that's who I thought would be a front runner when it first opened up. would make sense for ULM. she was there when the program was having a little success (at least success for ULM standards) she's been in a higher conference. plus she's a female which is a plus for the athletic director. I think she would do ok there. definitely still think that's a tough job. Not a bad list put together though penguin. I just don't think any of your list are contenders. time will tell though
I think Grand Canyon will do the same as last time. Contact some big names and get rejected by expectations of winning a national championship then settling for another mid major coach.
For sure but none will get a look because that admin will want someone with a flashy university name on the resume.
It looks like Long Island is open. They're apparently advertising for the job, and Eleri Earnshaw no longer shows on the website as head coach.
Such a different game than club. Knowing NCAA rules, budgeting, and all the other non coaching stuff. Coaching college soccer is very little coaching. Not saying there aren't those out there who can't but its way different. That is why there are a lot of college coaches who actually are not that good of coaches, they are good at the other stuff.
Sure, but what does a successful college coach need to be good at? Recruiting. That would seem to be the top priority for a college coach. Who knows the prospects personally? Club coaches.
Well just a few things that have nothing to do with coaching or identifying players, which I agree lots of club coaches could do. Time Management Plans Cara/Rara logs Participation logs Staff declaration Season declarations Knowing contact/evaluation rules and limitations Logging contacts and evals Offering scholarships Balancing scholarships over four year running time period Knowing hour limits within a week Knowing days allowed in championship and non-championship segments Occasional meal approval What is needed for an unofficial visit What is needed for an official visit Etc. Etc. Etc. There are a million things that have nothing to do with the game of soccer that are mandated by the NCAA. I have had a lot of interactions with club coaches over the years that do not know or understand the NCAA rules. Also, have had WAY too many interactions with club coaches where they have no idea the value of a player at the college level as far as scholarship amount. I was most definitely the same way as a club coach before entering the college ranks, and I think the experience in college makes me a much better club coach now.
Filled Georgia Southern - Josh Moffet (interim in 2019) Vacant Louisiana Monroe Iowa State Oklahoma Southern Utah Temple Washington Marquette Marshall LSU (interim) Western Michigan (interim) Robert Morris Evansville ETSU UNLV Grand Canyon Stephen F. Austin St. Mary's College Colgate Long Island University
I appreciate your viewpoint and I do agree that recruiting is one of the most important duties of a college coach. If a college coach isn't that great of a recruiter than he or she damn well better have someone on staff that is. That said, I have often seen club coaches, that while good coaches, vastly overstate the value of a player at the next level. This goes along with what outsiderview stated. I'm often surprised by how many club coaches greatly overestimate the abilities of their own players.
I agree with all of this. I was just stating that recruiting is a major deal in college and it is something a club coach would know well, because they are in the trenches (so to speak) ever day playing against top players. Club coaches, depending on their role in the club, certainly have to manage finances, time, training, etc. The NCAA rules are not hard to learn. Of course, I would not expect an administration to hire a club coach with zero experience in the NCAA because that would be a fast learning curve.
Little surprised about LMU but a new AD in the last year or so must have different plans. Tough year so far to be a D1 Coach.
Yikes, if ULM brings in a rookie head coach and throws them in the deep end with no big recruits signed and first time head coach it could get ugly fast. ULM and Northern Louisiana is one of the tougher places in the country to win for soccer and recruit to as not many talented local players around. Lord help them. It'll be a repeat as the last four years. I think whoever they hire it'll be a very steep challenge. LMU in CA this was a bit of a surprise. I know they struggled the past two years, but she had just led them to the sweet 16 in the national tournament 4 years ago. Thats a huge feat in a challenging conference. Athletic Directors these days getting too greedy and laying off good coaches because they have a few down years even after great recent successes. Becoming a tough profession for job security in. Interested to see who will announce the first hires in coming weeks.
The Bowling Green coach should be in the market for a bigger/better job in short order. What he’s done there to turn the program around and win championships consistently in no time at all is remarkable. I’m sure a lot of the open mid/low major jobs will go to sitting d1 assistants without head coaching experience. It always surprises me how few quality D2/D3 coaches get looks for these positions (I understand the majority of good D2 coaches that are older and established with a record of success may want to stay put for $, competitive national reasons, etc. but still). There have to be some younger, hungrier men and women who have cut their teeth that would be good fits for these positions. Always curious how it pans out.
Totally agree. They are much improved on the years prior to his arrival. They are a good team now and I would think bowling green be looking for a new coach for the right reasons in the next few months.
Did this for the MEN's hot seat. Looking at women, but it's double the work. Anyone see a major amendment necessary to short term evaluate women's hires? 19 changes in Division I last year. Short term analysis of +/- RPI and conference regular season finish to see how it worked out for each school from 2018-2019. RPI +/- on selection weekend +94 Rutgers +51Cleveland State 0 VMI (206 of 206 both years) -2 American -4 JMU, Wofford -5 UNCG -14 Creighton -17 SIUE -19 Liberty -20 Louisville -22 Belmont -24 High Point -25 UCLA -37 UAB -56 Pacific -69 USF -89 Fordham -104 Davidson 16 negative RPI impact 1 even 2 positive RPI impact Conference regular season +/- of minimum 3 spots +4 UNCG (won league after 5th in 2018) -3 Creighton, Louisville -4 Pacific -5 USF -8 Davidson In RPI & conference finish, only 3 schools appear to have benefited short term from change - Rutgers (RPI), Cleveland State (RPI), & UNCG (league champions). I recognize this quick analysis for college programs is by nature flawed (student satisfaction, academic performance, etc. not included).
So curious to hear who's got insight into the big job openings and front runner guesses? UW, LSU, Oregon, and Oklahoma. Heck even Iowa State is big conference one, or LMU.
Perhaps, looking at it another way one could surmise; The direction a program is heading (which is most often in decline, if the last coach was released) usually cannot be completely corrected within one year. Ships don't turn on a dime, no matter whom is at the helm.
I think this is a good point. You'd have to see the trajectory of the team. A poorer record actually might be better than the trajectory indicates it should have been.
I'm a little hesitant to post this because of the possibility of misinterpretation, but I'll go ahead with it, with some cautions about how to interpret it. Before the season begins, I assign each team a simulated RPI rating. Without going into a full explanation: A team's rating is based on its rating history and trend, projected forward to the coming year. In some cases where teams have relatively new coaches and their trends seem unlikely as a basis for where they will be in the coming year, the simulated rating simiply is the team's rating at the end of last year. I use Massey's ratings as the basis for assigning ratings, since his ratings don't have some of the RPI ratings' flaws, and I then translate his ratings/ranks into RPI ratings/ranks. Once I've done that and have the full season schedule, I apply the ratings (as adjusted for home field advantage) to the season's games to determine the likely outcome of each game -- win, loss, or tie. I then assign 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss. This gives me an expected total points for each team, if it performs according to its assigned pre-season rating -- i.e., if its historic rating trend continues into the coming year. At the end of the season, I compare the team's total simulated points to its actual points and calculate the point difference per game played. A positive number means the team did better than its rating trend indicated it would do and a negative number indicates it did more poorly. This system does not take into account any team details other than past ratings and sometimes assigning last year's rating for teams with relatively new coaches, so if there are other factors influencing what happens it doesn't take them into account. It's simply an indicator of how the team has done relative to reasonable historic trend expectations. So, don't read too much into it. Here's a table that shows how teams with coaches in their first year (Year 0) with teams fared this year: