Bruce Weber Gets Outcoached-AGAIN
1) How the hell can your team, in what is basically a home game, be down 30-11 after 10 minutes?
2) Why, after your team fought back to get a 6 point lead with 9 minutes left in the game, do you put Tisdale back in the game, even though he has 4 fouls? He fouled out right away!
3) Why, down 2 and with the ball for the last shot, do you not call time out to organize?
Someone tell Coach Guenther that his cheap hire is working out real well! NIT Baby!
Meantime, the Chicago media is noticing this garbage...and asks why St. Guenther gave Bruce Del Negro a pay raise....
2) Why, after your team fought back to get a 6 point lead with 9 minutes left in the game, do you put Tisdale back in the game, even though he has 4 fouls? He fouled out right away!
3) Why, down 2 and with the ball for the last shot, do you not call time out to organize?
Someone tell Coach Guenther that his cheap hire is working out real well! NIT Baby!
Meantime, the Chicago media is noticing this garbage...and asks why St. Guenther gave Bruce Del Negro a pay raise....
posted by Fire Ron Guenther at 1:55 PM
27 Comments:
Wow, the linked article is more ignorant than what frg blogs here and that's saying something. Talk about simplistic and short on logic, this guy is almost a bigger embarassment to my alma mater than frg. Once again that's saying something. I suspect that had no subject to write about and created one and then attempted to make it controversial.
Short on logic?
The article linked to asks why RG gave Weber a 50% pay raise (in a recession, mind you) when there's absolutely no justification. How is this short on logic? In running a business, you don't just give 50% raises when there's no risk of someone leaving, and a raise certainly hasn't been warranted as a reward for Weber's performance over the last 3 years.
If the basketball team spins to 6-12 in the Big Ten (entirely possible if you've watched with an open mind), Weber should absolutely be on the hot seat, with termination in 2010-11 if the team doesn't win an NCAA game. In what universe is that a coach you give a 50% pay raise to?
We will all have a much better idea where this team will shuffle out in the Big Ten in the next week (1st set of games against Iowa/Ind/PSU). If they sweep those three (and they should) there's a very good chance they finish in the top three or four as this year they get all of those teams twice. This team is clearly a step down from MSU and Purdue right now, but there is a lot of talent there.
Kevin you are an IDIOT. How about at $1.5M Weber is still middle of the pack in the B10 in pay. And despite your disparaging remarks on his coaching, one of which is pure speculation, he is one of the best coaches in the league.
6-12 in the B10, what a DB comment! Want to place a bet on that one?
No, I don't, because I said "if" (as in it's possible) and did not make a prediction (what I actually believe). For example, I predicted the football team to go 7-5, but 3-9 was certainly a contingency that should have been considered. I would expect - and bet - on the basketball team going 8-8 or better in Big Ten play. How it makes me a DB for acknowledging the possibility of 6-10 is beyond me.
Weber is not one of the better coaches in the Big Ten. Izzo, Painter, Matta, and Ryan are superior coaches to Weber.
More importantly, it's completely irrelevant where he ranks in pay to other Big Ten coaches. Pay raises aren't determined by where your pay is relative to what similar employees are making. They're relative to demand of the particular employee's services. If you're running a business, and you have a good employee working for $x, you do not give him a 50% raise when there is absolutely no threat of him going anywhere else.
All of this is common sense, both to basketball and business. Your failure to grasp these basic concepts makes me wonder if you're a DIA employee.
Kevin you are an IDIOT!
66-36 in the Big 10 and Bruce Weber isn't one of the better coaches in the league? You must be taking math lessons from FRG!
I really don't quite understand the Weber hate. The guy had one losing season in 11 full seasons of coaching, with winning percentage of 73% at Illinois and 68% overall. As was pointed out his Big Ten record is 66-36 and he has plenty of tournament wins. Guenther and the football program I completely understand, but Weber?
It's not "Weber hate." It's realism. I actually think Weber is a fine coach for Illinois, but it's important to recognize that he's not an elite coach and that the rest of college basketball doesn't think that highly of him.
If you want to talk Big Ten W-L records (which is not the best standard), Weber (.647) is 3rd, well behind Izzo (.692) and Ryan (.702) and virtually tied with Matta (.643). <80th percentile is typically not "one of the best," even if we were to strictly use Big Ten W-L records. (Who needs math lessons, again?)
Of course, there's more to the evaluation than records. The most important one is that the teams these men inherited is a huge variable, not a constant. Matt Painter took over a Purdue program in the trash and has compiled a 97-50 record, which in my opinion is a bigger accomplishment than Weber's record taking over a Big Ten title-caliber program. Matta took over a program on probation and has done everything Weber has while being a better recruiter.
