Greg McGarity- How long should we accept mediocrity?

WCDawg · February 2018

@Teddy said:

@DawginSC said:

@Teddy said:

@DawginSC said:

@judasdurant said:

@DawginSC said:
I'd like to be higher... but then I ask myself this:

Would I rather be where UGA was in the 1998-1999 season when we finished #2 in the Directors cup (to Stanford who wins it every year)? Or would I prefer being where we are now... but with a football team playing for the national title?

The answer is the latter. I'd prefer both... but if I had to sacrifice one I'll give away the Director's Cup standings for football success.

The problem for me is that the two should go hand in hand. Now McGarity will piggyback off the Kirby hire and stay on as AD. Something needs to be done though because our basketball and baseball programs are a joke

They really don't go hand in hand.

Stanford wins it every year because they fund EVERY sport that qualifies for the rankings. They get to take their top 20. Back in 1998 (when I was a student)... we only had 20 scholarship sports. I think we're up to 22 or 23 now... but Stanford has 34. They get to toss out their 14 worst results each year.

The Sears Cup is about how many sports you put money into... not your overall success in the sports you do field. That's a secondary factor.

When Charles Knapp was the President of UGA... he didn't really prioritize football financially. He told his AD (Vince Dooley) to focus on bringing all sports up and not to direct every available dollar towards football. That was successful... we got championships in Golf, Tennis and Swimming largely because of that. But fans weren't exactly happy.

Michael Adams read that... and told Dooley (and the future AD's) to focus on football. Dollars started to come out of other sports to increase spending on football.

Football has gotten better. The other sports have slipped.

Ideally we'd spend huge amounts on all sports... but we don't do that.

But we used to always be a top 5-10 university in this ranking. You say it's because we used to prioritized all sports, and are now focusing on football. Which isn't completely true. The other sports are getting their fair share of the money as well (no different than the past, if any different, they're getting more money), just as they have in the past. I think the main difference is we used to compete in these sports when we had competent coaching and a decent AD. That's really the only change in my mind. And if anything the other sports will get even more money due to football's success than in the past... Either way, there's plenty of football schools that compete and win this Cup every year. So, if other schools can compete in football and all around in sports, I think we can too (not only can we, we have in the past on a regular basis with the main difference being a few coaches and an AD).

But think about coaching in these sports. We've let successful coaches go elsewhere... in part because of money. We had Tubby Smith as our coach in basketball in 1997. While no amount of money was going to keep him from the UK job... we've hired sub-par (and cheaper) basketball coaches. Jim Harrick was making about 450K a year. Smith was making about 650K a year when he left. UGA didn't pony up to hold onto Ron Polk in baseball. Would Yoculan have stayed if we threw more money at her?

The coaches we've maintained (Haack in Golf, Baurle in swimming, Diaz in Tennis) from the Knapp era have all continued having great success... but the replacements we've put in for other sports have largely been former assistants that were cheap and we got what we paid for. Gymnastics (Replacing Yoculan), womens basketball (Landers), mens baskeball (Tubby Smith) all took big steps down because we hired on the cheap. The only real hits were with older guys "coming back" to their sports... Harrick in basketball and Polk in baseball. And we couldn't keep Polk when his price went up... the same would be true with Harrick if he hadn't imploded before the salary came up for negotiation.

Pre-Michael Adams, we spent money on hiring top coaches for other sports. Now we don't.

It's also about hiring the right coach, no matter their price. To do that, you need to be able to properly evaluate. Kirby seems to be the only coach they've hired that they've properly evaluated. There's plenty of first time head coaches in other sports that go on to become successful, they just seem to lack the ability to find them. Also, they are holding onto these coaches that are failing for far too long. Another sign of ineptitude.

Women's basketball is having an excellent season so far, so that hire might yet pan out.
Most of McGarity's hires are proving to be poor choices though.

DawginSC · February 2018

@Teddy said:

@DawginSC said:

@Teddy said:

@DawginSC said:

@judasdurant said:

@DawginSC said:
I'd like to be higher... but then I ask myself this:

Would I rather be where UGA was in the 1998-1999 season when we finished #2 in the Directors cup (to Stanford who wins it every year)? Or would I prefer being where we are now... but with a football team playing for the national title?

The answer is the latter. I'd prefer both... but if I had to sacrifice one I'll give away the Director's Cup standings for football success.

