Is it time to consider new leadership?

The end of an era. It's strange to think we got rid of one of the only three  mid major coaches to ever win an NCAA championship ( the other two are Clive and the other Smith) , and one who until this year had a better winning record than Clive, ( he may still have, you do the math).

But the last four years were more than a lot of folks could take, so what's done is done.

I think getting Lauren is a pipe dream. I don't see Scott ponying up the kind of money it would take to bring her here with a full staff and recruiting budget.

The last figure I see on transparent California  for Lauren's pay and benefits was $129K in 2015, about a 7% raise from the year before.

Assuming her pay is increasing at the same rate, she's at about $146K now. That is, of course, assuming she hasn't been able to get a performance raise in her next contract.
It may be at $ 156k for 2018.
Her assistant, a fellow named Rob Baarts brought home about $71K in 2016.


For comparison, Carlin-Voight was making around $82K before he came here.  Leonard Griffin made about $62K at UCLA.

I'm  Pretty sure they didn't get A double raise to get them here, but it seems that to lure Hansen away, a number close to double coach C-V's  UCLA salary is what it might take. Certainly she wouldn't come here for a cut in pay and benefits.
It also brings up the question of how that would sit with C-V.

As to French, I don't know what she makes, but certainly some significant portion of Jill Ellis's 325k as the USWNT asssistant on track to move up that ladder. This ignores that she has never recruited.


From Shannon's refusal to move out of San Diego even for in-state jobs in the past, she isn't a consideration.

Geezaldinho wrote:The end of an era. It's strange to think we got rid of one of the only three  mid major coaches to ever win an NCAA championship ( the other two are Clive and the other Smith) , and one who until this year had a better winning record than Clive, ( he may still have, you do the math).

But the last four years were more than a lot of folks could take, so what's done is done.

So, Geez, be honest, were you opposed to firing him?  And, if so, how many more seasons would you have given him?

Well, I its just not acceptable for a UP women's  to not make the tournament for four years, so I suspect it was inevitable.

But I don't take much joy in it. He came to the bluff in 1986 and stayed for 30 years as an MVP player, an assistant, and as a head coach. Most of those years, even as head coach, were pretty glorious. He came with Clive and stayed twice as long. There isn't anybody that was more Pilots soccer.

And he was saddled with the curse that he wasn't Clive. Who is? I'm not sure we gave Garrett his due in the good years. I'm not buying the 8 year residual effect UPSF claims. His second 4 years brought more wins than the first 4.He was a national coach of the year twice and
Conference coach of the year more than any coach in his time. (Clive never got a National award)

Maybe it's because he credited Clive more than anyone. Players who never met Clive have talked about that great man.

I'm concerned about the future.

The fix isn't going to be to just go hire a coach. The women's side has gone from 60 NCAA teams with most not funded ( including PAC 10 schools. Cal wasn't fully funded in 2000!)  when Clive started, to about 330 schools with most fully funded and able to offer students more than little U P can.  We have NEVER recruited in the East. ( one player from region 1 and two from region 2, all under Garrett, is the grand total) when Clive coached one of the only funded programs in the West, that was great ( we are only talking 6-8 scholarships then ). the rest  was great Clive who  got the rest on charisma. There are tales of players giving up scholarships to get another great player. It's not reasonable to expect that now.

Charisma don't cut it now. Great players expect a full ride.

I talked about the issue with Lauren coming, and part of that is where she is now, she can offer in-state tuition for out of state kids and all sorts of inducements beyond the 1/2 athletic scholarship or so up can offer most players.

Lauren left in the first place because there wasn't enough money.  Even U of O was a step up, and we want to compete with the rest in the country? With what staff?

Are we going to open the purse strings to fund the  program now? I don't even see getting a coach that makes what Lauren makes now.
I don't see assistants on the road much. No budget?


Scott laykem has hired and fired more since he came than any AD. How's his success ratio?

The Men's coach has brought in  one conference championship on a lower win  ratio, and with many of Big's players. His grand total is no post season wins. The MVP last year was here before the coach was. lets talk again in 5 years.

the women's basketball program is unwatchable, the baseball program is worse than the last coach, the men's basketball program is still  a question. The volleyball program has taken a step back after a great start.

Through it all, the only shining programs are the ones he hasn't touched, cross country, Tennis,
It's no coincidence they don't take a big budget to compete

Rowing is a work in progress, better each hear, but still, apparently not fully funded. but he didn't hire that coach and there seems to be an outside budget.

each time he made a hire, we talked about how we would move forward. Calling the results mixed would be generous.


I think trying to compete with lower budgets than others  isn't going to work, so whether it was a great move isn't clear. We need the budget to Recruit nationally if we expect to be a national power. When Clive started recruiting, players committed Senior year. Even Christine was being courted by Anson as a Junior.