I'm not saying fire the guy tomorrow; I'm saying he is what he is: a mid-pack Big Ten coach in no demand. Being realistic doesn't mean I hate the man. Sheesh.
Kevin you are an IDIOT. Your arguments are beyond flawed.
You are the one that posted Matta as being a superior coach and now you post that his record is worse! And your entire response to mine is using coaching records to debate my arguments!
You posted that Weber wasn't one of the better coaches in the B10. I posted his record, which is far in excess of .500 which means that he is BETTER than most.
Than you come back with your own definition of what the "best" coaches are. And after you create this definition out of thin air you criticize my math ability because I called him one of the best! Me disagreeing with your conclusion has NOTHING to do with my math abilities.
And for further justification that Weber isn't one of the better coaches you supply the (il)logical comment that others around the country don't consider him to be one! You flunk logic and math!
You are an effing IDIOT!
"I'm not saying fire the guy tomorrow; I'm saying he is what he is: a mid-pack Big Ten coach in no demand. Being realistic doesn't mean I hate the man. Sheesh."
Once again...how does 66-36 and .647 make him a mid-pack B10 coach? For your information, the average B10 record of all B10 coaches is .500.
I'm a bit lost as to why your argumentative abilities begin and end with calling me an idiot and spouting utter nonsense.
Here's what was said in the 3rd post:
"[Weber] is one of the best coaches in the league."
Now, from the next post:
"[you said] Weber wasn't one of the better coaches in the B10."
Notice how the standard changes from "one of the best" to "one of the better coaches in the B10?"
"One of the best" and "One of the better" are DIFFERENT STANDARDS! One of the better = > average, which Weber probably is. "One of the best" = superior, which Weber is not.
Jesus tap-dancing Christ, this isn't difficult to comprehend, yet somehow, you fail to do so.
"...how does 66-36 and .647 make him a mid-pack B10 coach? For your information, the average B10 record of all B10 coaches is .500."
Yes, and that would be a great indicator IF PROGRAMS WERE EQUAL.
My point was that if we look at records, Weber is 3rd (4th if you don't count the 2 games this season where Illinois has played patsies and OSU has lost), which is not "one of the best" by objective standards (because, realistically, you could never say "I was one of the best students in my class" if you were below the 80th percentile).
If you are rational and look beyond Big Ten records, Weber is somewhere in the 4th-6th range in terms of overall coaching ability, including recruiting, player development, in-game management, etc.
In neither scenario is he "one of the best," which would go to Izzo, Ryan, and Matta, and frankly, there's not much argument against those three being superior coaches to Weber.
Does anyone here actually believe Weber will take us back to a Final Four?
"If you are rational and look beyond Big Ten records, Weber is somewhere in the 4th-6th range in terms of overall coaching ability, including recruiting, player development, in-game management, etc."
I see your plan, throw in the subjective standards to help make your arguments.
And all of his 4th-6th range coaching abilities add up to the 3rd best record among B10 coaches! Isn't winning the goal? Or do you chose to change the subject because you have no answer to the question? How does 66-36 equal middle of the pack coaching?
"More importantly, it's completely irrelevant where he ranks in pay to other Big Ten coaches. Pay raises aren't determined by where your pay is relative to what similar employees are making. They're relative to demand of the particular employee's services. If you're running a business, and you have a good employee working for $x, you do not give him a 50% raise when there is absolutely no threat of him going anywhere else."
More cluelessness. Yes, compensation is driven, in part, by demand. But to suggest that most employers don't try to pay close to market value is absurd! employers try to compensate their workers fairly
Kevin, you really have strained the bounds of credibility.
Stating that Weber being underpaid 50% is acceptable because he isn't "in demand." Or that becasue of some circumstances he isn't one of the better coaches in the league despite having the third best record among B10 coaches.
These arguments are beyond ridiculous.
I don't know which is funnier, the Hudson, OH poster making really stupid responses, or the fact that the Hudson, OH poster feels the need to make his/her stupid responses over three separate posts within 13 minutes.
"Anonymous said...
I don't know which is funnier, the Hudson, OH poster making really stupid responses, or the fact that the Hudson, OH poster feels the need to make his/her stupid responses over three separate posts within 13 minutes."
Actually, hands down this response is more stupid. No content and pointless criticism, it stinks of frg.
Well, Hudson, it's not like your responses have much in the way of content, either.
