Is it true that less than 500 fans attended Thursday's game ? Is it true we got embarrassed at home today? Is it true that the program is losing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year ? How are the over 500 student-athletes who participate in non-revenue sports impacted by excessive spending on women's basketball with a limited return ? Changes have been made with football and men's basketball. What conditions need to exist for a change to occur with women's basketball ? The facts are the facts. We need to stop the excuses about the facilities. We need a coach who accepts where we are, eagerly promotes the program, advocates for new facilities and actively participates in soliciting funds for a new facility. Today coaching is more than x's and o's. Let's honor the past. Let's not rest on our laurels. Each year players must perform or they don't play. What defines underperformance for a head coach earning 700k a year ? If underperforming, how many years of under performance should be accepted before making a change ?
Stop the Bleeding
- Thread starter Racpack
- Start date
Time for a change. Here is what I find unacceptable about CVS's performance:
1. As you say she does little, that is visible, to promote the program. Whether she likes doing promotion or not, it is simply part of the job. If she won't do her job, she should resign or be fired.
2. Her constant pouting/blaming others is simply unprofessional and no doubt turns fans/donors off. Frankly, it disgusts me.
3. Her failure to develop players and use a modern offense, leads to her teams constantly underperforming given the level of talent she has recruited. She has been simply an outstanding recruiter but sadly that has gone for naught in recent years.
RU/Hobbs owes her nothing other than a chance to be honored and make an orderly exit if she refuses to change. Real change in her case would involve accepting executive coaching on improving her poor demeanor, turning over the offensive reigns to an associate coach, and accepting that part of her job is to promote the program with passion and vigor.
Don't change for the sake of change, have a plan and improve all aspects of the program if you want a good program.
Changing coaches sometimes doesn't do a thing, especially if you can't bring in quality because of the obstacles that will be facing them if they take the job.
The HC is the face you blame, but there are other reasons recruits don't see Rutgers as they once did and Stringer's name can't overcome the faults recruits see anymore.
Changing coaches sometimes doesn't do a thing, especially if you can't bring in quality because of the obstacles that will be facing them if they take the job.
The HC is the face you blame, but there are other reasons recruits don't see Rutgers as they once did and Stringer's name can't overcome the faults recruits see anymore.
Agreed, no change for its own sake. But wouldn't you agree that Hobbs identified the deficiencies in Flood's and Jordan's coaching and hired coaches that will move us forward? Why doesn't women's basketball deserve the same?
Recruiting wasn't an issue this year; it will be going forward. This year, the team underperformed its level of talent by an impossibly wide margin. Arguably, the talent on the team would have played better left to its own devices without coaching at all.
And then we have the other issues that Racpack, I and others have written about.
I find it interesting that people blame the coach for attendance, rather than discussing what the athletic department did or didn't do. (There is a thread on this very board about how hard it was to buy tickets for today, which presumably isn't the coach's problem to solve.)
I do seem to recall CVS participating in the RU B1G tour, and showing up at all of the stops, so I think complaining that she doesn't do promotion is not entirely fair. That said, I agree that it's not her forte.
In any event, MADHAT is completely right - a change for the sake of change isn't very smart. Have a plan (which has to include the facilities) and understand it requires an investment. (In other words, anybody who thinks that the program will suddenly cost hundreds of thousands of dollars less than it costs today and be successful is dreaming.)
I do seem to recall CVS participating in the RU B1G tour, and showing up at all of the stops, so I think complaining that she doesn't do promotion is not entirely fair. That said, I agree that it's not her forte.
In any event, MADHAT is completely right - a change for the sake of change isn't very smart. Have a plan (which has to include the facilities) and understand it requires an investment. (In other words, anybody who thinks that the program will suddenly cost hundreds of thousands of dollars less than it costs today and be successful is dreaming.)
Yes, it's obvious you don't make a change just to make a change. But seeing the way Hobbs operates now with two very good hires based on their backgrounds, I'm sure Hobbs would do his homework and bring in the right coach to follow in Stringer's footsteps. The man does his due diligence. I trust he will do the same when it's time to replace Stringer.
