First off, a coach leaving does not give a player to get out of a signed letter of intent. The LOI very CLEARLY states a player is signing with the SCHOOL. Second, verbal commitments are just that. As such, they aren't binding. If a recruit changes his mind about a school because a coach leaves before the player has signed his LOI, he is free to go elsewhere. However, most scholarship money usually gets promised away fairly early so recruits who change their minds this late usually don't get a lot of money their first year.
xu hc drops out. the hire will be done by the end of january and a few of the above have been contacted.
I wasn't the source of the original quotes, so I can't speak for that person. But, I thought the "did well with the talent available" refers to the fact that he's at Charlotte. You can't recruit the same players at Charlotte as you can at UNC, or UCLA or Maryland or Akron. So, he's got to figure out a way to be successful while looking at a smaller segment of the talent pool. I'd bet you many of the Charlotte players would have gone to one of the schools I listed if offered the opportunity. The reverse is not true. So, the talent Gunn has "available" as the Charlotte head coach is not the same as that of some of the premier programs. Second, most head coaches get paid to win. Period. Despite the desires of us as general fans of the game and promoters of US soccer improvement, they are not paid to develop players for the next level. There are a few programs where player development is almost as important to the coach's success as winning (UCLA, Akron, Maryland?) but not many, and even those coaches need to win. So, that "Charlotte did the right things depending on the situation it was facing" is both unsurprising, and I think appropriate given the realities of Gunn's job. Furthermore, most college soccer players (even at places like Charlotte) are not going to be pros. Many of them know it and would rather win ugly in the NCAA tournament than lose beautifully. Hell, I bet even many of the future pros would rather have it that way. Charlotte was not going to beat Creighton and UNC playing the beautiful game. So, they played a style in each game (very different styles in each in fact) that they felt would give them the best chance to win. It worked in the semis, and almost worked in the championship. I think Gunn played his hand correctly. In my view, it showed a tremendous amount of coaching skill. Will that style advance and improve U.S. soccer? No. Did I enjoy watching the Charlotte semifinal? Also, no. But, would I do the same thing in Gunn's position? Yes. Charlotte made it to the finals and took UNC to the brink. They also controlled large parts of the game and had a lot of exciting scoring chances. That is what will stand out in most people's minds who knew little about Charlotte before. Getting to the final may ultimately net Gunn and Charlotte recruits that they couldn't have gotten before. Which in turn will mean that next time around, he can play a more attractive style of soccer while trying to win. I have no qualms with Gunn's strategy in the tourney. In fact, from what I saw, I was impressed with his coaching, given the type of players he has (i.e. those he was able to recruit).
I think to people who think they know about soccer (but in the end don't) your response sounds spot on. But it really is not, it's this same coward mentality that hurts the game in this country. DI College coaches have responsibility to the game to attempt to play good soccer...if they don't feel this way then they too will eventually fall with all college coaches...bc the future of college soccer is in jeopardy...and playing the crap soccer that Gunn played in the semi aint gonna bring anymore fans to CS...it will repel soccer fans from CS. You can't recruit the same players as UNC or UCLA or Maryland or Akron is the biggest crock of CRAP! College soccer coaches recruit GLOBALLY...CS being the only sport in NCAA where you can find players from every continent on the planet. Akron can go to Jamiaca and UCSB to England and UCLA to Spain, Michigan to Brazil then so too can Charlotte. Coaches get paid to win...really...you really beleive this? Name one coach fired for mediocrity...6-11, 7-8-1 etc... If you are going 2-17, 3-14 or 0-16, yes that is losing BUT even then coaches dont get fired...look at Louie Bennet at Marquette, VT, Villanova, FIU (are there exceptions, always are but very few)...this is his 1st winning season, i beleive he had out of 7...in the big east. Lets look at guys who got fired this year....collins-players hated him/lost the team. Michigan guy..fired why b/c players hated him...lost the locker room. Oh, how about Mike Freitag...well we know about the fix that went on there but that was 2 years ago, Brett Simon Stanford was it 8 years before he got canned? You have to be a total disaster, TOTALLY...to get fired in DI soccer as a HC, most often it has to be coupled with something else not just loses! So dont give me the BS "paid to win"! A coach has one very good year and 3 bad, graduating players and kids like him he will not get fired. So notation that you can't care about the game and attempt to play good soccer because you'll get fired for losing is BS. The fact is AD's in this country know nothing about soccer...so guys who know about soccer don't get hired but guys that sound like BBL coaches do. No one is saying you need to play the beautiful game like