Head coaching experience as a job requirement is overrated
Maybe it's the millenial in me, but I find the requirement of "head coaching experience" to be incredibly dumb. So you've been in charge before. Whoop dee doo. Congratulations. What I want to know is if you actually had significant and sustained success when in that role.
You see the same thing at companies these days. "Must have 15+ years experience in the field." How about looking for someone more junior who is a rockstar at their not-currently-in-charge job, and let them take the reins? Good on you for being 10 years older than other candidates. Years of experience does not mean you actually got better at your job.
If we're not getting Donovan or Marshall, I'd take Yaklich over all the other candidates (Smart, Cooley, etc). He really connects on the recruiting trail, he's great at defensive coaching, and is a tireless worker. Give him $1.5m a year for 4 years and if it doesn't work out then hire someone else in 2 years when the field of candidates is better.
Yes, it is the Millenial in you that would feel this way.
agreed with this; there is much more than being an expert in your area for the jobs that take 10+ years of experience.
Managing, leading and motivating people is an incredibly different and difficult skillset that takes time and maturity.
Sure someone may be a technical xo and expert but how to keep players motivated in late jan / middle feb to gear them up for a march run takes something different. Some may be innately good at that, some it may take time.
I wouldn't rule out someone without HC experience but I would certainly grill them on their people leadership and ability to empower their inner circle
This is the generation that is whining about the availability of jobs when the economy is at record low unemployment and there is a veritable plethora of available jobs.
"why can't I get a $100,000+ a year executive job right out of school with my B.A. in Art History"
Why? Because to be good enough to fill that role, you need years of experience. 95% of us worked our way up from associate grunt to assistant grunt to grunt to senior grunt to associate director of grunts etc.
To be good enough to fill the role of Michigan BBall HC, one needs experience.
This is the generation making the same real wages as their parents did at the same age, except everything costs way way more.
If that's the case then you're doing it wrong.
I have 2 kids. One in college and one almost in college. Both make FAR more $ than I did when I was their age.
I love that your evidence is a (I’m betting not adjusted for inflation) comparison between you and your kid’s jobs in high school. Keep on keeping on.
There's more millionaires and billionaires now than ever. Unemployment is at record lows. There are unfilled jobs everywhere all across the country. If you're having a hard time making an equivalent to what your parents made, or better, that's entirely on you.
Ever heard the saying "you're paid what you're worth?"
Maybe you're not worth as much as you think if you're struggling that much .... adjusted for inflation, of course.
Yeah, you’re making my point - more millionaires and billionaires just means a handful of people have all the money. Since 1985 college costs are up 538%, housing is up about 150%, gas prices are up around 200%, medical costs are around 300% higher, etc etc. It’s not that millennials *expect* to make 100k, its that we *should*. That salary level just isn’t what it used to be but people are still conditioned to thinking it is.
No. I’m making my point. Of course things are way more expensive now than they were 35 years ago.
In 1985, things were way more expensive than they were in 1950. The fact that your money doesn’t “go as far” is totally on you.
The fact you feel like you *should* make 100k just because things are more expensive than they were 35 years ago is hilariously egocentric and self-centered, bordering on narcissist. If you were worth that you’d get paid that. No one owes you a thing just because you happen to be alive and have a degree. You’re paid what you’re worth. Of course 100k doesn’t go as far as as it did in 1985. It’s called inflation. It went way further in 1950 than it did in 1985 as well.
Finally, a “handful of people” holding all the money is a massive lie. Millionaires come and go. Businesses come and go. The “1%” is not the same group of people. People move in and out of the 1% all the time. Its just nowadays there are more and more people moving into and out of the 1%
Wait... you’re bitching that us millennials come into the work force with art history degrees expecting 100k?
Do you really want to talk about the qualifications of Gen X and before for high end white collar jobs? Bc I fucking guarantee you they were not nearly as high as they are for us millennials.
So kindly fuck off
Salaries will start ticking up at a faster rate if things stay as they are. The reason for wage suppression is/was three-fold.
1. The recession caused many boomers to stay in their jobs because of 401k losses. That caused upward mobility to stop for mid-levels and juniors. People got way more experience in their jobs than they needed because no one was moving up.
2. Labor market supply and demand. Unemployment rates were so high, there was a huge excess of labor supply. When supply is high and demand is low (see point 1), wages stagnate because there's no need to pay anyone more to keep them. Now that unemployment is low (lower available supply) and demand is higher, wages will increase.