First, I feel so bad for our seniors. Next. A number of years ago I was one of maybe 3 fans to begin constructively criticizing CVS. I was called every name in the book, especially a troll. I remember posting at times, that I felt like I was attacking posters' mother.
I started a thread about a month ago titled "The Beginning of the End". The beginning of the end actually started a number of years ago. One stat correlates perfectly w this concept and CVS's coaching skills. That stat is the consistent lower attendance at home games year to year.
I was always countered w posts that many times started out w "and I guess you know more than a H of F coach". That stat only means something after the coach retires. It has no meaning when analyzing an active coach.
The other pro CVS argument was her record and bringing 3 different schools to the Final Four. Her coaching skills were not behind the times when she brought Cheney St and even Iowa to the final four. Heck, she was even an innovator in way of defensive schemes. Most any coach would kill for her career numbers.
But the defensive strategies stopped being innovative, and slowly became obsolete. The great records at this point were fueled by one thing only...the recruiting of mega talent almost every year. But the last fuel line for CVS has know burned out. All has started to become evident to the masses (most who were my past critics).
And if CVS is allowed to remain at Rutgers, next year will result in the loss of any remaining CVS supporters.
This is anything but a short term blaming of the Head Coach!
Last edited:
Riz, certainly the record has something to do with attendance, but I'm not as sure about the style. Peak attendance during the CVS era seems to me to correlate with the period when there were tons of 60-50 and 55-45 games (not to mention a certain sold out game that ended 48-42), but nearly all of them were RU wins.
At this remove, I've begun to wonder about how much the CVS defensive scheme depends on getting players with a specific set of skills. The two most successful teams - 2006-7 and 2007-8 - had a very mobile center (Kia), a guard/forward who had incredible length and basically could guard any player on the other team (Essence), and a really quick point guard (Matee), not to mention Heather, who basically devoted herself entirely to defense to play the 4 (except when Essence was guarding the 4). I think it's not so hard to replace players like Matee and Heather, but Kia and Essence really were pretty unusual.
And, of course, the 2008 class turned out to be a mess. I wrote at one point that the question of whether CVS could get back on the right track couldn't be answered until that class was gone, but the reality is that there's fallout still from what happened with it.
All of that said, from a program perspective what I really don't want to happen is for CVS to be fired and for Hobbs to hire someone who's willing to come to RU despite the facilities issues and at what people on the football board would deem to be a "reasonable" salary. That's a recipe for a long time wandering in the wilderness. If CVS were to leave after this year, the hire would have to be someone who could recruit successfully despite the facilities, which means a biggish name (and a biggish salary). Otherwise, I'd prefer to wait until the end of the contract, let her take a shot at 1,000 wins, and hire someone when the facilities plans are coming to fruition. At that point you could take a chance on a hot assistant, maybe at a somewhat lower salary (or maybe not), rather than hiring someone who's really established.
At this remove, I've begun to wonder about how much the CVS defensive scheme depends on getting players with a specific set of skills. The two most successful teams - 2006-7 and 2007-8 - had a very mobile center (Kia), a guard/forward who had incredible length and basically could guard any player on the other team (Essence), and a really quick point guard (Matee), not to mention Heather, who basically devoted herself entirely to defense to play the 4 (except when Essence was guarding the 4). I think it's not so hard to replace players like Matee and Heather, but Kia and Essence really were pretty unusual.
And, of course, the 2008 class turned out to be a mess. I wrote at one point that the question of whether CVS could get back on the right track couldn't be answered until that class was gone, but the reality is that there's fallout still from what happened with it.
