UND92,96

I've got nothing against Tyler. I just hope he is getting his degree this spring. Otherwise, leaving is a mistake IMO. Anyway, with the benefit of hindsight it would be tough to argue that UND would not have been better served using that scholarship on a high school recruit a couple of years ago. As for Crandall, I'm not saying he necessarily should have played this year--just that he probably could have. Aaron Anderson was 140, and Troy Huff 170 as true freshmen, and they did just fine.

I don't mind a one-and-done transfer if he's considered the last piece of the puzzle for an already good team. But if Tyler truly is gone, and particularly if he took up a scholarship for the year he sat out, it didn't end up being a good move since clearly this was far from a good team. I'm not sure he gave us much, if any more than a combination of Antwi getting more minutes and Crandall not red-shirting could have also done. However, in all fairness I can't blame Jones too much for this one, unless he actually had reason to think Tyler was an early flight risk when be was brought in. Since that presumably wasn't the case, it was probably just a case of bad luck. But that's quite different from trying to claim it was worth it to have Tyler play for one season just because he scored 11 ppg and ate up a lot of minutes on a bad team. I don't see how that benefitted the program at all in the long run.

Was Tyler on scholarship for the year he sat out after transferring from Kansas City?

I will be perfectly honest with you. I don't think there's a very good chance Jones will be back after 2015-16, so I don't support the idea of bringing in a new assistant for one year. I don't think that's fair to that person, particularly when I believe Horner can be promoted, and a grad assistant can adequately perform the duties a director of basketball operations typically handles, at least for one year. Now, if one feels that there IS a realistic chance Jones has a future at UND beyond next season, then I understand why you might feel it's necessary to continue to have three assistants plus a director of basketball operations who is not a grad assistant.

I counted Horner as the fourth assistant. Jones was also a director of basketball operations immediately before he got the UND job. So if that isn't really considered a real coach, that brings up a whole other set of questions... In any event, I would suggest UND follow the Montana St. model--three full-time assistants, which would be Dirden, Grabowski and Horner, plus perhaps a grad assistant.

It saves money, for one thing. Personally, I feel that four assistants is overkill for a low-major program. Either put the savings away for some other pressing need within the basketball program (there are clearly some of those), or use some of it to increase the pay for the other three assistants (not necessarily advocating that one, but it's theoretically possible anyway).

If I were Faison, I would not allow Jones to hire another assistant from the outside for next season, unless somebody else leaves. Promote Horner, and maybe add a grad assistant. I know of at least three other Big Sky schools that get by with three assistants: http://www.msubobcats.com/roster.aspx?path=mbball#coaches_anchor Under the circumstances, that would seem to be the prudent move.

If I'm a coach and think I'm being underpaid relative to my peers, why do I want to extend my low-paying contract even longer? I suppose the thinking is--if I do badly, the lengthy contract guarantees me a decent buyout. And if I do well, they'll have to renegotiate, or risk losing me. Either way, the coach is in a better position than the school.

I think this article explains, to a large extent, the thinking behind the now infamous contract extensions for Mussman and Jones: http://www.bakkentoday.com/event/article/id/396398/publisher_ID/1/

Probably only in the sense that whichever alums/boosters who footed the bill for Mussman's buyout may not feel quite as compelled to bail out Faison's poor decisions twice in such a short period of time.

You may very well be correct on that. I know when Rivard was let go, she only had about six months left on her contract. I suppose that does make for a much easier decision for an a.d. But like I've said before, unless you're really, really confident in a coach's ability, don't hand out a contract extension if you're not pretty confident you can raise the funds necessary to buy it out if things go bad.

Did Rich Glas have any time left on his contract when he departed? Because I don't recall any talk of a buyout.

I would at least hope that Faison has made an actual effort to raise the buyout funds that are only necessary due to his monumentally bad decision to extend Jones' contract so far into the future.

Yes. From the comments section of Miller's blog:

I don't believe there's another example of a coach at one of the other early 2000's NCC schools currently in division I surviving a season like Jones just had post transition. Yes, a couple had comparably bad seasons during their transition, particularly when year four coincided with the first year in their current conferences, but not after it ended, let alone three years removed from the end of it. Carolyn DeHoff is probably the closest comparison, and of course she didn't survive her 6-20 season.

One standard I would expect is to never finish last, with the possible exception of a situation where it's a new coach's first year and he was left with a completely bare cupboard. Finishing anywhere close to last this far into a tenure would have gotten virtually any previous UND men's basketball coach fired. And in terms of blaming the transition, IMO that really falls apart when you consider how Jones has done against UNO. Our head start hasn't meant much there.

How much have the standards for UND men's basketball changed in the last 30 years or so? In Dave Gunther's second-to-last year, he was 12-6 in the NCC, and finished in a tie for second place. He followed that up with an 8-10 NCC record, and was "strongly encouraged", I believe, to take another job within the athletic department. And that was with a hockey coach running the department. It's weird to think that Gunther was not even 50 years old when he stepped down.

It's just frustrating that a certain level of success was demanded at one time, but apparently not anymore.

I don't understand this either. Basketball seems to have been treated as a complete afterthought under Faison. Maybe this would have been more understandable if Gino were still a.d., but somebody with Faison's background? It seems odd.

So when you boil it all down, Jones' future is essentially dependent upon Hooker and a bunch of freshmen and sophomores who haven't proven themselves yet being roughly as good as a team next year as Huff, et al. were as juniors and seniors? Or maybe to be a bit more accurate, they don't necessarily have to be quite as good in terms of conference record (.600), but roughly as good in terms of overall record (.500)? And assuming .500 is good enough to save his job for another year (which I do not concede), does Jones get an extension if he approaches that, or would Faison simply let him come back for the final year of his contract and then reevaluate?

So four coaches achieved something this year that Jones never has. What does that say about the caliber of the Big Sky during the two years Jones actually had a decent conference record, with some of the most experienced teams in the country?

Keep in mind that Jones and Rahe are the only Big Sky coaches with nine or more years at their current schools. Katz achieved a 20-win season this year, along with three other coaches in the Big Sky. Verlin only has seven years at Idaho. We'll have to see whether he can last two more if he doesn't reach that threshold.

I predict a heavy dose of Mike Eruzione.

Just a guess, but I suspect you would have a difficult time finding another division I coach, or division II for that matter, with as many as nine years at his current job without so much as a single 20-win season to his credit.

You almost never see a head coach resign, unless he's retiring, taking a higher-paying job or is given the choice to resign or be fired. And for coaches making big money and who would be due significant buyouts if they are fired, I guess that's not surprising. But for a coach who doesn't make big money and who knows, or at least should know that he's on very, very thin ice, would it make sense to actively seek another job--most likely an assistant job--rather than waiting for the (almost) inevitable firing to occur? Or is it all about the money, i.e. getting a buyout, regardless of how small it might actually be, is more important than avoiding being fired?