[8893]

Suddenly Amore is all knowing? He's been savaged here endlessly. There is no vacancy. Kevin Ollie is the coach. Period. It is no different than rumors of JCs imminent retirement or health problems.

I'm sure the recruits know this simple fact. They won't replace him with somebody worse. If they don't see somebody obviously better he'll be back. There is no downside.

I'm beginning to see the genius in this plan. Maybe if we don't mention the post-season ban people won't notice that we're not, you know, playing this post-season.

And, come to think of it, your sentiment would make the perfect marketing pitch to any potential recruit: Come to UConn, where you can play for Kevin Ollie--or somebody obviously better!

Sheesh. Can't believe I didn't see that angle before. I mean, it's not like these kids really care who their coach is going to be, right? Kevin is their coach, period. Well, except for the fact that he's not. I'm sure that's easily lost on them. Especially the ones who've said they want to play for him.

Thanks for setting me straight. If only there was a Facebook-like way for me to pay extra to have your posts displayed most prominently every time I log on. I would gladly pony up for faster and more efficient access to your wisdom and insights.

 

[jleves]

And to think we're all fans of the same team - could you imagine the carnage if we weren't all aligned?

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

The semantic masturbation is reaching x-rated levels.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I'm beginning to see the genius in this plan. Maybe if we don't mention the post-season ban people won't notice that we're not, you know, playing this post-season.

And, come to think of it, your sentiment would make the perfect marketing pitch to any potential recruit: Come to UConn, where you can play for Kevin Ollie--or somebody obviously better!

Sheesh. Can't believe I didn't see that angle before. I mean, it's not like these kids really care who their coach is going to be, right? Kevin is their coach, period. Well, except for the fact that he's not. I'm sure that's easily lost on them. Especially the ones who've said they want to play for him.

Thanks for setting me straight. If only there was a Facebook-like way for me to pay extra to have your posts displayed most prominently every time I log on. I would gladly pony up for faster and more efficient access to your wisdom and insights.

I feel the same way about your brilliant insights. I *like* Kevin Ollie. I think he may be a great coach someday. But the overreaction to the one year contract is unbelievable. Our prior coach had cancer three times. We also damn near lost him to South Carolina. It didn't kill the program or even dent it. Neither will this. The administration had to balance a tiny possible impact on recruiting with the risk the KO will prove unable to do the job. I think they struck a fair balance.

There was no coach available to them that they could have confidence was a long term solution. So rather than give an interim contract to Hobbs or Blaney, with an announced search in the spring (talk about a hit to recruiting) they decided to hire KO who has the potential to be the solution. Giving him a long term deal would be overweighting the recruiting hit against the the risk that he fails.

The decision is made. Let's stop this nonsense of arguing about it and get behind the team.

 

[8893]

I feel the same way about your brilliant insights. I *like* Kevin Ollie. I think he may be a great coach someday. But the overreaction to the one year contract is unbelievable. Our prior coach had cancer three times. We also damn near lost him to South Carolina. It didn't kill the program or even dent it. Neither will this. The administration had to balance a tiny possible impact on recruiting with the risk the KO will prove unable to do the job. I think they struck a fair balance.

There was no coach available to them that they could have confidence was a long term solution. So rather than give an interim contract to Hobbs or Blaney, with an announced search in the spring (talk about a hit to recruiting) they decided to hire KO who has the potential to be the solution. Giving him a long term deal would be overweighting the recruiting hit against the the risk that he fails.

The decision is made. Let's stop this nonsense of arguing about it and get behind the team.

Do you consider a two-year contract a long term deal?

Do you not understand why every player and professional who have spoken about the seven-month, interim position have considered it a challenge for Kevin?

I could not be clearer that I am behind Kevin and the team. It's been depressing to me to see how few here appear to be.

 

[jleves]

Just because some of us do not care to rant about the contract does not mean we are not behind Kevin and the team. I get that your passionate about it and that's fine. But others can still be fans and behind the program without having the same reaction you have.

 

[8893]

Just because some of us do not care to rant about the contract does not mean we are not behind Kevin and the team. I get that your passionate about it and that's fine. But others can still be fans and behind the program without having the same reaction you have.

I get it. Everybody wants to win. I'm just surprised at the tepid response to Kevin and the lack of enthusiasm for him. As I've said, it's contagious either way. I was psyched initially, but if the level of support he gets here is any indication, I'm starting to feel like he's dead man walking already and that bums me out.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I get it. Everybody wants to win. I'm just surprised at the tepid response to Kevin and the lack of enthusiasm for him. As I've said, it's contagious either way. I was psyched initially, but if the level of support he gets here is any indication, I'm starting to feel like he's dead man walking already and that bums me out.

Honestly, I would have liked a search, interviews and the usual process. I feel like the university owes it to itself and the fans to get this right. There should have been competition.