All of that said, from a program perspective what I really don't want to happen is for CVS to be fired and for Hobbs to hire someone who's willing to come to RU despite the facilities issues and at what people on the football board would deem to be a "reasonable" salary. That's a recipe for a long time wandering in the wilderness. If CVS were to leave after this year, the hire would have to be someone who could recruit successfully despite the facilities, which means a biggish name (and a biggish salary). Otherwise, I'd prefer to wait until the end of the contract, let her take a shot at 1,000 wins, and hire someone when the facilities plans are coming to fruition. At that point you could take a chance on a hot assistant, maybe at a somewhat lower salary (or maybe not), rather than hiring someone who's really established.
I believe Hobbs has done his homework, knows what he can and can not do right now and has weighed the pros and cons of replacing CVS already.
The question is, will Hobbs decide that with what obstacles there are to a new HC achieving more success than Vivian has had lately not be a hindrance to who he hires or would it be a reason quality candidates reject his offer to come to RU because they feel RU WBB won't be able to compete for the talent needed for them to succeed as the RU WBB HC
Hobbs knows Vivian's recruiting the players she needs to make constant NCAA runs might be in the past because her name isn't as big as it once was and those recruits can see other programs have a lot more to offer besides a coach's name than RU does.
RU WBB is not in such disrepair that a change of coach is something that's desperately needed, there other issues that need to be addressed first in an effort to make the RU WBB program successful and/or bring in someone that is capable of returning RU WBB to its Glory Days.
Stringer's contract is RU friendly, so Hobbs can buy her out easily,
The question ( despite all the coaches being mentioned by SN posters) is:
will any of the quality candidates Hobbs contact even want to come to RU with all the
issues it has that make success extra hard to accomplish for whoever takes on the task.
It can be done, but who is the one that is willing to try that Hobbs feels could do it.
Like I said it's more than C.Vivian Stringer that's the problem and I'm sure Hobbs is taking that into account when he decides what he should do to make the Women's Basketball program the best it can be , right now and in the future..
I have been an RU women's basketball fan since they played in thr Barn. I have been to every single final four RU gas played in. I truly believe a change is desperately needed. We need abnew coach, either the Princeton coach or the Duquesne coach. CVS had a good run but it's time to go.
there is no way she can be kept to finish out her contract you will set this program back another 5 years and you will be lucky to have 500 fans a game. Hobbs has been down this road before at Seton Hall and once the press conference to announce the mens coach is over he will be scheduling the next press conference to announce her retirement.
I always respect your posts and know you have been a devote RU fan for many years. I also appreciate some of your points.
Some questions. Not sure what u mean by style and my point. Peak attendance can be a bit misleading. And I didn't say anything to clarify it. During my 20+ years as a season ticket holder, peak season attendance was about 2,500. And this was the reported amt out of the ticket office. And the average for the season was bolstered by games like that 48-42 game. Who was the opponent? UConn or maybe Tenn. Those 10 point wins did nothing to increase attendance. It only frustrated the season ticket holders that knew most of those wins should have been over in the first half. An example of CVS's coaching woes and under utilization of the massive talent she had compared to 90+ percent of her opponents.
You mentioned Kia. She should have been a major monster of a player...blowing away her stats w RU. Same old story of CVS not developing players and her game time coaching.
The facilities have been below ave for many years. CVS was able to bring in top 10 recruiting classes almost every year. Your point on it being a big problem now for a new hire is totally true.
Just a specific issue, but an insight to CVS's lack of game time coaching skills. 2008 class. Brooklyn Pope left and became an important part of the Baylor team. Not the no 1 or 2 player, but a important player. Now back to her RU days. I remember CVS saying, good things happen when Brooklyn Pope is in the game. I also remember seeing very little of Ms Pope in the next 3 games.
The problem w RU is 90% CVS. Time to go. If she coaches next year w only 1 Mcd AA, given her inability to use and develop talent (the lowest # of McD AA's in many years) we will be very lucky to be .500. And then if she retires after that year, the next coach gets a very bare cupboard.
I can hear the CVS supporters then saying...see..we were right...bring back CVS.
Riz, you and I have totally different perceptions of Brooklyn Pope. She went to Baylor, sat out a year and didn't have any significant playing time until her last year, when she was quite clearly about the 5th option on the team. Put differently, her career-high points, rebounds and blocks were against Farmingdale when she was a frosh.
