Unless there is an actual situation that warrants a firing or Carr leaves of his own volition, he'll be there at least until his contract is up. OU's AD does not fire coaches unless he absolutely has to - his preference is to just not renew a contract. From here on out, everything is on Carr, though. Their spring roster only shows one remaining player from the previous coaching staff, and that's only if she decides to take the free year from COVID. It's been his culture for two years, now it's all his players.
The discussion about Carr and his roster peaked my interest so I went to look at it. He has 12 players listed as Sophomores that were freshman in the fall. How did they advance to being a sophomore after one semester? That was a hell of a schedule for them in the fall to take all those units. Of his spring roster of 25 players he has 17 freshman. What happened to all the upper class players? Is that common to have a complete turnover of a roster in two years with a change in coach?
Looks like I got this one right a long while back. I do predict also Jenny Bindon ends up at USC as asst. The OU situation was complicated..after the investigation they told the players there were going to give him a chance to improve. Anytime the AD has. to meet with the entire team and give a vote of confidence it is not a good situation. But being a hot seat thread he is safe for now but I would say the seat is still hot. I am curious on peoples thoughts on Houston? Any ideas on who could end up there?
The jump from FR to SO from fall to spring is related to whomever is handling Sports Media for WSOC. It's not unusual. Omaha rolled their roster forward already too. I've mentioned before, my kid plays in college. Her coach has been there a few years but 90% of the kids that came in under a prior coach, left the program within 2 years of the coaching change. Again, this is not unusual. I'll give my kid as an example. She is a more technical/tactical possession preferred kid. She does not enjoy and really hasn't thrived with any coach that prefers a direct/long ball game. If she was at a school with a coach that she aligned with and played her preferred style of the game and that coach quit or was fired and the new coach that came in was a direct/long game, she would 100% transfer because she knows she would find herself on the bench. Same thing happens when a program is a direct/long game and moves to a possession game, players know they don't have the skills required by the new coach, they leave. This isn't 'hot news', it feels more like attempting to stir the pot.
OK, then how do you explain his own recruits and transfers leaving? Some left after only 1 semester. Kids have given up millions in scholarship money to get out of there.
Former California and Arizona State boss Boyd to Milwaukee got me thinking how much coaching turnover we have seen out west. Does anyone know why? By my count over half the PAC12 have relatively new coaches UW, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Arizona, UCLA, USC Old men at Washington State, Stanford, Colorado, Cal and Arizona State
The UNC transfer transfered back to the Carolinas. You can check her minutes and results yourself. He had another transfer FW from GA leave after Fall 2020 semester. She was a senior. You can check her minutes and results also. So far, the only 2021 freshman in his first recruiting class to depart was a 4th seed GK. For Fall 2021, 13 of OU's 29 goals came from 3 Seniors who prior career total was 3. All the rest came from transfers, frosh and the lone, remaining 2020 who may leave but I doubt it. She was a team captain in the fall and again this Spring. More transfers could show up from those who left and some frosh who did not play much. It was a big squad.
And the Oregon transfer and the Virginia Tech transfer? The FSU transfer isn’t staying either to play.
New coaches taking over a program is an ugly business. Kids should be careful what they wish for sometimes because a new coach doesn’t mean they’ll play and in many instances, they’ll play less. Usually takes 4-5 years to completely shake out and Carr is only in Year 2. The bumpy road is to be expected.
My apologies. I forgot Oregon. She played a lot in 20-21 but a bit less in Fall 21. Her skill and speed did not match her ambition. But some smart plays and assists. Virginia Tech and FSU, both on the Spring roster, got plenty of minutes but have struggled so far in scoring and assists. I don't have access to the transfer portal.
The previous UW, Oregon, Utah, Arizona, UCLA, and USC coaches all had long tenures at those schools. Most of them were let go. Only USC and AZ coaches left for other college head jobs. The OSU coach left under mysterious circumstances after a brief time there.
Virginia Tech is not on the spring roster and has transferred after one semester to St. John's. The international freshmen can't leave yet. You will see more leave after spring.
I agree with your take but you can't generalize. Sometimes a new coach is Exactly what the program needs and you can see nearly immediate improvement. I think Mich St is a great example from last cycle. I'd bet on UMD and KY coaches doing better almost immediately I know a KY kid who got in the portal but will now stay after she met the new coach. The common thread is that these were all bottom dwellers in their conferences with coaches being let go or not renewed. No question that for some schools where the expectation is super high, like your west coast USC/UCLA types, you could certainly expect some growing pains. You could make an argument taking over a "successful" program, esp with lots of tradition, is much harder. Sometimes schools are just trading one mess for another. The OK stuff could go to a new thread but clearly, change can be ugly.
I don’t think there is much of a way around the unpleasantness. Even at MSU, where they had some success this year, I’m fairly certain there were some unhappy players. When a coach takes over a middling program, and he/she attempts to turn it around, they will inevitably bring in players that are better than the current ones, which creates issues and tissues. It doesn’t matter how decent a person the new coach is, unhappiness follows for a few years until they’ve turned over most of the roster. Here’s a question. Which is the better move? Cleaning house immediately (as appears was the case at OK and a few other schools)? Keeping everyone but adding to the roster to improve it? Or slowly replacing players as they graduate? The problem I see with the last one is that some schools aren’t all that patient and that way will take a long time to turn the corner. The second creates a nightmare roster size with its own set of headaches. And the first ticks off everyone near the program for a couple of years. I’d be curious as to what people think is the best way to minimize collateral damage? And also, the best way to quickly turn the program around? Those two might be different answers.
I think there are 3 simple points we can surmise about Oklahoma: 1) if there was an investigation there wasn’t enough evidence of wrongdoing to fire the coach 2) but based on the results the coach is doing a terrible job 3) if there was an investigation it does mean concerns were raised, and you couple that with bad results, I think Oklahoma is a top, if not the top, hot seat for the 22-23 season thread.
Maybe another thread for this but if there's a book or manual, please share! Always funny to me how much of soccer and coaching is researched but not much on handling scholarships. Of course, there are speeds to the pace of any transition. There are also more civil ways of handling players than others. Lets assume college players are getting a good evaluation at least twice a year, maybe more. Some schools are more willing than others to let the coach take money at that end of year point. Mid-year is kinda harsh and more rare. Being honest with the player that they "shouldn't expect to play in any competitive games" next year but can stay on the team, is very different than dropping the player from the roster, and dropping them plus taking their money. Sometimes if the school says you have to honor the scholarship, maybe you do keep that player #15-25 around anyway. I think some coaches could take a player's money as they enter the portal and there's a deadline to get in there. The portal does kinda shorten the timeline to acquire new players and so move current ones on. So you'd anticipate that will make it harsher some places for sure. It is difficult to fire up your new current team about "changing the culture, and get on board, and buckle up, etc...." when you are actually trying to replace half or more of them in the next year or two. You might even be bringing players with you immediately if they can help, like MSU. They might even be visiting the week or two after that first meeting! And def coming to the next ID clinic. Lots of factors at work and plenty of stress to go around with these changes.