Article on why Gary needs to be fired

[BaltimoreTerp]

I wonder if that's the logic my wife used when she settled on me: my friends found bum husbands, so I better settle on this guy because I could do worse! Turns out her friends got bum husbands because they were ugly, whiny, and high maintenance...and not because finding a decent husband is impossible. I'm sure glad that no one came along to tell her that she could have done a whole lot better...

So those guys WEREN'T considered "hot" coaches and smart hires at the time? Everyone knew they would fail?

[Sports Guy]

I don't think its likely you can find a better coach than Gary.

I do think you could find a better recruiter.

The problem is this...what if you go out and hire a well respected young coach but one that doesn't do the job here? Then, you go through the same cycle.

Now, maybe you can get lucky and hire a guy like Brownwell, who I think is going to be excellent for Clemson.

I get the idea...You don't not do this just because it could fail. Its just something you have to consider when thinking about this.

That being said, I think Gary should have at least one more year, especially if J Williams comes back.

[BaltimoreTerp]

The problem is this...what if you go out and hire a well respected young coach but one that doesn't do the job here? Then, you go through the same cycle.

Now, maybe you can get lucky and hire a guy like Brownwell, who I think is going to be excellent for Clemson.

I get the idea...You don't not do this just because it could fail. Its just something you have to consider when thinking about this.

That's my whole point. Why is it assumed that the next coach is DEFINITELY going to be better?

It's all about analyzing and debating the risk. If the university decides that, in their opinion, the chances of a new coach bringing the program back to the heights demanded by certain fans is worth the risk of continuing stagnation or failure under either that coach or Williams, that would be a decision I would respect even if I still didn't like it.

But too many in this discussion are simply ignoring the reality of the risk involved.

[Dr. FLK]

So those guys WEREN'T considered "hot" coaches and smart hires at the time? Everyone knew they would fail?

The "sexy" hire isn't always a smart hire, is it? I know the counter argument is always "what if the next guy is worse". If the next guy is worse, than you have compounded your bad decision by making another bad decision. But, what if the next guy is better? What if you do your due diligence and do something crazy like - oh I don't know - hire the right guy? What if you don't make it a panic move, but instead you go after the right guy who fits the goals of the program and the university.

IMO, you don't make a move because you know the next guy you hire is the "right guy". You make your move because you are currently paying a guy $2mil to do half the job you're paying him for, and he's not getting the results (over an extended period of time) that you deem acceptable. Once (and if) that decision is made you perform a thorough coaching search. If that search fails, well then you have the wrong people making those decisions too. There ARE coaches out there who could thrive here. No doubt about it. If they make a change, you just have to hope they have the ability to find one.

[BaltimoreTerp]

The "sexy" hire isn't always a smart hire, is it? I know the counter argument is always "what if the next guy is worse". If the next guy is worse, than you have compounded your bad decision by making another bad decision. But, what if the next guy is better? What if you do your due diligence and do something crazy like - oh I don't know - hire the right guy? What if you don't make it a panic move, but instead you go after the right guy who fits the goals of the program and the university.

IMO, you don't make a move because you know the next guy you hire is the "right guy". You make your move because you are currently paying a guy $2mil to do half the job you're paying him for, and he's not getting the results (over an extended period of time) that you deem acceptable. Once (and if) that decision is made you perform a thorough coaching search. If that search fails, well then you have the wrong people making those decisions too. There ARE coaches out there who could thrive here. No doubt about it. If they make a change, you just have to hope they have the ability to find one.

See, this is essentially exactly what I'm arguing. However, the one thing you are still a bit off about is in how sure you are that we WILL find the right one. There is no guarantee, or really even a high-percentage chance, that the next coach will see success over stagnation/failure. That's the same for the next coach, and the next ten.

So you still need to balance out the chances that you can get the guy who has done it before to do it again, versus the chances that you can find someone else to do the same thing.

[Dr. FLK]

See, this is essentially exactly what I'm arguing. However, the one thing you are still a bit off about is in how sure you are that we WILL find the right one. There is no guarantee, or really even a high-percentage chance, that the next coach will see success over stagnation/failure. That's the same for the next coach, and the next ten.