On attendance, here are the per-game averages currently available at SK.com
2005-6: 4,609
2006-7: 3,654
2007-8: 4,740
2008-9: 3,340
2009-10: 3,194
2010-11: 3,039
So there's pretty clearly a correlation between results and attendance, and it's not like RU was scoring tons of points at any point in that span. I'd certainly agree that there was higher attendance during high-profile games (as always), but one factor was that RU was winning some of those games. (And, yes, 48-42 was RU v. UConn - probably my favorite RU game ever because RU actually trailed by something like 15 points in the 1st half.)
On attendance, here are the per-game averages currently available at SK.com
2005-6: 4,609
2006-7: 3,654
2007-8: 4,740
2008-9: 3,340
2009-10: 3,194
2010-11: 3,039
So there's pretty clearly a correlation between results and attendance, and it's not like RU was scoring tons of points at any point in that span. I'd certainly agree that there was higher attendance during high-profile games (as always), but one factor was that RU was winning some of those games. (And, yes, 48-42 was RU v. UConn - probably my favorite RU game ever because RU actually trailed by something like 15 points in the 1st half.)
I wanted to add something about this. My expectation is that whenever CVS goes - this year, the next year, the year after - that the first year or two is likely to be tough sledding no matter who the new coach is. That's just a reality when you change coaches. The old players don't get or aren't suited for the new system, and it takes some time to get enough new players on board. Except in rare cases like Holly Warlick taking over for Summitt, you just don't get much continuity.
I agree that there may be a difficult transition for a year or two with a new coach. The problem is that there's already going to be a significant drop off in talent next year. And who knows how well CVS can recruit for the year(s) beyond that. So now we're looking at 3 or 4 down years? Better to bite the bullet now.
But in reality, I don't think a change is going to happen.
But in reality, I don't think a change is going to happen.
Wait until she asks for an extension when she doesn't get the 29 wins needed, to reach 1,000, over the next 2 seasons.
If Hobbs doesn't say anything about her contract in the next few weeks, she is basically a lame duck coach. You know every coach is going to use that against her. Let's see what happens in the next 2 weeks.
Thank you Vivian for the good years...cappie,kia,Tasha,essence,piph and so many more who made it so wonderful. But it's time to walk away. Do what is best for yourself as well as for the programs
I hope she's at RU til she's 90. Possibly the best coach RU has had in any sport , although Coach Goodale of Wrestling is doing impressive things. 19 wins and the lynch mob is out in force. Extend her now, she's a bargain.
I would still very much like to know the circumstances of all three assistants leaving before this season. Very odd the way that went down with little explanation. These three seemed clueless all year and just added to the season's underachievement.
Three or four years ago, I was one of the ones who really wanted her to leave. Now, after a few mediocre (by previous standards and the size of her paycheck) seasons, I'm pretty apathetic about what Hobbs does. I haven't been to a game for two years because they just stopped being fun. She may be looking at a sub-.500 record next year, so this may be her last chance to leave, on her terms, after a winning season. But if she wants to stay and Hobbs wants to avoid another search or any political hit, that's fine too. I feel badly for Scaife because she doesn't have much support next year regardless of the coach.
it might have been a case of Julie forcing them out to save $$$ and bring in 3 that they can pay at half the price.
Exactly. Unless you are willing to hire one of the top 5 Womens BB coaches at a competitive salary in order to continue the 40 YEAR history of excellence in women's basketball at Rutgers (CVS, Grentz) it makes no sense to make a change for change's sake.
Womens BB is the most successful and most consistently successful athletic program at Rutgers. I still can't fathom why people denigrate the program, CVS, and believe it's a detriment in some weird twisted way to football and mens basketball.
Why can't we just celebrate excellence for excellence's sake? The track record and facts are certainly there.
Also could have decided that their future at RU wasn't assured with the possibility of Stringer retiring in the near future and went on to opportunists that seemed better for their career and
it's future.