3. A lot of boomers who are retiring, simply aren't being replaced in traditional ways. Companies will hire jobs out to contract service providers, or just figure out how to spread one person's job around to a few other people. Technology is making some of these jobs obsolete and easily replaceable.
Just from my experience, the lawyers at large firms are mostly paid the same, but there was no salary increase from 2006-2016, mainly because of the supply-demand issue for lawyers. Companies also look to cut costs wherever they can and we are often a first cut (get a less expensive firm). Since the 2016 increase, we got another one and even an extra bonus. Times are good now, but business cycles change.
Flat wage growth has been a 40 year trend. While I agree with your analysis of the impact of the 2007-8 recession, the larger trend is going nowhere, and any raises in real wages this late in the cycle are going to be erased by the next recession, even if that ends up being years down the line. Millennial and younger generations are suffering from structural trends that have been building for decades before they were even born.
I'm not bitching. And I will not fuck off. The OP asked if his opinion (that experience basically means squat) was a "millennial idea." I think yes, it is because experience is, and always will be, one of the major keys to success.
As such, most people start out at the bottom and work their way up. It is a millennial fantasy that the economy of the past (ability to make a comfortable life with a house, 2 cars and 4 kids without a high education level and little experience) should somehow apply to today's world. The world isn't the same so why should the path to a white collar job be the same?
No one "ruined" it for you. No one "screwed it all up." The fact is today is a far more advanced society requiring far more advanced education and degrees to get a white collar job (for the most part, there's always exceptions).
Some degrees and career paths are no longer viable options. It's not societies responsibility to ensure you have the easiest path to a white collar job. Society and the economy changed. As such, the path to a white collar job has changed.
Doing what was typically acceptable to get a white collar job 30 years ago isn't and never will be equivalent to today. What it takes in 20-30 years will be different than what it takes today. You say the qualifications for white collar jobs are way higher now than they were pre-Gen x? Then get further qualified, don't blame the economy or society.
Hey, I took a whole weekend seminar on leadership
lets not get into generational wars, older dudes are fucking up plenty in the world as much as young dudes
the ability to fuck up the world crosses gender, age and race lines
Older dudes have all the wealth. They objectively are fucking up the world more due to them being on top of the current power structure.
I’d say old guys are fucking up More, see refusal of integration of already existing renewable energy sources, and denial of human’s effects on global climate change.
And before anyone says anything to the contrary, shut-up and educate yourself, you’re fucking embarrassing.
Having ability is a good asset but I’ll take an experienced individual first. The joke amongst dentists is that it takes five years out of school to quit being dangerous. You don’t know what you don’t know.
Having ability is a good asset but I’ll take an experienced individual first. The joke amongst dentists is that it takes five years out of school to quit being dangerous. You don’t know what you don’t know.
It's not overrated. It might not be indispensable, but it's not overrated. Even guys who are really talented need time head coaching to learn how to deal with the pressures and the things that go wrong and the choices that the HC has to make.
Getting that experience at lower rungs is not nothing. There isn't as much pressure at Oakland or South Dakota State; you get years to recruit and make mistakes and build your team to prove yourself.
You don't get years at Michigan. It's big time. If you make missteps and flush a season and miss out on key recruits, the sharks start circling right away. I'm about as slow a reactor as there is on this board, but even I have said that if Warde makes a questionable hire and that questionable hire struggles into year two, the knives are going to be out.
HC experience gives you a chance to get your feet stable. You develop your routine and your schedule and your best practices. You develop your methods of communication and teaching and gameplanning and managing your staff. It all needs to happen.
There's a guy coaching at UMD, which is a middling D-2 program. I really like him, and I think he has the potential to be a good D-1 coach (perhaps at Iowa, where he played as a walk-on). But he's not ready for the big spotlight yet. He needs to make some mistakes at this level first, learn from them, and get better.
HC experience is important. Anyone without it is a big risk.
Who would you rather have? Shaka Smart who has years of head coaching experience or Juwan Howard who doesn't have any head coaching experience?
Let's invert it. Who do we know more about? Shaka Smart, a good recruiter and meh coach who underachieves? Or Juwan Howard, whose recruiting and gameday coaching abilities are unknown?
HC experience helps tell us who people are.
Who would you rather have, a Michigan alum who is currently being interviewed for NBA head coaching positions, or a current P5 head coach that has had zero success at his only P5 job, oh and BTW whose fanbase is openly hoping that someone hires him away?
I would rather have Howard.