Now the best players know where they are going as Freshmen. The P5 schools are pouring recruiting money in. And they have nomqualms about rescinding offers if players don't develop in UNC's case, on letter of intent day.

UNC pays four ASSISTANTS over 100K. Are we going to do that? Another works as a volunteer living on his pension from UNC. ( it being a state school, his pension is higher than his 30 year salary was).

In addition to a coach, we need better recruiting, funding, promotion, staff, all of which were reduced since Larry Williams left, as far as I see.

Any less is moving the deck chairs.

Unless Laykem gets back to the idea that women's soccer should be the premier women's sport a along with basketball as the men's sport, not much will change.
And if he does take it to the next level, it begs the question why he didn't with the last coach? He took staff AWAY from the program. When Clive coached, 6 coaches were at practice. That was so until about 2010. Now three coaches is lucky, and Lisa was the keeper coach this year.

Unlike the other sports, people care about women's soccer here. A failure by Laykem to deliver for this sport will be a complete failure of his tenure.
He's run out of sports nobody cares about  to muck with.


If he doesn't produce in basketball and women's soccer, what's the Point? Most schools UP's size are D3 or NAIA.

your turn SuzieQ, I've read all your posts. There isn't much there except fire Garret.
It's not entirely clear from your posts that you have watched games.

Do better.

what's your plan to right the ship? Its got to be more than fire Garrett. You cant be blind to where NCAA womens soccer has gone.
Don't give me Lauren will come in on a white horse. I don't see it.


Come up with a program and budget to do it. Name coaches with track records who will come here.  Tell me how we can offer great players the inducements to come.
How we can stretch the 15 scholarships with other funding sources.  Something that shows promise, because from where I sit, it's going to take more than pipe dreams.

Geez,
Very astute as always. I completely agree with your analysis from top to bottom. In the mid-2000's, we thought this would go on forever. Garrett Smith was a very good coach, a worthy torch bearer for Clive's legacy and we ought not ever forget that. Thanks for your thoughts!

One thing to think about is what the sales pitch will be to a coach to come to a mid major with limited rescources where they fire  a coach with a National championship and an .800 winning percentage.

Could be the winningest coached ever fired. (ok, Waldrum wore out his welcome when his assistant son had an affair with a player, but still... It took several years for Notre Dame to do that)

Geezaldinho wrote:

I'm concerned about the future.

Are we going to open the purse strings to fund the  program now? I don't even see getting a coach that makes what Lauren makes now.
I don't see assistants on the road much. No budget?

Scott laykem has hired and fired more since he came than any AD. How's his success ratio?

The Men's coach has brought in  one conference championship on a lower win  ratio, and with many of Big's players. His grand total is no post season wins. The MVP last year was here before the coach was. lets talk again in 5 years.

the women's basketball program is unwatchable, the baseball program is worse than the last coach, the men's basketball program is still  a question. The volleyball program has taken a step back after a great start.

Through it all, the only shining programs are the ones he hasn't touched, cross country, Tennis,
It's no coincidence they don't take a big budget to compete

Rowing is a work in progress, better each hear, but still, apparently not fully funded. but he didn't hire that coach and there seems to be an outside budget.

each time he made a hire, we talked about how we would move forward. Calling the results mixed would be generous.


I think trying to compete with lower budgets than others  isn't going to work, so whether it was a great move isn't clear. We need the budget to Recruit nationally if we expect to be a national power.

UNC pays four ASSISTANTS over 100K. Are we going to do that? Another works as a volunteer living on his pension from UNC. ( it being a state school, his pension is higher than his 30 year salary was).

In addition to a coach, we need better recruiting, funding, promotion, staff, all of which were reduced since Larry Williams left, as far as I see.

Any less is moving the deck chairs.

Unless Laykem gets back to the idea that women's soccer should be the premier women's sport a along with basketball as the men's sport, not much will change.
And if he does take it to the next level, it begs the question why he didn't with the last coach? He took staff AWAY from the program. When Clive coached, 6 coaches were at practice. That was so until about 2010. Now three coaches is lucky, and Lisa was the keeper coach this year.

Unlike the other sports, people care about women's soccer here. A failure by Laykem to deliver for this sport will be a complete failure of his tenure.
He's run out of sports nobody cares about  to muck with.


If he doesn't produce in basketball and women's soccer, what's the Point? Most schools UP's size are D3 or NAIA.

Come up with a program and budget to do it. Name coaches with track records who will come here.  Tell me how we can offer great players the inducements to come.
How we can stretch the 15 scholarships with other funding sources.  Something that shows promise, because from where I sit, it's going to take more than pipe dreams.

