2015 hot seat

What's the reason out of curiosity? Speaking of the ACC does anyone think Syracuse may be in trouble?

 

No.

 

Seems they have struggled but definitely understandable with the step to the ACC so was curious. Also those people who predicted that new coaches at Miami may have had a point based on last years results. May be a little talk early to suggest a hot seat status but one more poor year and who knows.

Who else: Nevada Reno always seems to pop up on a yearly basis. Doesn't seem to be improving there.

 

I wonder if there's any reason to think Pitt will get better.

 

Great question but hottest seat in the ACC should be Miami, no? That seat should have never cooled off. Wonder if they'll remember the people who told them MFM was awesome? or do they even care much?
And what's up with NC State? 2015 will be Santoro's 3rd year and they're still terrible. did not win a game after Labor Day. Even these bad ACC schools should be a cut above everyone else in the region but NCSU could not beat W&M, Western Carolina, or UNCG. Clemson proving it can be turned around pretty quickly and they were bad for many years. (maybe too many broom races?.......too soon?)

 

Miami did seem to be one that some people on this forum saw coming and it seems she is struggling there. I suppose the supporters of the coach may have got that one wrong as they're results last year were awful. You have to wonder about Pitt too I had heard there was the possibility of change there this year so perhaps they've been given one season to turn it around. The adjustment to ACC life is probably as hard on them as Syracuse though so you can somewhat understand why they may have struggled initially as opposed to a Miami.

Is NC State just somewhere that is hard to recruit to or something? I thought the coach would have turned that one around.

Outside of the ACC anyone else? How about Texas? Always seem to under perform.

 

Maybe put the brakes on? Clemson had a breakthrough year....in their 4th season. But remember how the first few went. Pitt is entering the 4th year now so we'll see. Miami (was in NCAAs previous two years to arriving) and NC State (not in NCAA since the 90's...ouch) are just finishing the 2nd seasons. As early as recruiting is and as much house cleaning that goes on, I'll hold judgement until some recruits actually arrive and play at these schools. Seems an uphill battle but, like Clemson, does take a little time. Syracuse (7 seasons) and Louisville (13 seasons) are a little different.

 

I have heard rumblings from Louisville as well. But why? They did admirable in the ACC in their first year, finishing 8th in that conference is decent. Just a couple years removed from the NCAA Tournament and went to the Sweet 16 in 2011. Are kids there unhappy and complaining?

Syracuse was doing well in the Big East before moving. Understandable they will have a couple years of an uphill battle. But need to produce here in the not too distant future. And unless you live under a rock I would assume the folks at Syracuse are worrying about things in that department other than women's soccer. Recruiting decent talent there.

Miami is on such a downhill slide. That was an NCAA Tournament-caliber team and last year they won just 3 games. If she is on a 4- or 5-year contract then she needs to turn that ship quickly. Saw she had a 2018 commitment. What was that kid thinking? No way that staff will be there in 2018 if things stay the same.

Will be curious to see what happens at NC State. Recruiting seems to definitely be improving. But top scorer transferred to West Virginia. And did they lose their German national team kid, or is she staying?

Pitt is a project. Went 0-13 in year 1, got 2 wins last year so a bit of an upturn. But do not see them escaping the bottom 1/3. Not really ACC-caliber players coming through in their upcoming classes.

Duke, Wake, and Boston College coaches are fine, have enough of a history to stick around. But amazing that these programs were Final Four-caliber in recent years and couldn't even make the Tournament last year. Wake struggled especially, not sure if the quality coming in will get them back soon.

Seems like ones to get resumes ready for in the next couple years are Louisville and Miami.

 

Come on now - NC State should be better than UNCG and Western Carolina with their 2nd 11. To be in year 2 and not find better talent then these schools in the NC State intramural pool is sketchy! These schools are your little brother and sister who can't even sit at the big kids table in NC.
These coaches typically get 3 years to get traction so this is a 2015 thread right? This is that year at NCSU and Miami I'd say. Eddie has proved he can recruit and win games at Clemson if he can keep the kids from being stupid off the field...
Yes, at this level, a coach Should get 5 years to really change the culture and get results, but they often don't.

It would be good if you knew who really was in their last contact year and what the options where? At the state schools maybe you could do that research. I'm not doing it. There's a pointy football website that has every BCS coaches contract terms listed and often the actual contract. I think its too fun to speculate without the Facts!

 

Past results are on school's websites. I'm sure Clemson didn't want to not win v Furman, Davidson and Charlotte in 2nd season. But once their recruits arrived and adjusted, they were good in the 4th season. Seems like all these programs need that same time to prove recruiting and win some games.

 

I would say most coaches will get time as long as reasonable progress is shown and there isn't an abnormal amount of drama (parent complaints, transfers, off the field issues etc.) There are far too may examples of coaches who have taken bad situations to at least good in 4 years (Texas Tech, Kentucky, Arkansas, Colorado, Clemson, Arizona, Indiana to name a few.) NCST will and should get 4-5 years. Pitt seems to have an abnormal amount of drama. Miami is going in the wrong direction. I'd say the hot seat list is : Ohio St, Pitt, Syracuse, Oregon, Miami, Mich St

 

Oregon?? NC State should get 4-5 years, but Oregon should only get 2 years? Makes zero sense.

 

Mertz is tearing it up in the Pac-12. She went from last to 10th in 2 years.

