Splash hire

clicheusername3 said:
Where's that message board guy I hate thread at? Message Board guy I hate: buzzkill guy that posts on every discussion "winning cures everything" "winning will solve world hunger" "winning will prevent global warming"...dudes get in the discussion...
Click to expand...

That guy is probably hanging out with the message board guy I hate...the "everything our rival does is better than what we're doing" guy...oh wait, he'd be here if that were the case...
 
clicheusername3 said:
Where's that message board guy I hate thread at? Message Board guy I hate: buzzkill guy that posts on every discussion "winning cures everything" "winning will solve world hunger" "winning will prevent global warming"...dudes get in the discussion...
Click to expand...

do you really give a **** if the guy meets all three of your criteria and he is a miserable failure in the most important category? how did KF meet the criteria back in '98? Not to hot, I'm guessing.
 
imported_ankle23 said:
do you really give a **** if the guy meets all three of your criteria and he is a miserable failure in the most important category? how did KF meet the criteria back in '98? Not to hot, I'm guessing.
Click to expand...

Where's that message board guy I hate thread? Message board guy I hate: Guy that somehow ties KF or football to any subject. "Well based on the football team the basketball team should be great next year" "KF did it? Why can't Todd Lickliter do it" "If KF were president of the USA we would never have had a recession"
 
I don't think Hoiberg was a good hire for ISU at all...I didn't want BJ here for the same reason's I think Hoiberg was a bad hire...it's not like he is a nationally known player from ISU. I am happy with Fran and am 100% positive he is going to turn this thing around...If he can coach half as well as he can recruit we will be fine...over half the battle is recruiting...and Fran is the type of coach that develops a relationship with recruits...Like Randle saying he was impressed with Fran stopping by.
 
clicheusername3 said:
Sorry to be so negative but with ISU hiring Hoiberg I have had to go back and reassess the Fran Macaffrey hire. Even though I only rated the hire at impact a 4-5 out 10. I've now gone back on that and will downgrade to a 2-3. We made a big noise and and ended up with a little peep. I think that three of the criteria many of us had were 1)unite the fanbase (based on the hire) 2)get people back to CHA (based on the hire) 3)create excitement (based on the hire). I don't think that any of these goals were accomplished.
Click to expand...

Let me add a 4th one for you then:

4) Go cheer for the Cyclones.
 
clicheusername3 said:
Sorry to be so negative but with ISU hiring Hoiberg I have had to go back and reassess the Fran Macaffrey hire. Even though I only rated the hire at impact a 4-5 out 10. I've now gone back on that and will downgrade to a 2-3. We made a big noise and and ended up with a little peep. I think that three of the criteria many of us had were 1)unite the fanbase (based on the hire) 2)get people back to CHA (based on the hire) 3)create excitement (based on the hire). I don't think that any of these goals were accomplished.
Click to expand...

Are you being serious?

How can you be serious if you are? How can you say that any of the three have or have not been met? First, on here 99% of the posters seem to love what we have seen from Fran up to this point. He has brought people back to the program that had lost interest previously. Second, the season has not even started so how can you even measure this one???????:confused: Third, relates to your first one, and yes he has created excitement. Iowa has not had a recruiter like Fran in many, many years. Before Davis' time for sure.

So how again can you make the statement that you made here and still be serious...
 
clicheusername3 said:
Sorry to be so negative but with ISU hiring Hoiberg I have had to go back and reassess the Fran Macaffrey hire. Even though I only rated the hire at impact a 4-5 out 10. I've now gone back on that and will downgrade to a 2-3. We made a big noise and and ended up with a little peep. I think that three of the criteria many of us had were 1)unite the fanbase (based on the hire) 2)get people back to CHA (based on the hire) 3)create excitement (based on the hire). I don't think that any of these goals were accomplished.
Click to expand...

If Caff proves to be a good coach then all 3 will take care of themselves. The Hoiberg hire may be a splash hire among the Cyclone faithful, but will that translate into a good basketball program? The guy hasn't coached one day of D1 basketball so it's hard to tell. My question is what will the Fred Hoiberg name mean to recruits? Players outside the state have likely never heard of him. Recruits inside the state were babies or little tots when he played. Even as a Hawk fan I like Fred Hoiberg. I just think it was a risky hire. I would feel pumped at first if we had hired BJ Armstrong. But I also would have been very afraid of his lack of coaching experience.
 
BA96MA99 said:
It is not ridiculous to try and evaluate a coaching hire right away. The "hire" is entirely different from "wins and losses."

Fran may well be a great coach for Iowa, and Hoiberg may flop in five years. But right now, Hoiberg is bringing the magic back to Hilton, and it sounds like he's not going to flop.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what this means. How is the hire entirely different from wins and losses, you hire a coach to win games. It sounds like he's not going to flop? He's been on the job for one day. Do you know how well he recruits, or who's on his staff or if he can even coach? I'm sure most people didn't think McDermott would flop after his first day on the job.
 
clicheusername3 said:
What about based only on the 3 criteria I laid out?
Click to expand...
What about those criteria. Well, they don't have much to do with credentials & qualifications, or potential for success--or anything else that directly affects how a coach can win in any particular program.

A better approach might be to simply take note of the most obvious difference between the two hires. McCaffery has extensive experience as a coach, he has had great success, he already is demonstrating skills at managing his time & priorities, the ability to organize a program. Hoiberg has no coaching experience, no record of success, no demonstrated capacity for developing & administering a program, no evidence that he knows how to choose a staff & how to identify their roles & maximize their talents.

In other words, McCaffery was a sensible choice of an experienced coach with an obvious strong work ethic and a record of having success in developing programs that have not been winning much in recent years--like the Iowa Hawkeyes. Hoiberg is tabla rosa--many promising personal qualities, a smart, personable, capable young man without a resume--and undeniably a gamble.