So you still need to balance out the chances that you can get the guy who has done it before to do it again, versus the chances that you can find someone else to do the same thing.

Absolutely there is no guarantee. But, I'm also not positive he needs to go either. I'd try a whole lot harder than (it appears) they have tried to get him to change his recruiting ways first. But, if that is done - and it becomes apparent his recruiting tactics will not improve - then the decision is inevitable IMO. And, once that happens, all you can do is maximize your resources and make the best decision possible.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Absolutely there is no guarantee. But, I'm also not positive he needs to go either. I'd try a whole lot harder than (it appears) they have tried to get him to change his recruiting ways first. But, if that is done - and it becomes apparent his recruiting tactics will not improve - then the decision is inevitable IMO. And, once that happens, all you can do is maximize your resources and make the best decision possible.

Agreed.

[Frobby]

Neither of those school have the program history and recruiting area that Maryland has. We should always be a better program then those schools.

Yes, things could get Bob Wade worse, but that's not going to happen.

How many more notches are there for a program like Maryland? There's no reason that school with the local basketball talent that Maryland has should ever have sunk to the level the program is currently at. Unless they go out an hire a Bob Wade-type guy, which they won't, Maryland should find a great up and coming coach that should bring a breath of fresh air and energy into this stagnant program.

I think you greatly overrate Maryland's legacy and underrate where they are now compared to most schools. I must have missed all those Final Four appearances Maryland had before Gary Williams arrived -- oh wait, there were none!

Meanwhile, as I said, you seem to think Maryland is at a much worse level than it is. And, I think you greatly overrate the odds that a new coach will come in and outperform Williams, and underrate the chances that his replacement will be disaster. Bob Wade is hardly an isolated example. Look what happened when older coaches were replaced at DePaul, St.John's, Houston, Texas Tech, or Indiana. I could give lots of other examples.

Again, none of this is to argue that replacing Williams is unthinkable. But you do need to think about the upside and the downside. Matt Doherty, anyone?

[Sports Guy]

I think you greatly overrate Maryland's legacy and underrate where they are now compared to most schools. I must have missed all those Final Four appearances Maryland had before Gary Williams arrived -- oh wait, there were none!

Meanwhile, as I said, you seem to think Maryland is at a much worse level than it is. And, I think you greatly overrate the odds that a new coach will come in and outperform Williams, and underrate the chances that his replacement will be disaster. Bob Wade is hardly an isolated example. Look what happened when older coaches were replaced at DePaul, St.John's, Houston, Texas Tech, or Indiana. I could give lots of other examples.

Again, none of this is to argue that replacing Williams is unthinkable. But you do need to think about the upside and the downside. Matt Doherty, anyone?

I think everything you are saying is correct.

However, in Tony's defense, I think his point is that while there may be downside, that the downside doesn't outweigh the "risk" of keeping Gary around.

Now, you can disagree with that but I don't think Tony is naive enough to think that a new coach will come in, wave a magic wand and that everything will be perfect...he knows its risky...But its the idea of making a change and that he feels that is what is needed for the program to progress forward.

(hope i didnt put words in your mouth Tony...this is just what I think you and others are getting at)

[Frobby]

I think everything you are saying is correct.

However, in Tony's defense, I think his point is that while there may be downside, that the downside doesn't outweigh the "risk" of keeping Gary around.

Now, you can disagree with that but I don't think Tony is naive enough to think that a new coach will come in, wave a magic wand and that everything will be perfect...he knows its risky...But its the idea of making a change and that he feels that is what is needed for the program to progress forward.

(hope i didnt put words in your mouth Tony...this is just what I think you and others are getting at)

That is all fair enough. But where I differ from Tony is that he seems to underestimate the downside, and feels that Maryland is viewed in the coaching world as a historically great program that will attract the greatest young minds in the coaching profession. I also think he underrates what the Terps have done, even recently, under Williams. I don't see ranking third in the ACC in league wins, and going to the NCAA's 3 times in the last 5 years, as "mediocre." It's not the high point of his tenure at Maryland, but it certainly isn't terrible, either. I bet if you compiled a list of the number of schools who have gone to the NCAA 3+ times in the last 5 years, the list wouldn't be that long.