barcelona and get to the final...but you see small clubs in Italy (Catania), Spain (viilareal), Germany (weder bremen), Turkey playing good possession soccer with element of counterattack (most college coaches do not have the know how and most AD's don't even know where Spain is on a map) teams that beleive in passing and connecting conservatively...not kicking the ball long for one forward left to dribble himself to the sidline to get a long throw in. UNC, UCLA and CREIGHTON SHOULD BE MODELS by which all college coaches should aspire after. BTW did you even hear Gunn's half time interview? He used the word "harass the opponent", I can't say I have ever heard that word used in soccer context! -Win ugly...hmmm...or lose like a coward! A coward for making no attempt to win a game...you should put out a survey to college players on this one. "I was impressed with his coaching, given the type of players he has", my guess is you have never played the game ! He recruited those players, he hand picked those players...and because he gets to the semi of the NCAA...now they are labeled "that type of players"...wow you have now insulted those players horribly and you should apologize. Have you even seen Charlotte play before NCAA? How do you know those players can't pass or possess the ball? Charlotte could just as well gotten to the final playing an attractive possession counterattack game, and they didn't b/c the coach does not know how. I hope you are not a coach! God help your players if you are...
I generally appreciate the thorough response. I won't respond to all of your points as we'll just have to disagree on some of them. I do want to respond to some though. First, I couldn't agree more that UNC, UCLA, Creighton (and I'd argue Akron for most part, certainly last year's rendition) should be models. I just don't think most college teams have the players/talent to play that way and be successful. Second, I didn't hear Gunn's halftime interview, so I can't speak to that. Third, I played the game (though fairly long ago now), and still know people in the game both college and professional (players and coaches). To give context to my perspective, I played on a team that did not have the highest talent level, but managed to beat some of the top teams in the country on multiple occasions and it often (though not always) was not pretty. That said, the talent my former team now gets is markedly better than it was before my era (though still not in the range of the elite programs), and I believe that is in part because of the wins/record of some of the teams of my era that sometimes won ugly. In other words, winning ugly then has allowed the program to play better soccer now. I freely admit, I may have been reading what Charlotte was doing through my own experience, but that is what I saw in what Charlotte did at the college cup. I can't speak for others on your "win ugly or lose like a coward point" I can only speak for myself. But in general, come tournament time, I wanted to do whatever it took (within the rules) to give myself and my team the best chance to advance. Sometimes, that was playing the prettiest, most tactical soccer we could. Sometimes, it was a more defensive counter-attack strategy. When the less beautiful approach didn't work (and it didn't on one occasion, in fact, it failed miserably), I didn't think of our strategy as "cowardly" it was a pragmatic effort to win. I have no regrets about that and I don't think any of my teammates do either. Would I have preferred to have beaten that other team at the beautiful game? Sure. But I also knew going in that was never going to happen (apparently so did Holland against Spain in the last world cup). I get why as a fan, people don't like to watch that. But as a competitor, sometimes you feel it's your best chance to win so you give it a go. Fourth, I was in no way insulting the Charlotte players. I think you were misreading my point. If they think they could have played possession soccer and beaten Creighton and UNC, then they should be upset with their coach for having them play the style they played. I don't think they could have won with a possession oriented style. You seem to think otherwise, which is fine. I thought they played to their strengths in the final, which was generally being more physical than UNC and defending well collectively (and of course Donnie Smith running at players with pace). That in no way means they can't pass or possess the ball at all, but in my opinion they're not going to beat UNC at that game. I'd be surprised if the players themselves thought they could have. In fact, I may be wrong, but it seemed to me that they like getting physical. That's what I meant by "the type of players he had" their advantage was in their physicality and collective defending and he utilized that well. However, I stand by my position that he can't recruit the same players UNC, UCLA and Akron can. Finally, I am not a coach. I'm just some guy who shares his thoughts on the game on a message board and enjoys learning from and discussing with others who do the same. That said, if I were ever to coach, I'd coach at a much younger level and player development would be my top priority. My players would be fine. I'm confident that I don't have whatever type of "cowardly mentality" you have ascribed to me as harming the game in this country. While you make some other valid points, I assure you that your assessment on that point is dead wrong.