As an ancient fool, a comparison from the long ago past comes to mind from the outset: Hoiberg is rather similar to Iowa hiring Sharm Scheuerman; McCaffery's career is very reminiscent of Ralph Miller, the veteran of years of high school & mid-major coaching that the Hawkeyes bring in to restore a program that had fallen from the Final Four to shambles in less than a decade.

After two mistakes in Alford & Lickliter, Iowa took the prudent course of trying to match up a coaching selection who fit the situation and the needs of a program that has struggled for a decade. After four even more dubious coaching choices, Iowa State has taken the risky path of gambling that AD Pollard is astute enough to weigh the potential of an unprepared novice to have the natural qualities and aptitudes of a born coaching great that will more than compensate for his lack of experience and the necessity of on-the-job training. At Iowa, we're acutely aware from the Alford nightmare of the perils of putting the program in the hands of a guy learning OJT---

But Hoiberg seems to be the quintessential nice guy, much more aware that he has to grow to fill the requirements of the job, more inclined to learn & less needful of feeding his own arrogance. Like Alford, he is likely to benefit from patience his first few years; perhaps unlike Alford, he will not alienate his employer and the fans, will be careful to keep the respect and good will of the press and the public.

If Moo U feels that it has no real alternative but to gamble, Hoiberg appears to be the best long-term, long-shot wager they could choose. Still, the real questions are (a) did they need to gamble (could they not find a successful, experienced coach who would be attracted by a big contract to coach in a good institution is a high-major conference with a solid fan base)? and (b) can they afford to gamble in their present situation (a track record or disreputable or failed coaches for well over a decade, too many marginal gypsy recruits, chaos in a program of growing instability)?
 
clicheusername3 said:
Sorry to be so negative but with ISU hiring Hoiberg I have had to go back and reassess the Fran Macaffrey hire. Even though I only rated the hire at impact a 4-5 out 10. I've now gone back on that and will downgrade to a 2-3. We made a big noise and and ended up with a little peep. I think that three of the criteria many of us had were 1)unite the fanbase (based on the hire) 2)get people back to CHA (based on the hire) 3)create excitement (based on the hire). I don't think that any of these goals were accomplished.
Click to expand...

Jeez, I think you've been smoking that stuff again.
 
I disagree cliche. I am more energised about Iowa Basketball now than I have been for years. I think it's exciting and I think Fran is a GREAT hire. I have sensed more excitement from the fan base n the last month than in the last 5 years combined.
 
Winning will heal everything.
Ferentz wasn't a popular hire.
I don't think KF has united the fan base yet and may never unite them.
Who gives a darn, they're winning.
Fran is Iowa's guy and deserves my support until he proves he can't win.
He has a nearly impossible job in front of him. He has less to work with than either of his predecessors but is willing to give a shot.
He could use fan support and will get mine.
You do what you will.
Apathy breeds apathy.
 
Here was my criteria before the Iowa hire:

Has head coaching experience...
Has been a winner as a head coach.
Has turned at least one program around...This was more of a bonus honestly but I really wanted to see it.
Has put together a successfull staff...
Committed to a style of play that will generate excitment in the fans and help with recruiting.
Is a proven recruiter.
Is not a ******* or does not have the history of a cheater.

I think we got everything on the list with Fran. Now time will tell if wins follow but i have a suspicion they will. I also will be watching very closely who Hoiberg puts on his staff, what experience they bring.

I wonder when things get tough, teams get divided a little bit how Hoiberg will handle things.
How will he handle things if his home town turns on him?
He may do very very well, but he may also have a huge learning curve.
At least Fran has been around the block a few times.
 
clicheusername3 said:
Sorry to be so negative but with ISU hiring Hoiberg I have had to go back and reassess the Fran Macaffrey hire. Even though I only rated the hire at impact a 4-5 out 10. I've now gone back on that and will downgrade to a 2-3. We made a big noise and and ended up with a little peep. I think that three of the criteria many of us had were 1)unite the fanbase (based on the hire) 2)get people back to CHA (based on the hire) 3)create excitement (based on the hire). I don't think that any of these goals were accomplished.
Click to expand...

I was going to post a lengthy reply, then I realized you're goofing on everyone.
 
clicheusername3 said:
Sorry to be so negative but with ISU hiring Hoiberg I have had to go back and reassess the Fran Macaffrey hire. Even though I only rated the hire at impact a 4-5 out 10. I've now gone back on that and will downgrade to a 2-3. We made a big noise and and ended up with a little peep. I think that three of the criteria many of us had were 1)unite the fanbase (based on the hire) 2)get people back to CHA (based on the hire) 3)create excitement (based on the hire). I don't think that any of these goals were accomplished.
Click to expand...

I recall an Iowa hire not so many years ago that met your three criteria pretty well. It did not translate into being a good hire.
 
We will be able to know whether the FM hire was good by November. If he hasn't got traction by then on the recruiting front, he probably won't ever. Wait, before you all say we have to be patient, only 2 coaches hired since 2007 who didn't makes significant strides in recruiting in year two have been successful recruiters later, Montgomery at Cal and Horn at So Carolina.

Basketball is not a slow build sport.

Has he shown energy in recruiting? Sure. Has he found some interesting prospects? Sure. Has he got anyone to commit? No.
 
Last edited:
Don't assume all of Cyclone Nation is in love with this hire (Hoiberg). I spoke to a couple long-time ISU fans tonight who think Pollard lost his mind. They're not understanding how you hire someone with no HC experience to come in and take over a D1 basketball program that is almost in as bad of shape as Iowa's, that just hired two assistants a day before the HC bolted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top