Will Cuonzo Get Fired If He Misses the Tourney?

Haha yeah overthinking. Incidentally I agree. They could make one, but it's a roll of the dice, with a small percentage of dice rolls coming up winners.

I'm in favor if this over nothing, should the need arise. Or when. Whichever.

 

So do I get one of those GURU titles like on VN when Pearl is rehired if Cuonzo is let go this year?

 

how is that even possible?

 

Card is exaggerating, but a search firm was not hired and Hart had a lot of donated flights.

Having Gundy pick him up at the airport cut costs down too

 

Past performance is greatest indicator of future success.

I don't see how the default assumption could be anything other than to expect another calamitous, short-sighted, save-a-penny-to-cost-a-dollar error, at this point. It's no longer just what we do, it's who we are.

 

Cuonzo isn't even entertaining. He is about as boring as you can be and still draw breath.

 

agreed, but I don't really care $0.02 about this if it comes with wins. It certainly doesn't endear him to people when the wins aren't coming, though.

 

Exactly. If he were bringing home SEC championships or runner-ups and top 4 seeds in the tourney and getting to the Sweet 16/Elite Eight, he could be a freaking robot and I wouldn't care all that much.

But lose and be so dull people cannot tell if you are on the bench or if it is a cardboard cutout?

 

I'm fairly certain he didn't spend $1,000, and I'm not exaggerating.

 

I don't doubt that

 

I have zero confidence in Dave Hart. He is an idiot who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. The smarmy pos will have to stumble into a solid hire; I'll not be holding any breath.

 

I'm not sure of the necessity to hire a $100K search firm

 

I feel like hiring a good coach, is a pretty easy thing to do. Even if you don't know the first thing about basketball, you could make a good hire with a really simple "dummy" approach of looking for small-conference coaches that took over teams that were terrible and made them appreciably better in short order. This would not take weeks of research. And if you hired a guy based purely on the criteria of winning % improvement per year, and possibly also taking into account the history of the program, you'd probably end up making a pretty good hire.

A simple approach like this might have pegged Bruce Pearl as the guy. And, hated though he may be on this message board, he was a good basketball coach. He immediately started winning games.

All I'm getting at here is that even if we assume the people in charge of making the hire have very little idea of what they're doing, they could still make a good hire. It just really isn't that hard to spot a good coach.

 

I already gave you your guru status.

 

Cuonzo Martin took over Missouri St with nothing and had them pretty good by his 4th year. It's not that easy.

 

All good and fair points.

But recall, the same people who hired Cuonzo, will be hiring his replacement.

 

there are certainly ample examples of shitty ADs lucking into once in a lifetime coaches and ample examples of good ADs that hired lousy coaches.

 

this is interesting because we are having the same debate on the cal board. my response i'd rather roll the dice that the incompetents might luck into a decent hire than continue with a guaranteed potential upside of above mediocrity.

 

For once we agree

 

Cuonzo's predecessor won 59% of his games. Cuonzo won 59% of his games.
Cuonzo's predecessor won 58% of his conference games. Cuonzo won 48% of his conference games.

Cuonzo wouldn't have been hired under the super-simple dummy approach.