Salary could have been the last thing that caused them to look elsewhere.
Considering the terms of her contract now, Hobbs can replace CVS and I think at her age an extension won't be asked for by her.
But Hobbs might want her to stay ( her last two years of contract) to reach that mark for PR purpose.
Doubt it will take over two years so I feel your dislike is showing in your question.
I'm not going to provide any insightful solution to whether folks are right who think a change should be made now or think waiting 2 years would be "ok". I can at least see both points of view, although constantly knocking a team that did, after all, make the WNIT and advance by one game, winning 19 games for the season is a bit harsh. It is "down" by RU standards and less than I think fans justifiably expected at the beginning of the season - but there are an awful lot of programs that would die for that.
Riz and others have never understood that it is folks comments on how Vivian's teams have always played, and how they "know better", that have earned the "never coached a game" comments. If we recreated the 2007 team by magic, and played the same way we did then, we might not make the final four but a deep NCAA run would happen. I have never bought into that you cannot win with Vivian's style / coaching philosophy, rather that the recruiting issues (ultimately, not having the right players) and I honestly believe a fair amount of "disconnect" between CVS, the coaching staff and the players on what "should" be happening at times on the court have resulted in a team that highlights all the weaknesses of the CVS system while rarely hitting the high notes that worked with different players.
As to attendance, I'm with folks who said it is the winning - or lack there of - that has hurt. Particularly the non-competitive games against (all) "better" competition, in other words our inability to beat / upset ranked teams. Believe me, Butts here at UofA played a very exciting game to sit in the stands and watch; we only went to one Pac games this year because, well,
it was obvious we were not likely to win, don't care how good we looked.
Riz and others have never understood that it is folks comments on how Vivian's teams have always played, and how they "know better", that have earned the "never coached a game" comments. If we recreated the 2007 team by magic, and played the same way we did then, we might not make the final four but a deep NCAA run would happen. I have never bought into that you cannot win with Vivian's style / coaching philosophy, rather that the recruiting issues (ultimately, not having the right players) and I honestly believe a fair amount of "disconnect" between CVS, the coaching staff and the players on what "should" be happening at times on the court have resulted in a team that highlights all the weaknesses of the CVS system while rarely hitting the high notes that worked with different players.
As to attendance, I'm with folks who said it is the winning - or lack there of - that has hurt. Particularly the non-competitive games against (all) "better" competition, in other words our inability to beat / upset ranked teams. Believe me, Butts here at UofA played a very exciting game to sit in the stands and watch; we only went to one Pac games this year because, well,
it was obvious we were not likely to win, don't care how good we looked.
Why was attendance higher back then? Simple. Better teams. We won. We were top 20 consistently. And we were fun to watch: showtime with Matee, Essence, Cappy, Piphetc. Some of the best women's basketball IN THE COUNTRY. Can't say that now. No further analysis needed.
I agree. There's "show time" and then there's "no show time". I'd rather watch curling.
Even when RU WBB was winning, they still lost millions. That I think is what truly rankles fans of other sports because the WBB seems to them free of the financial constraints other sports operate under.
The only thing in your very well thought out post I would dispute is acting like the WNIT is anything special. Frankly it's WBB's version of a participation trophy.
I think the best possible solution would be for CVS to leave RU (retire) and take a job elsewhere so she can get her 1000 wins and RU can move forward. I'm sure someone would hire her at a reasonable salary. Otherwise, as others have noted...the program will most likely continue downward for the next 2 years and the rebuilding will be delayed. If she's not willing to do that, then I expect her to finish out her contract. Don't think she'll be fired.
Are there parallels here to the end of the Grentz era? I wasn't following RU bball much at that time (had just finished school, moved out of the area, first job, etc). From what I've read she left on her own to go to Illinois, she wasn't fired (is that correct)? I know her record her last season wasn't great (17-13 or something) but in the preceding years the team had done well. Did the admin force her out? Had recruiting dried up? I know Stringers first couple of years were pretty weak, did Grentz leave an empty cupboard or did players transfer?