I can imagine that those of you who always wanted KO to get the job can't understand why there is so little commitment. But imagine you didn't think he was the best choice. Imagine you could think of 2-3 others you'd prefer who might be available. Then how would you feel? I suspect that's how the administration feels.

Is it fair to Kevin? He is getting a shot to earn the job without facing competition for it. That's more than he could reasonably expect. He's a bright, engaging guy and a great story. We all hope he has what it takes and is here a long time.

 

[nomar]

Manuel and the administration don't like Ollie. If he doesn't have a huge season and get a top recruit (Vonleh), he's gone come spring time.

It's amazing how absolutely certain one can appear to be about something he knows absolutely nothing about. Rank speculation.

 

[nomar]

I get it. Everybody wants to win. I'm just surprised at the tepid response to Kevin and the lack of enthusiasm for him. As I've said, it's contagious either way. I was psyched initially, but if the level of support he gets here is any indication, I'm starting to feel like he's dead man walking already and that bums me out.

Really? Honestly, 8893, you're one of my favorite posters here, but I think on this issue you've created a false conflict between supporting Ollie and not being sufficiently angry at Manuel.

I think the support for KO on this site and in general has been overwhelmingly positive. Personally, I've been a pro-KO guy since the moment he stepped back on campus and was thrilled when he got the job. But I'm also not going to go overboard in criticizing WM. Like many others, I wish he had given KO a 2- or 3-year deal with a low buyout. But I do understand his perspective even if I don't agree with it. But just like you want WM to give Ollie a real chance, I think we should give WM a real chance and not assume that he's lying when he says he wants KO to succeed.

As for the effect of the 1-year deal on the recruiting trail, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think it's totally overblown. A coach can always be fired, with a 1-year deal or a 5-year deal. KO has to convince players to believe in a guy with no head coaching experience; if they choose to believe in him, then they will believe that he will succeed. We managed to get recruits to come with JC wavering for the last 2 years. KO can get recruits to come by looking them in the eyes and saying, "I'll be here." Yes, of course other coaches will point out that KO can get fired. Leonard Hamilton certainly knows what it's like to be on the hot seat.

 

[tzznandrew]

This whole thread is among the most insane in recent memory. Kevin Ollie, a man who is vastly underqualified for the position he now holds, and who wouldn't have gotten so much as a sniff from the likes of U Hartford, let alone outside of Connecticut, where nobody has ever even heard of the guy, is suddently such a hot commodity that UConn will lose him? Please. There's not another major program that would have given him even this one year deal. If he hadn't been a UConn player...would you want him? If he was a little known scrappy PG who played at Michigan State, had a long but undistinguinshed career as an NBA backup and was a second level assistant for Izzo for three years? He'd be at the top you your list? Really?

I think there's a good chance that Calhoun is right, that KO is the real deal and that we will have made a great transition from the legend. If so, we'll see it within a few months and he'll be extended. But there is certainly a chance he will not be the answer, and we'll see that too. We won' extend him and he won't get any other offers either, except maybe as an assistant in the NBA.

I think this part is right.

I do think he should have gotten a longer contract, and that some will use it against him. It's up to him to push through and convince them its not a short term thing. But it's wrong to think he wasn't handicapped. It's not because the administration doesn't like him, or are actively trying to sabotage him--but instead, they are motivated by your points here. The problem is that, in this scenario, intent hardly matters: the effects are the same...uncertainty and more fire power for negative recruiting that was already going to be there (due to the inexperience).

 

[upstater]

Really? Honestly, 8893, you're one of my favorite posters here, but I think on this issue you've created a false conflict between supporting Ollie and not being sufficiently angry at Manuel.

I think the support for KO on this site and in general has been overwhelmingly positive. Personally, I've been a pro-KO guy since the moment he stepped back on campus and was thrilled when he got the job. But I'm also not going to go overboard in criticizing WM. Like many others, I wish he had given KO a 2- or 3-year deal with a low buyout. But I do understand his perspective even if I don't agree with it. But just like you want WM to give Ollie a real chance, I think we should give WM a real chance and not assume that he's lying when he says he wants KO to succeed.

As for the effect of the 1-year deal on the recruiting trail, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think it's totally overblown. A coach can always be fired, with a 1-year deal or a 5-year deal. KO has to convince players to believe in a guy with no head coaching experience; if they choose to believe in him, then they will believe that he will succeed. We managed to get recruits to come with JC wavering for the last 2 years. KO can get recruits to come by looking them in the eyes and saying, "I'll be here." Yes, of course other coaches will point out that KO can get fired. Leonard Hamilton certainly knows what it's like to be on the hot seat.

I don't think it's that overblown. When someone points out that a coach may be fired, that kind of critique can be reversed easily on the one who utters it unless they are Roy Williams or Tom Izzo, etc. It's quite another to, say, replay the Ollie press conference with careful attention to Manuel's presentation.