Yeah, the way that Charlotte was able to adapt its play to the opponent was one of the things that impressed me about them. A point that your excellent comments didn't cover is that Gunn could've brought in a lot more foreign talent than he did. Instead, he fielded mostly players from within Charlotte's region, and his leading scorer was a freshman who came out of the academy where he coaches.
I really appreciate your response...it shows you are a true gentlemen...I mean that! Winning ugly is something every championship team has to do! But winning ugly doesn't mean your game plan is to be destroying, harassing, UGLY...winning ugly means a quality team imposed itself on you but you fought thru it and got a win...n probably didn't play your best soccer. Winning ugly is something that comes about not a pre game gameplan. Eitherway, I like you care about this game very much for all that it has given me...and thats just not kicking a ball. I beleive as tiny is the pond I am in, I can help US soccer as just being a tiny example of doing the right thing. Which in my book means playing the attempting, trying, and caring enough to play good soccer!
Thanks for the compliment. Showing others the beauty of the game when played well, is no doubt important. I think I've hijacked this string long enough, so, I'll now leave it to those who have reports on 2012 coaching vacancies.
Seton Hall hires alum and former assistant Gerson Echeverry as head coach. http://www.shupirates.com/ViewArtic...94&DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=205349531&DB_OEM_ID=12600 And, thanks to his lone MLS regular season appearance, he ups the number of former MLS players to become college head coaches. He also ups the number of minority coaches, being both black and Hispanic.
It may be true that Stanford is a dream school for a very select group of players. The admissions hill is a steep one to climb for most serious soccer playing kids--I don't think they move much on their standards for athletes. I don't know many top soccer players who also carry 4+ gpa and 2100 + SAT's. Maybe the new coach will have lattitude and be able to accept kids who aren't off the charts academically--still great students but not valedictorians. That will certainly help them have more success.
I heard Jacksonville JU is open? What happened there? Here is a name that i cant believe has not been mentioned for any of these jobs....Shawn (SP) Docking at Coastal Carolina? he did very well this year. I hear they are not even fully funded, and only has One assistant and is about to start sharing the game field with W.Soccer and W. Lacrosse? he has done very well with little or none resources? Will there be anymore openings after the new year?
I think that in the early 2000's Stanford tightened its admissions policy for male athletes which really hurt football, soccer and basketball. It also was one of the reasons Bobby Clark left. Huge turnover in football: Willingham, Teavens, etc. Admissions head was fired coincident with Bowlsby's arrival as AD 4 years ago and academic requirements for admissions lightened up alot. Enter Harbough, Andrew Luck, incredible running backs and DB's and with that mix you have 2 back-to-back 11-1 football teams. With Bowlsby (from Iowa), I guess it is gonna be "just win" or youre out. Rich alumni with alot of money will only donate if Stanford wins. My point is that for about 4 years Stanford soccer has had free rein to go after lesser academic lights. the implication being that the recruits have been high enough quality at least equal to the Stanford women. So the AD answers the question by trying a different coaching direction.
I don't think you or D1pop are on the right topic here... these stringent admissions standards haven't prevented Notre Dame, Duke, Northwestern, Georgetown or Ivy programs like Dartmouth and Brown from having tremendous success, including NCAA Tournament play. I mean you look at the private, high academic schools and all of them but Stanford are having very good success. Its not like Stanford's admissions are significantly more difficult than the list above. It comes down to a combination of recruiting the right kids and coaching them properly. Some coaches are great recruiters... some coaches are great coaches... some are both. It seems that Brett was not able to recruit the right kids or coach them properly. Simple as that.
