Michael Kelly Press Conference Today at 2:00pm

[NewEnglandBull]

1 hour ago, 79 Bull said:

I have to give it to him for being prepared. Comparing CBG's first 4 years record (57-66) to CJF's first 4 years record (39-72) was kind of genius to talk about why we need to stick with coaches for a longer period of time.  Weather you agree with that comparison or not, you have to give him credit on his prep.

GO BULLS!

Yes, that was a good moment for Kelly.

[SantaBull]

6 hours ago, BullyPulpit said:

This is about trying to build positive momentum. These extensions give him a reason to have a press conference and show off the progress made on the IPF. It also allows him to publicly speak about the efforts behind getting the OCS built. PR 101, fellas. This is a smart and timely move that will garner enough attention for the local rag to cover the story as well. 

That's a pretty big commitment to make to coaches just to give yourself an excuse to call a press conference and talk about other things.

[SantaBull]

2 hours ago, 79 Bull said:

I have to give it to him for being prepared. Comparing CBG's first 4 years record (57-66) to CJF's first 4 years record (39-72) was kind of genius to talk about why we need to stick with coaches for a longer period of time.  Weather you agree with that comparison or not, you have to give him credit on his prep.

GO BULLS!

Its a bit of a strawman argument IMO - bad coaches in the short term typically turn into bad coaches long term, CJF is an exception. Plus in WBB there is no pressure - its not a revenue sport and you can afford to let things play out. If the argument for extending Gregory is to bring up another coach then he has no argument. Talk about Gregory's strengths and accomplishments that warrant an extension.

No one was coming to take Gregory away and there are dozens of better coaches in the low to mid-majors that him. He got a gift from Kelly.

Edited January 6, 2022 by SantaBull

[79 Bull]

4 minutes ago, SantaBull said:

Its a bit of a strawman argument IMO - bad coaches in the short term typically turn into bad coaches long term, CJF is an exception. Plus in WBB there is no pressure - its not a revenue sport and you can afford to let things play out. If the argument for extending Gregory is to bring up another coach then he has no argument. Talk about Gregory's strengths and accomplishments that warrant an extension.

No one was coming to take Gregory away and there are dozens of better coaches in the low to mid-majors that him. He got a gift from Kelly.

Can’t disagree.

[jg233]

There is no coming back from this for Kelly if it doesn't work out.

[gibbsak]

Watch the press conference.  We are lucky to have VPMK. 

He feels called to be here.  Has a vision. Is a leader.  He's gone all-in on that vision and I hope it pays off.

[michibull]

55 minutes ago, SantaBull said:

bad coaches in the short term typically turn into bad coaches long term, CJF is an exception. Plus in WBB there is no pressure

True, but if you look at CBG’s coaching resume, he has been reasonably successful over his 17 years as a HC. I agree that I’m not excited for his extension, but he has had anything but a short term career. 

[Ghostbuster]

2 hours ago, Triple B said:

This is the kind of stuff that's maddening about this place at times. You seriously think the extensions were a reward for results ........ ?

Let's break this down like a cardboard box....the normal context for a contract extension is "a job well done".

And given that the (on field) results were so poor that's why the average person (who only views on field results) is at best confused and the optics are awful.  The perception is he was rewarded for 3 wins over two years.  

Now based off the presser today, Kellys point of view is two fold

1) Scott has accomplishments and or explanations that warranted the extension (#1 transfer recruiting class, good fundraising, buy-in of Kelly's long term vision, lost year due to covid, new transfer rules, NIL, existing NCAA violations, good academic results)

2) Stability and alignment of athletics as a whole is more important than individual, short term evaluations (hence department wide extensions at same time, focus on coaches working thru new challenges like NIL as a whole, and [speculation on my part here] coaches defending each other on Twitter and showing up at each other's games)

So I get it.  Michael Kelly did not actually think "Durrrrr, 3-18 is good enough, here's a reward".  BUT, and I cannot stress this enough, the objective reality is that wins and losses, like it or not, have been and always will be the primary driver of hirings and firings. So Kelly doesn't want to appear to be rewarding all those losses, but given the way the world works, he is.  Proof by counter example:

Suppose we continue having 2 win seasons for the next 5 years but Scott keeps delivering on all the other things Kelly likes (recruiting, fundraising, gpa/graduation rates, etc).  Will Scott be fired?  The answer is yes and you know it.  So if the record is used to fire you, it's implicitly used to determine whether to retain you, and Kelly just decided to retain a 3-18 coach....

THUS people can accurately say "wow he was rewarded for 3-18" while Kelly and those that think like him can simultaneously say "well it was for a different reason" and you have a paradox.  A Schrodinger's coach if you will, someone who was both rewarded and not rewarded for his win loss record.

[SantaBull]

33 minutes ago, michibull said:

True, but if you look at CBG’s coaching resume, he has been reasonably successful over his 17 years as a HC. I agree that I’m not excited for his extension, but he has had anything but a short term career. 

Has he been successful? Looking at his Wikipedia page he hasn't finished higher than 7th in his conference since 2009.

Brian Gregory - Wikipedia

 

[hightechbull]

The volume was way too low to hear, so I stopped watching it after a few minutes.

Personally, I find press conferences boring, and I would rather just read a transcript.  That is a lot faster and does not take as much of my free time.

If Coach Scott is meeting other goals of Kelly outside of wins, then I can see a justification for his extension.  I can also see it as a way to keep Scott in the fold.  While most D1 programs would probably pass on hiring him as a head coach, he could leave to take an assistant job, especially if it paid more money, if he felt disrespected by USF.

I have worked professionally long enough where I have seen projects go belly up no matter how hard the leader tries to make the project successful.  Sometimes the leader is saddled with team members who are not up to the level needed to make the project succeed, but for multiple reasons the leader cannot clean house.  The leader is stuck with the cards dealt to him, and if the organization is smart and not vindictive, they will see through that and take that into consideration when evaluating the performance of the leader.

I am personally going through a similar situation in my professional life.  My project from the past year did not complete all its goals.  A lot of it is from stupid decisions made above me and several team members that are barely qualified to wear an apron and flip burgers for a living.  However, I am stuck with those clowns and I cannot fire them without a lengthy and time-consuming process.  If the company takes that into consideration in my annual review, then I would be fine with that.  However, if they punish me with reduced compensation because of factors out of my control, I guarantee that my resume will be on the block.  If I would leave this year's project will definitely fail.

I see the same situation at USF.  If USF said "everyone gets an extension but Scott" then I could see him planning his exit strategy, and his Clemson connections could lead to a better paying job even if it is not a head coaching job.  That would start the downward spiral for USF football.

I am not saying that he gets a pass forever, but there are situations out of his control, and he did inherit a team lacking in talent and discipline.