 

Well, if she continues to move the team up an average of 1 position per year, that's pretty good, isn't it? (I don't mean to suggest I'm a fan of hers, but moving up 2 positions in her first two years in one of the top two conferences in Division I looks at least satisfactory to me.)

 

I agree with you Germans4.
I have generally found most Power 5 AD's to be reasonably smart people.
And reasonably reasonable people.
Every ACC AD knows that recruiting lead-times have changed and that ACC-caliber soccer talent now takes 3-4 years to arrive on campus after committing.
And that then it takes 1-2 years to assimilate them into the team.
That's 4-6 years in total.
AD's also are well aware the unique circumstances and varying degrees of dysfunction that surrounded their current coaches' hiring.
AD's will, and do, take such facts into consideration when negotiating new contracts, extensions, or terminations.
That's just common sense, no?

 

Out of all the programs mentioned you have to assume Miami is perhaps the program whose staff have taken the program most downhill? Inheriting a decent program with some good players and moving them backwards? Looking at programs such as Oregon and NC State it doesn't look on the surface like those programs have moved backwards so they haven't done any worse, maybe they're the ones taking some time to build because they inherited some poor players. Clock must surely be ticking in Miami.

 

Maybe, maybe not. I have to say it sounds like you want it to be.

 

I agree with OldStony. There is so much that is not known (and likely never will be) about the issues in that program before the previous coach was summarily fired. My personal view is that the new coach arrived to take over a hugely difficult situation with strong (positive and mixed) feelings about the pervious coach and it will take 4 years or more to get it on an even keel. What she inherited was not her fault. If the"fault" for firing a popular (among many) coach was the AD's, then why is the new coach taking the heat from us fans as if it was she who stirred up the trouble and is taking too long to get it under control?

 

Maybe someone has some insight into if there was some ongoing issues when she took over? I'm basing it simply on results on the field which certainly doesn't provide any insight into what was gonna on there. But the program was a lot more successful before the current staff took over so something is going on. Perhaps they graduated a lot of good players.

 

Is this still Miami talk? MFM was not qualified to start and many thought she would get eaten up in the ACC and that's whats happened. Just a matter of time. She was hired as a US Soccer scout just before she took the Miami gig and in a meeting with coaches could not really describe what her job was. Someone had to step in and save her. In other words, her knowledge, presentation skills, and composure under the pressure of some easy questions was terrible. I was shocked to hear she was getting a HC job in the ACC. Classic example of the Peter Principle.

What about UMD? - have gone from 14 to 10 to 5 wins. Gave it to the asst so should not have missed a beat in recruiting. Best player was certainly high maintenance but transferred out to UCF. She scored 10 goals for a Sweet 16 team....oops. Many sports at UMD have done very well in the Big10, but not WS. Wonder if Pensky would want a do-over since he hasn't really turned the corner yet at Tenn.

 

I agree with you OldStony. They know it takes 4-5 years, given how early the recruiting cycle is. With that in mind I think Pitt, Syracuse, NC State, and Oregon are fine. You can't make a judgment over 2 years which is the case for NC State and Oregon. In the case of Syracuse and Pitt they didn't plan of moving to a much more competitive conference than the Big East 2 years ago which I would think an AD has to consider. The reason conference realignment took place was football $; women's soccer wasn't a part of that greater discussion. But would expect to some growth by year 3 and then results by year 4 or 5. Smart AD's have realistic expectations but not much patience after the 4-5 year period. Clemson is a great example at what can happen over time if you do things right.

Reason why I think Miami is different is that wasn't a bad situation that was inherited. The previous coach was let go for reasons still unknown but that program was left in decent shape. Was making postseason appearances and had good players on their roster. They still have good players on their roster and recruiting looks decent. To me from the outside it seems that the situation there has deteriorated to poor coaching and management. So that's why MF Monroe could be feeling heat.

Also have to consider what an AD is looking for. Do they care about women's soccer? In the case of Syracuse, they just went through a major sanction with men's basketball which is what that school is known for. They fired the AD over it. I don't think the new person's first concern will be any of the Olympic sports. It will be establishing his/her position and focusing on what the department needs which in their case will be cleaning up after the NCAA levied their basketball program.

We don't know some things obviously. In most cases we have no idea what length of contract the coach is on. We also don't know inner workings. If kids are unhappy or parents are complaining then that moves things in a new direction. If that is happening at Louisville or at Pitt now you're got an added dimension that has to be of concern.

 

I understand your argument for NC State and Oregon but I'm having a hard time understanding your argument for singling-out the Miami coach (in the above paragraph).
You begin your position by claiming that a college athletic program isn't left in "a bad situation" when its head coach is abruptly fired for unknown reasons. But everyone knows that's simply not possible.
You state 2 years isn't a reasonable amount of time for the "judgement" of a new coach. But then you do just that anyway.
You next offer that there are good players currently on the roster and recruiting classes for the future look decent. But then imply the coach's job could be in peril.
Now it's perfectly fine with me that you simply don't like Miami's hire, and it's clear from your "Peter Principle" comment that you (and a couple other BS posters) don't. I personally have no idea if the woman is a stud or a dud or somewhere in between. Only time will tell.
But, just FYI, the clever, self-contradicting style of argumentation you employed above kind of makes me, and I suspect others, want to cheer for the woman's success.