The problem for me is that the two should go hand in hand. Now McGarity will piggyback off the Kirby hire and stay on as AD. Something needs to be done though because our basketball and baseball programs are a joke

They really don't go hand in hand.

Stanford wins it every year because they fund EVERY sport that qualifies for the rankings. They get to take their top 20. Back in 1998 (when I was a student)... we only had 20 scholarship sports. I think we're up to 22 or 23 now... but Stanford has 34. They get to toss out their 14 worst results each year.

The Sears Cup is about how many sports you put money into... not your overall success in the sports you do field. That's a secondary factor.

When Charles Knapp was the President of UGA... he didn't really prioritize football financially. He told his AD (Vince Dooley) to focus on bringing all sports up and not to direct every available dollar towards football. That was successful... we got championships in Golf, Tennis and Swimming largely because of that. But fans weren't exactly happy.

Michael Adams read that... and told Dooley (and the future AD's) to focus on football. Dollars started to come out of other sports to increase spending on football.

Football has gotten better. The other sports have slipped.

Ideally we'd spend huge amounts on all sports... but we don't do that.

But we used to always be a top 5-10 university in this ranking. You say it's because we used to prioritized all sports, and are now focusing on football. Which isn't completely true. The other sports are getting their fair share of the money as well (no different than the past, if any different, they're getting more money), just as they have in the past. I think the main difference is we used to compete in these sports when we had competent coaching and a decent AD. That's really the only change in my mind. And if anything the other sports will get even more money due to football's success than in the past... Either way, there's plenty of football schools that compete and win this Cup every year. So, if other schools can compete in football and all around in sports, I think we can too (not only can we, we have in the past on a regular basis with the main difference being a few coaches and an AD).

But think about coaching in these sports. We've let successful coaches go elsewhere... in part because of money. We had Tubby Smith as our coach in basketball in 1997. While no amount of money was going to keep him from the UK job... we've hired sub-par (and cheaper) basketball coaches. Jim Harrick was making about 450K a year. Smith was making about 650K a year when he left. UGA didn't pony up to hold onto Ron Polk in baseball. Would Yoculan have stayed if we threw more money at her?

The coaches we've maintained (Haack in Golf, Baurle in swimming, Diaz in Tennis) from the Knapp era have all continued having great success... but the replacements we've put in for other sports have largely been former assistants that were cheap and we got what we paid for. Gymnastics (Replacing Yoculan), womens basketball (Landers), mens baskeball (Tubby Smith) all took big steps down because we hired on the cheap. The only real hits were with older guys "coming back" to their sports... Harrick in basketball and Polk in baseball. And we couldn't keep Polk when his price went up... the same would be true with Harrick if he hadn't imploded before the salary came up for negotiation.

Pre-Michael Adams, we spent money on hiring top coaches for other sports. Now we don't.

It's also about hiring the right coach, no matter their price. To do that, you need to be able to properly evaluate. Kirby seems to be the only coach they've hired that they've properly evaluated. There's plenty of first time head coaches in other sports that go on to become successful, they just seem to lack the ability to find them. Also, they are holding onto these coaches that are failing for far too long. Another sign of ineptitude.

It's not "ineptitude" as much as it is "money".

It's easy when you're at Stanford. They can literally match or pay more than any other school and they're willing to do so for non-revenue sports. Their hiring criteria is "Best coach willing to come to Stanford". UGA's is "Best coach willing to come to UGA who's inexpensive. And might stay around if they have some success."

We're effectively like a mid-major when it comes to coaching salaries for everything other than football (at least when it comes to new hires). That makes us a stepping stone job... not a final destination job. Stanford is not that for any sport because of how they compensate coaches.

Let's say we hire another Tubby Smith. In 4 years he'd be somewhere else.

In Gymnastics, when we hired a new coach... we got a former UGA gymnast who has never coached college gymnastics. A few days earlier, NC State hired Kim Landrus away from Illinois... a coach who took a school without much talent to multiple high NCAA finishes. Did we try to hire Landrus or established coaches from places like Oklahoma or Auburn? Nope. Because we don't spend the money on coaches for those sports.

donm · February 2018

McGarity is what his record says he is.

DawginSC · February 2018

@donm said:

@DawginSC said:

@Teddy said:

@DawginSC said:

@judasdurant said:

@DawginSC said:
I'd like to be higher... but then I ask myself this:

Would I rather be where UGA was in the 1998-1999 season when we finished #2 in the Directors cup (to Stanford who wins it every year)? Or would I prefer being where we are now... but with a football team playing for the national title?