If I were a recruit, I would have concerns about Manuel's tepid support of Ollie (and no I don't believe Ollie is not liked). But I would not have those same concerns with, say, Cooley at Providence. Both are relatively new coaches, but...

 

[8893]

I can imagine that those of you who always wanted KO to get the job can't understand why there is so little commitment. But imagine you didn't think he was the best choice. Imagine you could think of 2-3 others you'd prefer who might be available. Then how would you feel? I suspect that's how the administration feels.

Just to be clear: I was not one "who always wanted KO to get the job." My only issue is that, once it was decided that he would get it, I do not believe that the seven-month contract gives him the best chance for success, which should have been the common goal from that point forward. I believe it is more than a slight hindrance to recruiting. And I do not believe a long-term contract was required; just two seasons, with a less-expensive buy-out after one if he has a Bobby-V-in-Beantown type first season. That would have eliminated the issue for someone like, say, Parker, who I gather only expects to stay for one season. And I'm not saying we would have gotten Parker or XRM in any event; but the speed with which we were dropped from consideration by both suggests, to me, that the lack of any assurance that KO will still be here is an issue. Nothing else changed in the meantime; unless we conclude that KO did not impress during the in-home visit.

Otherwise I agree with the part of your post that I quoted. I believe that is how the AD feels, because that's what a seven-month contract indicates imo.

 

[upstater]

I think this part is right.

I do think he should have gotten a longer contract, and that some will use it against him. It's up to him to push through and convince them its not a short term thing. But it's wrong to think he wasn't handicapped. It's not because the administration doesn't like him, or are actively trying to sabotage him--but instead, they are motivated by your points here. The problem is that, in this scenario, intent hardly matters: the effects are the same...uncertainty and more fire power for negative recruiting that was already going to be there (due to the inexperience).

Well, I thought that was hyperbolic. Especially this: He wouldn't have gotten so much as a sniff from the likes of U Hartford, let alone outside of Connecticut, where nobody has ever even heard of the guy.

We've seen that many people were interested in his services, esp. the NBA. Wouldn't have gotten so much as a sniff from U. Hartford? Really? Maybe the NBA people are all liars. Maybe Larry Brown's advice to Ollie was a lie to.

But, regardless, as has been stated multiple times, the main concern is recruiting for this year.

 

[8893]

Really? Honestly, 8893, you're one of my favorite posters here, but I think on this issue you've created a false conflict between supporting Ollie and not being sufficiently angry at Manuel.

No, it's not just that most here are happy with the seven-month contract and don't believe Kevin, or anyone in his position, would be handicapped by it.

There are plenty of other tea leaves to be read here. That's all I'm doing, but I'm going to stop now. Suffice to say that I think there can be a self-fulfilling power of belief; and that the opposite can be true, too.

 

[tzznandrew]

Well, I thought that was hyperbolic. Especially this: He wouldn't have gotten so much as a sniff from the likes of U Hartford, let alone outside of Connecticut, where nobody has ever even heard of the guy.

We've seen that many people were interested in his services, esp. the NBA. Wouldn't have gotten so much as a sniff from U. Hartford? Really? Maybe the NBA people are all liars. Maybe Larry Brown's advice to Ollie was a lie to.

But, regardless, as has been stated multiple times, the main concern is recruiting for this year.

Is it hyperbolic? Yeah, but even UHart's coach spent two years as UHart's Associate Head Coach from 2006-2008, and then two more years as UPenn's Associate Head Coach (under Miller), before he became head coach there. Now, if Kevin Ollie had been from UHart, I think he would have a great chance. He's just not a big name.

I don't think the NBA people are liars. I think he will likely be a good head coach (here or elsewhere...hopefully here), and I think they were sincere. But it is still difficult to be hired by people without any track record.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Well, I thought that was hyperbolic. Especially this: He wouldn't have gotten so much as a sniff from the likes of U Hartford, let alone outside of Connecticut, where nobody has ever even heard of the guy.

We've seen that many people were interested in his services, esp. the NBA. Wouldn't have gotten so much as a sniff from U. Hartford? Really? Maybe the NBA people are all liars. Maybe Larry Brown's advice to Ollie was a lie to.

But, regardless, as has been stated multiple times, the main concern is recruiting for this year.

Well that was in response to the insane assertion in the beginning of this thread that somehow he's a hot commodity and will leave even if UConn wants to retain his services. There is zero chance of that. I did mention later that his other options were as an assistant in the NBA, not as a HC in the college game. We know OKC was talking to him about an assistant role. I think his rep is much higher in the NBA than in the college game, where I don't think he is well known yet.

I think we've beat this one to death. I think a two year contract with a low buyout would have been fine, but would have been subject to spin in recruiting the same as the 7 month deal. I think three years with no buyout would have been irresponsible. We can all differ on where to draw the middle ground, but no matter what, the situation was going to be problematic because of the timing. That's the one irrefutable point. There was no easy or clear decision to be made.