"But to suggest that most employers don't try to pay close to market value is absurd! employers try to compensate their workers fairly."
What in the sam hell do you think fair market value is, Hudson? Fair market value is what the MARKET FAIRLY VALUES the product at! Sorry to burst your bubble, but employers only pay market value because its in their competitive advantage to do so, not because any employee is entitled to any specific salary.
For college coaches, market value is dependent on the individual. They are not a generic commodity like oil or gold where "a Big Ten basketball coach should make x." They're more like CEOs in this respect than generic accountants or janitors.
In any event, fair market value for Bruce Weber has not increased since mid-2005. Looking at the schools that pay a million or more to their basketball coach, none of them would have any interest in Weber. Therefore, Weber is being paid well above market value.
Here is a question from the doofus from Hudson, Ohio: How many other Big 10 programs would trade their coach right now for Bruce Mid Major? iowa. Maybe Michigan. and that is it.
" Anonymous said...
Here is a question from the doofus from Hudson, Ohio: How many other Big 10 programs would trade their coach right now for Bruce Mid Major? iowa. Maybe Michigan. and that is it."
OMG, frg took to heart my comment about not providing content and this is his best attempt! Yeah, who would want to have the coach with the third best B10 record during his tenure? A coach with a couple of back to back top 20 recruiting classes this year and next?
Your Guenther hatred is to the point where you make statements this absurd?
What can I say, Kevin you are an IDIOT!
Attempting to sort through your gibberish. Compensation in most organizations is not based strictly on the possibility that an employeee will leave. In larger part it's based on past performance and over his career, including last year, Weber's is above average.
There are for more/larger bonuses among CEOs for performance than those intended to promote retention. And by your simple logic, Joe Paterno should be the lowest paid football coach in the B10!
"There are for more/larger bonuses among CEOs for performance than those intended to promote retention. And by your simple logic, Joe Paterno should be the lowest paid football coach in the B10!"
Placing an incentive for strong performance promotes retention, dipwad (it's also retroactive, i.e., the CEOs accept lower base pay with future incentives. This isn't the case with Weber because his is a 50% increase in future salary.)
Also, Paterno wouldn't be the lowest paid coach because PSU's concern is keeping Penn State's successful football staff intact, which includes not only Paterno but also Tom Bradley, Larry Johnson, etc. PSU has to pay those guys top assistant dollar to keep them around, and they naturally have to pay Paterno more money than them. That said, Mark D'Antonio still makes more money than him.
Nice try, Hudson. At least you've moved on to making counterarguments.
Joe Paterno does not do anything for the program, he is merely a PR figurehead. If based on job responsibility, he should be the lowest paid coach in the B10
"Placing an incentive for strong performance promotes retention, dipwad (it's also retroactive, i.e., the CEOs accept lower base pay with future incentives. This isn't the case with Weber because his is a 50% increase in future salary.)"
Retention bonuses are intended to aid in retaining employees as the money is based on several years of continuing employment. Pay for performance is based on just what it says. Rewarding employees for past performance incentives them to continue to perform in the future.
Whether it's incentive pay or base pay for performance is irrelevant to what the money is intended to accomplish. If it's base pay it's paid out over the year, if it's incentive pay it's paid out annually. Either way it's not promoting long term retention.
"Also, Paterno wouldn't be the lowest paid coach because PSU's concern is keeping Penn State's successful football staff intact, which includes not only Paterno but also Tom Bradley, Larry Johnson, etc. PSU has to pay those guys top assistant dollar to keep them around, and they naturally have to pay Paterno more money than them. That said, Mark D'Antonio still makes more money than him.
I see you have a new theory on how pay for head coaches is determined! Anyway, this is weak as PSU pays Paterno similar money to Zook and they pay their coordinators ~1/3 of that. There's lot's of room to cut JoePa's pay and still have him making more than his staff. Pretty thin "logic" to think that they don't pay Paterno based on his past performance.
"Joe Paterno does not do anything for the program, he is merely a PR figurehead. If based on job responsibility, he should be the lowest paid coach in the B10"
The obvious answer is that his compensation is based on the past performance of his team, including the recent past. Anyone who thinks that the only reason organizations compensate someone is to keep them from leaving is silly. Or they've been working for the wrong employer as that is certainly not my experience.
"Anonymous said...
Does anyone here actually believe Weber will take us back to a Final Four?"
Let me count the number of coaches who have not been to 2 final fours. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc., etc., etc., etc.
Why does Zook call Ron Guenther "Coach"? I have asked dozens of people and no one knows.
Post a Comment
<< Home