Are there parallels here to the end of the Grentz era? I wasn't following RU bball much at that time (had just finished school, moved out of the area, first job, etc). From what I've read she left on her own to go to Illinois, she wasn't fired (is that correct)? I know her record her last season wasn't great (17-13 or something) but in the preceding years the team had done well. Did the admin force her out? Had recruiting dried up? I know Stringers first couple of years were pretty weak, did Grentz leave an empty cupboard or did players transfer?
I think there are big time similarities to Grentz. Both were far from their glory days and both were operating in an environment where the game was changing and their strength as coaches were now weaknesses. Both had recruiting declining and declining attendance and both had fans questioning whether we should go in a new direction. Both were not winning at previous levels but winning just enough
As noted above, I understand the analysis that says RU would be better off with someone new now, rather than waiting two years, but unless the department is willing to pony up a salary that's probably more than CVS is getting today, I think that analysis is wrong. To overcome the facilities issues in recruiting, you'd need a real star.
How about Stringer sounding off in the Home News Tribune,"the culture has to change here with our players." It sounds like Flood he was losing the locker room and that spilled out in effort. Ash said he saw that the RU players were not trying. That is exactly what happened on the court yesterday. That is on the coach,they recruited the players. Tired of Stringer blaming everybody else but herself. Time to look inward not outward.
I don't think enough is made of the lack of modern facilities in comparision to Rutgers peers along with how much recruits might take that into account when selecting a school to play for
Maybe the best plan for the program is to hire an assistant that it in tune and on the cutting edge of offense and have them work under Stringer for the final years of her contract but also as a successorship kind of lidea.
Maybe the best plan for the program is to hire an assistant that it in tune and on the cutting edge of offense and have them work under Stringer for the final years of her contract but also as a successorship kind of lidea.
That usually doesn't work, unless it's a long time assistant that is willing to wait.
The natives are getting restless now and some wanted the assistants changed before this season and a designated replacement might not get the support if RU doesn't have a great season.
That designated heir to the throne might just get disinherited by the fans and be part of the clean sweep out the door for all assistants those fans are demanding.
That doesn't really answer my comment.
At a certain level, what I'm saying is that the program likely would be better off enduring a couple more years of decline than replacing CVS now unless RU were to step up to hire someone who is comparable to CVS in 1991, and at a comparable (in today's terms) salary. I worry about a scenario in which she gets replaced by, oh, one of the current assistants or a mediocre mid-major coach who has won a couple of conference tournaments in the last decade and gotten crushed in the first round of the NCAAs, and the program enters an essentially permanent decline because the new coach can't overcome the facilities issues.
I agree.
Facilities need to be upgraded before thinking about replacing Stringer with someone that doesn't have a strong enough name to bring recruits in and only hoping they can. That might be a recipe for disaster.
Or Hobbs will need to overpay a known name that can overcome the existing facilities and get the recruits come in like Vivian used to do:
with her name overcoming the facilities other programs can show the HS talent RU's after.
Regarding the first part of your post - I doubt it is free of financial constraints. However, when the NCAA gets around to designating such things, WBB is the premier women's sport. Others are certainly increasing in visibility and I would say popularity, but WBB drives the bus on the women's side. Coaches salaries are high. Here are some 2015 Big !2 salaries - (Mulkey's isn't public) -
- Coale, Oklahoma, 1.1 million plus up to $300K bonus
- Fennely, Iowa State, $625,000 plus up to $300K bonus
- Carey, WV, $525,000 plus up to $245K bonus
- Mittie, K State (hired from TCU) at $515,000 with $195 potential bonus
- going down to Jim Littell at OK State whose base is $350,000.
Compare those salaries to other sports. Also, remember WBB players get full ride scholarships per the NCAA, in other women's sports a certain number of scholarships are divided between the various team members.
To your 2nd point about the WNIT, I agree from an RU point of view. From many programs, it would be the only sniff of a postseason in years. Its all perspective,