fauowls44 said

Look closer at his bio.� He turned losing programs around.� That combined with the references makes him a legit candidate, IMO.

i am looking…he was .517 W% at Stetson…here's something for you:

Wilkes (last coach before him at Stetson) was 69-63 his last four years there…thats .522 W%

Sooooooo…….

How about them apples?? ;D

"When he moved to Stetson for the 1994 season, the Hatters had suffered three losing seasons in the previous four years.He went 14-15 his first season, but took Stetson to the championship game of the Trans America Athletic Conference Tournament."

"The Zips were a combined 11-41 his first two years, but beginning with the 1998 season won 17 or more games for three straight years and led the MAC in conference victories during that span."

All i'm saying is that the resume shows that he has a track record of taking down programs and making them better.� Again, i'm not saying he's the guy or not, just that I think he has a solid resume.

fauowls44 said

"When he moved to Stetson for the 1994 season, the Hatters had suffered three losing seasons in the previous four years.He went 14-15 his first season, but took Stetson to the championship game of the Trans America Athletic Conference Tournament."

"The Zips were a combined 11-41 his first two years, but beginning with the 1998 season won 17 or more games for three straight years and led the MAC in conference victories during that span."

All i'm saying is that the resume shows that he has a track record of taking down programs and making them better.� Again, i'm not saying he's the guy or not, just that I think he has a solid resume.

i understand…

( i honestly dont think its impressive, but thats just an opinion)

anyway, thats aquit e rediculous comment above that someone wrote in his bio…what a SPIN in his direction…here's the facts:

15-17 89'-90' -� Wilkes
15-16 90'-91' - Wilkes
11-17 91'-92' - Wilkes
14-13 - 92'-93' - Wilkes

Now for the EARTH SHATTERING turn around:

14-15 93'-94' Hishper

15-12 94'-95' Hishper

*cricket sounds*

See what i mean…

So the quoute should read:

"He moved to Stetson for the 1993 season, one that also resulted in suffering a losing record."

Gotta love SPIN…and this is a very bad case of it…the guy was 2 games above .500 and not as winning as the guy before him in the context of the quote…rediculous…

Florida_Owl said

fauowls44 said

"When he moved to Stetson for the 1994 season, the Hatters had suffered three losing seasons in the previous four years.He went 14-15 his first season, but took Stetson to the championship game of the Trans America Athletic Conference Tournament."

"The Zips were a combined 11-41 his first two years, but beginning with the 1998 season won 17 or more games for three straight years and led the MAC in conference victories during that span."

All i'm saying is that the resume shows that he has a track record of taking down programs and making them better.� Again, i'm not saying he's the guy or not, just that I think he has a solid resume.

i understand…

( i honestly dont think its impressive, but thats just an opinion)

anyway, thats aquit e rediculous comment above that someone wrote in his bio…what a SPIN in his direction…here's the facts:

15-17 89'-90' -� Wilkes
15-16 90'-91' - Wilkes
11-17 91'-92' - Wilkes
14-13 - 92'-93' - Wilkes

Now for the EARTH SHATTERING turn around:

14-15 93'-94' Hishper

15-12 94'-95' Hishper

*cricket sounds*

See what i mean…

So the quoute should read:

"He moved to Stetson for the 1993 season, one that also resulted in suffering a losing record."

Gotta love SPIN…and this is a very bad case of it…the guy was 2 games above .500 and not as winning as the guy before him in the context of the quote…rediculous…

I don't think i've said his resume is overly "impressive".� I said the list of references is impressive.� I said his resume is solid.� Is he the best candidate?� I have no idea.� Based soley on his resume, experience, and references, I think we could do worse.

I'd certainly like to know who else is coming in for an interview though.

fauowls44 said

"…I think we could do worse.� I'd certainly like to know who else is coming in for an interview though."

I agree…we could hire Sid Green back! ;D

Balado, Hishper, and Jarvis (although no one on here really supports him whatsoever) are all being interviewed this week…that much i know…the others that have been tossed out, havent heard anything on…

We should know by this time next week who the new man is!

Yup and it looks like it will be Balado or Hispher.� Jarvis interviewed at Stanford two week ago, what does that tell you? He wants to jump back into a BIG program. So forget about him.

It looks like if Balado can win them over in his interview he will be the man.

His name has been pushed around the entire university very well with all sorts of things.

Butterfly4 said

Yup and it looks like it will be Balado or Hispher.� �Jarvis interviewed at Stanford two week ago, what does that tell you? He wants to jump back into a BIG program. So forget about him.

It looks like if Balado can win them over in his interview he will be the man.

I wonder if it has to be one or the other.� Would Balado be willing to stay on as an assistant under the new coach, if it were, say, Hipsher?� Obviously, it would be up to a new coach to decide, but if he is the asset everyone says he is, you'd think they'd want to keep him around.

My main problem with hiring Balado is lack of experience.� I'd feel more comfortable having him take over in the future if he stayed on under a Hipsher or Jarvis-type, someone that has been around a long time.� He could probably learn a lot from someone like that.� Face it, the majority of Balado's experience at the D-I level has been under Rex, who was learning on the job himself.� Under Doherty, Rex was the main assistant, not Balado.

His name has been pushed around the entire university very well with all sorts of things.

What does this sentence mean?� I've read it a few times and can't make heads or tails of it.

If I'm Angelos, the only way Hipsher gets the job is if he guarantees Balado is on staff.� Stability with the returnees and bringing Pena, Sutton and Shavon on board might be more important than differentiating between Hipsher and Coach Mike….

I'm putting my money on Mike..Hipsher could be taking a cut in pay at $150-170K, and if he is willing to do that, there may be an ulterior motive for his accepting this job if offered.� Whoever takes the job, he has inherited a group of players that should make him respectable for the next 2-3 years, so measuring coaching ability probably can't take place until 2010 or 2011 season ;D

Butterfly4 said

Jarvis interviewed at Stanford two week ago, what does that tell you? He wants to jump back into a BIG program. So forget about him.

Tells me he is being interviewed here this week - regardless of Stanford - and our AD is on record confirming that…

fauowls44 said

What does this sentence mean?� I've read it a few times and can't make heads or tails of it.

Lol!

Maybe he's gunning for Borgan's job! ;D

NewOwlOldBBFan said

If I'm Angelos, the only way Hipsher gets the job is if he guarantees Balado is on staff.� Stability with the returnees and bringing Pena, Sutton and Shavon on board might be more important than differentiating between Hipsher and Coach Mike….

I disagree with this entire paragraph.� First of all, you hire the best candidate and let him hire who he sees fit.� If you don't let him hire his own assistant coaches, why hire him in the first place?� Second, you don't hire someone based on keeping players happy.� Most are at the school for 4 years and are gone.� This hire could shape the future of the program for a decade or more.� What's more important?