The schools that you reference have either been beaten by or have had OT games with Stanford. You are also defining success by entrance into the yr end tournament. The Ivy League (which is a joke compared to Pac 12 talent wise) benefit from higher media profile with the east coast-biased ncaa tournament committee. So in relation to the Nov-Dec Madness tourney, the pac 12 teams play each other twice which is really stupid as there is no way to play an east coast high rpi team midseason to get more west coast teams in the tournament. WCC just decided to play each other only once per year going forward; the Pac 12 should do the same. Otherwise the only time that Pac 12 goes east is once per year early in the season to get rpi points.
I don't know the ins-and-outs of these programs, but of the programs he mentioned, Duke seems the most comparable to me. I may be wrong, but my impression is that Duke has been more successful than Stanford as of late. Having seen Stanford play several times over the past few years, I've wondered if the problem is less admissions standards (though that's certainly a hurdle), than coaching up the kids they get. The talent I've seen on the field seems like it should get better results. I agree that the talent is generally better than the Ivy League schools (as it should be given that Stanford has scholarships and they don't, something would be really wrong if it weren't). I guess I'm optimistic for Stanford that the coaching change may bring better results (depending on who they get) even if they continue to get the same caliber of recruits.
I agree with this. In addition, we out here in California have seen some pretty darn good players enter Stanford, and particularly on the offensive side of the ball, not show any improvement in their time there. Generally, Stanford gats a couple of very good California players and scattered other well regarded players from around the country and the results have most years been poor. The coach was reportedly a nice enough guy but he had to go. Stanford should be an annual NCAA participant.
Speaking of coaching vacancies, one has just been filled. Seton Hall has just hired on Gerson Echeverry as their head coach. New Seton Hall coach comes from US program
Soccer is such a subjective sport as opposed to football (size and speed) and baseball (avg., so's). So many programs don't recruit for a role but try and get the best available talent as ranked by Topdrawer, US NT exper., or Rivals, etc. These rankings have become really biased and just plain WRONG.
Your post doesn't contain fact... 1) Stanford lost to Georgetown this year and has not played any of the other teams I mentioned in the past 4 years... 2) Stanford has one NCAA Appearance (2009 Sweet 16) in the past 9 years: Duke 8 of 9 (2011 2nd R, 2010 2nd R, 2009 Sweet 16, 2008 1st R, 2007 1st R, 2006 Elite 8, 2005 2nd R, 2004 Final 4) Notre Dame 8 of 9 (2010 2nd R, 2009 2nd R, 2008 2nd R, 2007 Elite 8, 2006 Elite 8, 2005 Sweet 16, 2004 2nd R,2003 Sweet 16) Brown 7 of 9 (2011 Sweet 16, 2010 Sweet 16, 2009 2nd R, 2007 2nd R, 2006 2nd R, 2005 2nd R, 2003 1st R) Northwestern 6 of 9 (2011 1st R, 2009 Sweet 16, 2008 Elite 8, 2007 2nd R, 2006 Elite 8, 2004 2nd R) Dartmouth 6 of 9 (2011 1st R, 2010 Sweet 16, 2008 Sweet 16, 2007 1st R, 2005 2nd R, 2004 1st R) 3) To say that teams make the tournament based on a bias or media profile, you may have a point - the whole NCAA picking teams to keep costs down does play into this. But the Ivy League teams I am talking about have made 6 or 7 out of the past 9 years. Both have made multiple Sweet 16 runs. When you lump in NU, ND, and Duke, you start to talk about multiple runs to the Elite 8 or farther. You start to talk about teams in tougher conferences than the Pac whatever - Big East, Big Ten and ACC. Not sure what these schools have to face that Stanford doesn't... Tough admissions standards? check High cost of attendance? check More skilled league opponents? check The simple fact is that Stanford didn't have success, didn't make the NCAA Tournament, didn't make deep runs into the Tournament as their fellow private, high academic schools have. The coach is the one responsible for not having success and that is why he's no longer there... not because of bias, admissions, or tough league opponents. Can we please get this back to a board regarding coaching vacancies and more importantly coaching rumors? Or lets start a Stanford specific board?