The answer is the latter. I'd prefer both... but if I had to sacrifice one I'll give away the Director's Cup standings for football success.

The problem for me is that the two should go hand in hand. Now McGarity will piggyback off the Kirby hire and stay on as AD. Something needs to be done though because our basketball and baseball programs are a joke

They really don't go hand in hand.

Stanford wins it every year because they fund EVERY sport that qualifies for the rankings. They get to take their top 20. Back in 1998 (when I was a student)... we only had 20 scholarship sports. I think we're up to 22 or 23 now... but Stanford has 34. They get to toss out their 14 worst results each year.

The Sears Cup is about how many sports you put money into... not your overall success in the sports you do field. That's a secondary factor.

When Charles Knapp was the President of UGA... he didn't really prioritize football financially. He told his AD (Vince Dooley) to focus on bringing all sports up and not to direct every available dollar towards football. That was successful... we got championships in Golf, Tennis and Swimming largely because of that. But fans weren't exactly happy.

Michael Adams read that... and told Dooley (and the future AD's) to focus on football. Dollars started to come out of other sports to increase spending on football.

Football has gotten better. The other sports have slipped.

Ideally we'd spend huge amounts on all sports... but we don't do that.

But we used to always be a top 5-10 university in this ranking. You say it's because we used to prioritized all sports, and are now focusing on football. Which isn't completely true. The other sports are getting their fair share of the money as well (no different than the past, if any different, they're getting more money), just as they have in the past. I think the main difference is we used to compete in these sports when we had competent coaching and a decent AD. That's really the only change in my mind. And if anything the other sports will get even more money due to football's success than in the past... Either way, there's plenty of football schools that compete and win this Cup every year. So, if other schools can compete in football and all around in sports, I think we can too (not only can we, we have in the past on a regular basis with the main difference being a few coaches and an AD).

But think about coaching in these sports. We've let successful coaches go elsewhere... in part because of money. We had Tubby Smith as our coach in basketball in 1997. While no amount of money was going to keep him from the UK job... we've hired sub-par (and cheaper) basketball coaches. Jim Harrick was making about 450K a year. Smith was making about 650K a year when he left. UGA didn't pony up to hold onto Ron Polk in baseball. Would Yoculan have stayed if we threw more money at her?

The coaches we've maintained (Haack in Golf, Baurle in swimming, Diaz in Tennis) from the Knapp era have all continued having great success... but the replacements we've put in for other sports have largely been former assistants that were cheap and we got what we paid for. Gymnastics (Replacing Yoculan), womens basketball (Landers), mens baskeball (Tubby Smith) all took big steps down because we hired on the cheap. The only real hits were with older guys "coming back" to their sports... Harrick in basketball and Polk in baseball. And we couldn't keep Polk when his price went up... the same would be true with Harrick if he hadn't imploded before the salary came up for negotiation.

Pre-Michael Adams, we spent money on hiring top coaches for other sports. Now we don't.

After so many years with Foley at UF, I'd think he would despise mediocrity. Guess he wasn't paying that close of attention during his time down in the Swamp, You are what your record says you are.

Money has a lot to do with it. We almost lost Jack Baurle (swim coach) to Florida several times due to them offering much more than we were willing to. He ended up staying because of his ties to the university rather than money... but we were outbid. UF spends more money on secondary sports than we do.

andrews1253 · February 2018

I can accept quality coaches leaving for more money or more prestigious programs ie Tubby Smith. I would also be okay if UGA properly evaluated younger upstart or successful assistant coaches and then lost them, as long as the programs were moving forward. When programs have national recognition for their success coaches want to stay. Any endeavor will require a financial commitment up front. If, as many of you suggest, UGA is not willing to make that commitment, why not?
I don't have the answer but some institutions are succeeding and UGA is not. You guys have some great thoughts.

WCDawg · February 2018

@DawginSC said:

@donm said:

@DawginSC said:

@Teddy said:

@DawginSC said:

@judasdurant said:

@DawginSC said:
I'd like to be higher... but then I ask myself this:

Would I rather be where UGA was in the 1998-1999 season when we finished #2 in the Directors cup (to Stanford who wins it every year)? Or would I prefer being where we are now... but with a football team playing for the national title?

The answer is the latter. I'd prefer both... but if I had to sacrifice one I'll give away the Director's Cup standings for football success.