Going by what Stephen said he would rather take Shaka Smart. I agree with him that head coaching experience is important, but I think you have to consider who the candidates are. Not all head coaching experiences are weighted equal.
Sorry, I read your post as being pro Smart. My bad.
I'd rather have neither, actually. As I said, it may not be indispensable, but it's a useful asset. Juwan has the advantage of being a Michigan man, which will give him more patience in the fanbase, but he has still never been a college head coach before. My argument is that HC experience has great value even for guys known to be talented (which it's possible Juwan is). Additionally, it's also valuable for sifting out guys with red flags.
Looking for HC experience in a candidate means you are looking for guys who have been able to develop themselves as coaches and establish a resume that exposes problems. It's precisely the sort of requirement that allows one to avoid hiring a Shaka Smart because you already know what he isn't good at.
Between the two? I guess I'd take a stab at Howard*. But both of them are nursemaid hires--you want the assistants to stay to cover for potential weaknesses. That means neither is close to an ideal candidate.
*This is a function of my "sometimes you have to gamble and win" philosophy that comes from the knowledge that the 2007-8 football coaching search was doomed because none of the potential candidates would have succeeded at the level I wanted them to. Miles would have been Lloyd part 2 or he would have gotten the program in NCAA trouble (or, likely, both). RR was the new blood new philosophy guy and he was a disaster. And guys like Schiano and Ferentz would have been just as underwhelming. The guy Michigan should have hired was first-year Stanford Coach Jim Harbaugh. Obvious now, but a risky/borderline insane stab in the dark at the time. Juwan is a risky stab in the dark with upside. Shaka is a nicer version of Greg Schiano.
As per usual, your understanding is very sound. There is a significant difference between knowing the game well and coaching the game well. Shaka has not demonstrated the ability to coach well and Juwan is an unknown...neither offers an optimistic long-term solution.
If a good permanent candidate does not emerge Michigan may need to officially go the interim route-give "Yaklich" a trial run...though this seems unfair to all parties-given the 2019-20 roster.
Here, I think Beilein pulled an uncharacteristically gutless screwing of the pooch...evidently did not want to take on the likely disaster of trying to win with an NAIA PG. He made this bed and it is a shame that he is abandoning his floundering ship.
You're not disproving his point. Would you rather have the known-quantity poop sandwich, mystery bag, or the known quantity gourmet meal? Well the gourmet meal went to the NBA so that's not an option. I'll try the mystery bag and figure it's not worse than a poop sandwich.
We're all saying the same thing.
I'll take Juwan. Smart's track record is unimpressive, so go for something new. It may not work out any better with Juwan, or it might be a slam dunk win. But you you'd be getting a known unimpressive with Smart.
Same thing when a coach has proven the ability to not get better (ie: Hoke). Pulling the trigger to get rid of him opens a great possibility for something worse. And if that's the case, pull the trigger and start again. There is no sense in keeping what isn't working...
Serious question, why not point the cannon in Hoiberg’s direction and try and get him from the Huskers?
If they end up making a better hire than Michigan does, I may lose it.
Can someone in the AD at least pretend they are trying to fill a top 10 coaching position?
How long does Fred Hoiberg last? He hated recruiting so much last time he was a college coach. If anything the time commitment to recruiting have increased since he was last coaching in college.
Honestly, I am ok with a stopgap coach if they can keep Michigan at it’s current level and we can then go get a home run next time(hopefully). Realistically, the coaching pool will be in a much better place than it is currently, especially if we are more prepared for it.
Yaklich has a trash resume. People are panicking and just want to stay as close to the idea of Beilein as they can and aren't objectively looking at Yak. I really hope the new coach retains him but he wouldn't get hired at a place like University of Detroit yet let alone Michigan.
Two top-3 defenses in back-to-back 30-win seasons at Michigan is not a “trash resume.” C’mon. By this standard, Oklahoma and the Rams were fools to hire their 30-something coaches who had “trash resumes” simply because they weren’t head coaches before.
Lincoln Riley was a division 1 assistant for a decade at 3 different stops.Sean Mcvay also coached for over a decade in the level he got the job in. Yaklich has only 6 years and that is being generous considering Illinois state and Michigan on the same level as Michigan.
There also isn't any evidence he is the elite recruiter claimed in the post. Michigan recruited better under Lavall Jordan and Bacari Alexander than they have under Yak and Saadi.
Lincoln Riley was the OC at ECU for five years before becoming Oklahoma’s OC for a couple of years before becoming their head coach at age 33. Should ECU be considered on the same level as Oklahoma?