[Sports Guy]

That is all fair enough. But where I differ from Tony is that he seems to underestimate the downside, and feels that Maryland is viewed in the coaching world as a historically great program that will attract the greatest young minds in the coaching profession. I also think he underrates what the Terps have done, even recently, under Williams. I don't see ranking third in the ACC in league wins, and going to the NCAA's 3 times in the last 5 years, as "mediocre." It's not the high point of his tenure at Maryland, but it certainly isn't terrible, either. I bet if you compiled a list of the number of schools who have gone to the NCAA 3+ times in the last 5 years, the list wouldn't be that long.

MD has a decent history but if the job became available, there would be a lot of coaches after it i would assume.

[Frobby]

I bet if you compiled a list of the number of schools who have gone to the NCAA 3+ times in the last 5 years, the list wouldn't be that long.

OK, I compiled a list from the six "power conferences" -- ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, SEC and Pac 10. Of the 73 schools in those conferences:

12 teams have gone all 5 years (Kansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Louisville, Pitt, Marquette, Villanova, Purdue, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Tennessee, Duke)

11 teams have gone 4 times (Georgetown, Notre Dame, West Virginia, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Ohio State, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, UNC, Clemson)

9 teams have gone 3 times (Kansas State, Missouri, Syracuse, UConn, Washington, Illinois, Florida, Florida State, Maryland)

So, that puts Maryland in the top 44% or so of "power conference" schools. Pretty consistent with where they rank in the ACC.

[Dr. FLK]

OK, I compiled a list from the six "power conferences" -- ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, SEC and Pac 10. Of the 73 schools in those conferences:

12 teams have gone all 5 years (Kansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Louisville, Pitt, Marquette, Villanova, Purdue, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Tennessee, Duke)

11 teams have gone 4 times (Georgetown, Notre Dame, West Virginia, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Ohio State, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, UNC, Clemson)

9 teams have gone 3 times (Kansas State, Missouri, Syracuse, UConn, Washington, Illinois, Florida, Florida State, Maryland)

So, that puts Maryland in the top 44% or so of "power conference" schools. Pretty consistent with where they rank in the ACC.

And pretty mediocre. You don't often here the chant "We're Number 4 out of 9! We're Number 4 out of 9!".

[Gofannon]

Doesn't it really come down to this?

The status quo is 4 NCAA tournaments in the past 8 years with no Sweet Sixteen appearances during that time. There was no postseason play this year, and the recruiting class for next year has been rated in the middle of the pack in the ACC. There is some young talent currently on the team, but the team needs Jordan Williams to come back if they want to have any inside presence at all next year.

If you think Gary can turn the program around and get it back to where it was from the early 90's through 2003, you want him to stay and you think people are crazy when they talk about getting rid of him.

If you think the status quo is what things will look like for the rest of Gary's days here, you have a choice. If you think a new coach can get Maryland back to where they've been for most of the last 40 years under Lefty and Gary, you make a change. If you think the status quo is where our program will settle, or you are more concerned that a new coach either won't improve things or will make things worse, you ride it out with Gary unless things get really bad.

If you think this is the beginning of the end for Gary and things will go downhill from here if he stays, you make a change.

[Frobby]

And pretty mediocre. You don't often here the chant "We're Number 4 out of 9! We're Number 4 out of 9!".

I think "mediocre" is the wrong word. The definition of "mediocre" is "of moderate or low quality." The worst you can say about Gary is that is has been "somewhat above average" of late.

I'm going to say this for the fifth time: I'm not trying to argue that Gary must stay. I'm simply pointing out that there's a pretty good chance that if he is replaced, his replacement won't do as well as he's done, even recently. So, you have to think hard about it, especially in light of what Gary has meant to this program.