The problem for me is that the two should go hand in hand. Now McGarity will piggyback off the Kirby hire and stay on as AD. Something needs to be done though because our basketball and baseball programs are a joke

They really don't go hand in hand.

Stanford wins it every year because they fund EVERY sport that qualifies for the rankings. They get to take their top 20. Back in 1998 (when I was a student)... we only had 20 scholarship sports. I think we're up to 22 or 23 now... but Stanford has 34. They get to toss out their 14 worst results each year.

The Sears Cup is about how many sports you put money into... not your overall success in the sports you do field. That's a secondary factor.

When Charles Knapp was the President of UGA... he didn't really prioritize football financially. He told his AD (Vince Dooley) to focus on bringing all sports up and not to direct every available dollar towards football. That was successful... we got championships in Golf, Tennis and Swimming largely because of that. But fans weren't exactly happy.

Michael Adams read that... and told Dooley (and the future AD's) to focus on football. Dollars started to come out of other sports to increase spending on football.

Football has gotten better. The other sports have slipped.

Ideally we'd spend huge amounts on all sports... but we don't do that.

But we used to always be a top 5-10 university in this ranking. You say it's because we used to prioritized all sports, and are now focusing on football. Which isn't completely true. The other sports are getting their fair share of the money as well (no different than the past, if any different, they're getting more money), just as they have in the past. I think the main difference is we used to compete in these sports when we had competent coaching and a decent AD. That's really the only change in my mind. And if anything the other sports will get even more money due to football's success than in the past... Either way, there's plenty of football schools that compete and win this Cup every year. So, if other schools can compete in football and all around in sports, I think we can too (not only can we, we have in the past on a regular basis with the main difference being a few coaches and an AD).

But think about coaching in these sports. We've let successful coaches go elsewhere... in part because of money. We had Tubby Smith as our coach in basketball in 1997. While no amount of money was going to keep him from the UK job... we've hired sub-par (and cheaper) basketball coaches. Jim Harrick was making about 450K a year. Smith was making about 650K a year when he left. UGA didn't pony up to hold onto Ron Polk in baseball. Would Yoculan have stayed if we threw more money at her?

The coaches we've maintained (Haack in Golf, Baurle in swimming, Diaz in Tennis) from the Knapp era have all continued having great success... but the replacements we've put in for other sports have largely been former assistants that were cheap and we got what we paid for. Gymnastics (Replacing Yoculan), womens basketball (Landers), mens baskeball (Tubby Smith) all took big steps down because we hired on the cheap. The only real hits were with older guys "coming back" to their sports... Harrick in basketball and Polk in baseball. And we couldn't keep Polk when his price went up... the same would be true with Harrick if he hadn't imploded before the salary came up for negotiation.

Pre-Michael Adams, we spent money on hiring top coaches for other sports. Now we don't.

After so many years with Foley at UF, I'd think he would despise mediocrity. Guess he wasn't paying that close of attention during his time down in the Swamp, You are what your record says you are.

Money has a lot to do with it. We almost lost Jack Baurle (swim coach) to Florida several times due to them offering much more than we were willing to. He ended up staying because of his ties to the university rather than money... but we were outbid. UF spends more money on secondary sports than we do.

I give Vince Dooley huge credit for managing the entire athletics dept, not just the revenue sports.
It looks like more bad judgement with McGarity to me. He just makes some bad hires.
IF there is an opportunity to open the bank to land the right basketball coach, lets go for it. More likely is the established high dollar coaches won't come though. That would kick it back to evaluating the candidates.

andrews1253 · February 2018

Mr. McGarity when will the Dawgs compete?
http://www.wtva.com/content/sports/Florida-picked-to-win-2018-SEC-Baseball-Championship-473484743.html

andrews1253 · February 2018

Well Florida just won their 6th consecutive swim championship and A&M lady Aggies just won their 3rd consecutive swim championship.

dawfanfromalabam · February 2018

There’s other sports at UGA other than football? When did that start?

sethemerson · February 2018

I think everyone understands what's going to happen if there isn't a drastic turnaround the final few weeks of this basketball season.

andrews1253 · March 2018

Many folks are clamoring for Mark Fox's job. I do not differ in that opinion, however, it seems to me things will get no better in Georgia athletics until McGarity is gone!

https://www.dawgsports.com/2015/11/30/9815058/fire-greg-mcgarity-secret-gator-and-communist
Article was written after the Richt firing and in my opinion is well worth reading. Since this writing things are no better.

Greg McGarity- How long should we accept mediocrity?

Comments