And McVay did not spend over a decade coaching in the NFL before he was hired. He was a position’s coach for a handful of years before becoming the Redskins’ OC for 3 years before he got the Rams job at age 30.
I'd argue the recruiting has largely held even across the coaching staffs. Basketball recruiting is naturally a bit weirder than football, but they've generally brought in a couple of high-ish guys who leave for the NBA. Michigan isn't going to attract a ton of 5* kids and, other than that one year when they got Robinson and McGary, UM really hasn't been in on a lot of those guys ever.
As for the rest, people sure do make a ton of hay out of 2-3 years at one poddunk school vs. another. I don't necessarily think Yak or Washington are ready to be HC, but if the argument is between a guy whose shown a solid ability to put an elite defense on the court or some middling guy from a Big East team, give me the guy with at least the potential to be elite at something.
If they hire smart they need Saddi more than Yak. Smart’s defenses at Texas we’re good. Their offenses were TERRIBLE. He needs to hire an offensive version of Yak.
Also supposedly Yak May be heading to Cleveland.
Yak has been coaching at the power 5 level for two years.
You think he can handle taking over an entire P5 program?
Craig used Izzo as an example as reason to hire Yak. At least Izzo was an assistant at Michigan State for ~13 years before taking over that program.
In the case of Yaklich, I think you are undervaluing how hard it is to be a D1 head football/basketball coach and run a program. It's not as simple as just X's and O's and recruiting, and we a talking about a guy who was coaching high school 5 years ago. That isn't a lot of time to learn. For some reason we tend to think just because someone is good at coaching offense or defense or is a great recruiter, that would make him a great head coach, and that is not always the case.
In the case of companies- it may be slightly overrated, but typically the experienced candidate is safer and requires less training and hand-holding. If the hiring manager reaches and hires someone who HR considers under-qualified and it doesn't work out they are going to look really bad, and it will hurt them career-wise as well.
Found this article from 2017 that looked at how first year coaches were faring at that point in time. There were 50+ new coaches that year. The article highlights 8 of the 50 that had hot starts their first year. But looking back now 2 years after the article was written, only one of these coaches is considered successful enough for our marginal consideration. Point being that perhaps lack-of-experience can have early success, but there isn't strong evidence that the success is sustainable.
I was shocked before clicking on the link because I thought the article was saying there were 50 first year head coaches in 2017.
Damned millenials. Stop telling me who the head coach should be... and get off my lawn.
I was sitting at a bar about a month ago listening to your stereotypical tough guy railing against "weak, soft Millennials ruining America." I stayed silent and chuckled here and there to be polite, but then asked what year he was born, as I had this funny feeling. "1983," he says. "Um, you're a Millennial, my friend," I say. He at first laughed, then said I was wrong. He actually got angry when I showed him online where the generational cohorts fall and how he was, in fact, 100% a Millennial. An older Millennial, but a Millennial nonetheless. We didn't talk much after that...
Or he could be a young Gen-x. There are no rules here.
Nah, no one take Gen Xers out past 1979. That is the ending point most commonly used. The guys that coined the term picked 1982, which is the latest you will see for its start, as they were "Millennials" because they'd be the first to graduate from high school in the 2000s. No one born after 1982 has ever been included in Gen X, though, and 1979 is what Pew and other large national research groups use as the last year of Gen X.
I have seen numerous organizations/people/whatever state when the super popular millennial generation began. Some had it at 1980, others the mid- to late-80s, even some in the early-90s. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think there really is a set date. There is also this generation called xennials. I was born in December of 1981. I'm a xennial.
Those distinctions, especially in regards to persons near the limits of those groupings, are rather arbitrary and should be addressed on where the individuals believe/feel they belong.
Ugh, no. Millennials aren't "whatever you want them to be." They certainly aren't people born starting 1990 and later or whatever. For example:
Pew: 1980-1996
US Census Bureau: 1982-2000
OECD: 1983-2002
Webster Dictionary: Anyone born 1980-1999
Notice a trend? Sure, there are slight deviations around exactly when it began and when it ended. And of course it's arbitrary and ultimately meaningless. But as I said in my story, the guy I was talking to was born in 1983. Literally no reputable research group I know of would classify him as Generation X, and even if you can find one, he would still be the youngest possible Gen Her. He is a Millennial, like it or not, as are many of the people shouting about how "Millennials are ruining this country" without knowing that it's a generational category, not a freaking countercultural movement...