Even if he was a recruiter I find the reasoning to be BS. They're a limited number of scholarships and playing spots and we see transfers all the time for playing time these days. Let other negatively recruit, it's just noise. Schools will largely recruit to the status of their school barring a few exceptions. A coach's contract length doesn't have much practical impact IMO.
Fire Hobbs
- Thread starter RU206
- Start date
Schools that rely on transfers are generally not very successful, there is a reason guys transfer, how has RUs luck been with transfers?
It's not that we have to rely on transfers, it's the fact that I don't think a contract length matters to a recruit in the big scheme of things and won't improve how we recruit either. If the length mattered then players wouldn't leave I mean said coach is still there. My point is that it doesn't matter. You're going to get the same tier of talent that you'd usually get related to the status of your school.
I've always said recruiting is like a tiered pyramid for me with each tier getting wider as you go down. Schools are generally going to the tier of talent that you'd expect from their status barring a really exceptional/poor recruiter or longer term good/poor results. To me the rest is just noise. You're going to get the players you'd normally expect to get at your school anyway regardless of coaching contract length.
Disagree with you...he won’t get the level recruits needed to compete in this conference if other coaches can say “Ash won’t be there when you are an upperclassmen, they won’t extend his contract” coaches are like fathers to a lot of these kids if a kid doesn’t think his other father is gonna stick around why would he commit?
Yea then said player leaves when he doesn't get playing time. Why? He's supposed to be like a 2nd father no? The coach could leave for a myriad of reasons too and so could the kid. Does a contract guarantee the coach stays? Nope, he could still leave and many do. So what are you guaranteeing? Nothing except eating a bigger contract if it doesn't work out. You're just guaranteeing your increased downside exposure but not likely getting anything but marginal upside exposure especially considering my tiered pyramid view of recruiting.
So said player could leave for any reason, said coach could leave for a greener pasture so best to be smart in how you use your resources especially when you don't have many.
couldnt be more opposed of the Hobbs firing sentiment.
Guy has been crushing it. BBALL, facilities.
The only fail I see as of now is the extension of Ash.
Guy has been crushing it. BBALL, facilities.
The only fail I see as of now is the extension of Ash.
Hobbs job is to raise money.
The donors ask for and paid for the extention in hopes it will make a difference in recruiting.
Some of you have no idea how college coaches get paid. This is how it works at ALL COLLEGES. Hobbs is not the problem here.
Ash and his staff is.
The donors ask for and paid for the extention in hopes it will make a difference in recruiting.
Some of you have no idea how college coaches get paid. This is how it works at ALL COLLEGES. Hobbs is not the problem here.
Ash and his staff is.
I said when he did this it was a stupid move only to be attacked. Ash is not a good coach, needs to go. The longer he stays, the more harm is done to the program long-term ala Shea.
Time for people to admit they were wron
Time for people to admit they were wron
I would have thought the reverse with regards to any extension. An AD going to the donors rather than the other way around. Don' know what happened here though
If the money was always already in place then why would we ever see coaches sticking around longer than they're wanted. Most of the time it's because the AD doesn't want to eat such a big contract and tries to whittle it down a little with time.
... and now it's his job to go back to those same a-holes and say, "You know that guy you begged me to give $10 million of your money to last year? Well, now I have to fire him so I need you to give me another $15 million to hire a replacement."
And when they say, "No"? Then it means Hobbs isn't good at his job and he's the one that needs to be replaced. If you let the donors make hiring and firing decisions, then you get replaced when the donors F-up.
The donors F-up'ed.
EDIT: BTW, these are the same experts who Julie couldn't convince to pay for Dan Mullen, right?
Oh I get that donors can contribute to the payment of the salary especially at the larger schools, they even have endowments to salaries but I'm saying I think it's usually at the behest of the AD not the other way around
On top of which, as an AD I don't think you'd want to be seen as someone who uses their resources on quick firings etc... It makes your hiring look worse.
The extension that Hobbs gave Ash was the single worse business decision in RU Athletics during his tenure... most folks get it.
That how college football works at ALL COLLEGES.
It works the other way around. If the donors/boosters call Hobbs and say they will pay for a new HC and staff and pick up the tab to fire everyone. Then... Ash will get fire before he lands at Newark.
That has happen at other schools before.
It works the other way around. If the donors/boosters call Hobbs and say they will pay for a new HC and staff and pick up the tab to fire everyone. Then... Ash will get fire before he lands at Newark.
That has happen at other schools before.
This. We should keep Hobbs in the fundraising Department and find a real AD that has FBS level qualities .
Sure if you're a large enough donor you can have influence, even a lot of influence (Knight/Pickens likely), I mean didn't Brown even sit in on the interview. But I'm saying I think it's usually the AD steering the ship and the donors will just usually go along with him and occasionally you may get an uprising where they want even more say.
When does he leave...he's no spring chicken.
We need a pro athletic visionary a la Edward J. Bloustein. We need fast Eddie back...
we need a coach who is recognized NATIONWIDE, and has NJ ties! We need to recruit.
We need to stop having these discussions every 3-4 years (Flood, Ash...).
We need HELP!
MO
Fwiw a father of a former RU player (recruited by Schiano/graduated under Flood) told me the "R Football family" weren't thrilled with Hobbs when he was hired because he had ZERO experience at a football school. Football drives the bus.
Hobbs has done some very good things. However, hiring and esp. extending Ash PLUS the absolutely TRAIN WRECK that is the Men's soccer program.....all on him. Not pretty.
I wasn't thrilled with him either but I'm thrilled with his fundraising and that's a big thing for a school like us and our fundraising history and can't be discounted in the slightest IMO. It's as equally important as hiring good coaches for us. If we're Michigan and the like no but for RU yes.
if hobbs didn't get canned for sipping a beer with the students body the ash hire/extension is not going to remove him..If RU finishes with 1 win this year and 3 next year then RU will eat the remaining contract..losing another 3,000 season tickets over the next 2 years will not help
Seems like just yesterday ...
well that tweet sure didnt age well
I would agree. I think Hobbs got what he could afford. Buying Flood out and was for sure capped on what he could have spent. Until we get a full share or pay up all we owe those that have left, we are stuck.
Seems like just yesterday ...
This and the best interview in my professional career comments will come back to bite him
He has to tone this rhetoric down
Only 3000 season tickets lost ? You are being overly optimistic. We will lose at least double that amount by 2020 if Ash remains. The decline of RU football season ticket holders has already declined by 24% since 2015. That’s 8,000 season ticket holders gone. Lot$ of Revenue lo$t. Hobbs will start to get the message when he only sees 15,000 fans actually showing up this Saturday...and that’s with fine weather.