Your post suggests that downsizing to schools are own size, "D3 or NAIA" is the solution if we want to compete. Maybe, but some do disagree.

The most obvious characteristic of our athletics is that we are highly unlikely to be competitive across the board. We do not have the money, as you suggest, nor the fan base. Comparing our salaries to the UNC coaching staff is really comparing apples and oranges--we are so dissimilar that the comparison is not helpful. You suggest Leykam is merely shuffling deck chairs: actually he is trying to improve Pilot athletic fortunes with the limited resources available.

Our size alone dictates that we will always be, in a relative sense, underfunded. The administration believes it can compete and continues to try, which is not a bad thing.

SuzieQ is an open and honest poster who recognized the steady decline in the women's program as your post suggests you have. She certainly is not part of the problem.

The future is worrisome, global warming, assault rifles and the threat of nuclear exchanges, but for now Pilot athletics have a chance to improve, so taking the risk is probably justified as you acknowledge. Ask Leykam, who may know a thing or two about Pilot athletics. There will be acceptable candidates interested in the job.

Actually I didn't say we should be D3 or NAIA.

I said we need to compete as if we were a D1 school or adjust expectations.

But there is nothing wrong with D3. My alma Mater competes at that level and regularly wins championships. They offer 28 sports to about 50% of the student body, and annual giving swamps UP's, ( 48% of alumni have given on an ongoing basis) possibly in part because students were more engaged when they were in school.

Last I checked, I think UP's giving is at 8%

Some people think being D1 is a way to encourage giving. I'm not convinced that works here.

I agree with Geez that Garrett has given everything he can to the Pilots both as a player and coach.  I feel for him, I'm sure he's disappointed, and I am reasonably sure he isn't surprised.  Hopefully, he will be successful in whatever he decides to pursue next and will find something soon.

But results, especially over a decent period of time, mean something.  The Pilots have been in a steady decline, losing an average of 0.0222 per year in their RPI over the last 11 years.  This is an extremely large rate of decline, the greatest of any team in Division 1 women's soccer over that time period.  The decline started from a very high level, so some of it is understandable, but the rate of decline over that long a period has gone way beyond what one reasonably should have expected, including way beyond what any other WCC team (or Pac 12 team) has encountered.

This year's rating puts the Pilots at #216 in the RPI ratings, out of 333 teams, so just above the bottom third of all teams.  My preferred version of the RPI would have them at #167, right at the middle.  Massey, who has an excellent rating system, has them at #151, also close to the very middle. Bennett has them at #139, but I can't vouch for that rating system.

Perhaps Geez is right that there simply isn't the financial support there to bring in a coach who can do better.  If so, then maybe this is the new normal.  I hope not.  I guess we'll get to see.

Is Portland the most underfunded in the WCC? I have no idea. Even with the changing Division I landscape, the reasonable expectation is to be competitive in the conference. If we don’t have the money to compete , the Pilots should move to the WAC. Then we might have a decent chance to get into the tournament as an automatic qualifier.

Geezaldinho wrote:The Men's coach has brought in  one conference championship on a lower win  ratio, and with many of Big's players. His grand total is no post season wins. The MVP last year was here before the coach was. lets talk again in 5 years.

the women's basketball program is unwatchable, the baseball program is worse than the last coach, the men's basketball program is still  a question. The volleyball program has taken a step back after a great start.

Through it all, the only shining programs are the ones he hasn't touched, cross country, Tennis.

I think that's a bit unfair, honestly.

Men's soccer went from last place to first place last year (Nick's first year) and are in contention to win the WCC again this year. The last time the men's program was even in contention in the perennially weak WCC was nearly a decade ago. And I don't think it's right to minimize the contributions of players like Benji Michel, Kris Reaves, Lionel Mills, Rey Ortiz, and Gio Magana-Rivera... all of them very significant contributors last year and this year.

As for volleyball... the team is light-years ahead of where it was several years ago. Even this year's "step back" is far and away better than any UP volleyball season since, what, the early 90s?

It's clear to me that these programs are in a much better position than they were 3-4 years ago.

Men's cross country has reached its highest heights over the past few seasons, women's cross country made nationals for the first time last year, and both men's and women's tennis have had their best seasons ever over the past few years. Those programs aren't just holding steady from previous years. They are improving and growing.

Men's basketball is too early to tell, but I have been encouraged by the new players that have come in. I do feel like there is more talent in the program now than in the post-Stohl/Sikma era. Rowing is also tough to tell, but they do seem to have the right trajectory.

Women's basketball and baseball have certainly been disappointments, I will grant you that. But don't forget that the current WBB head coach was an assistant of the previous one who retired. And of all the Pilot sports, baseball is the one we have had the most difficult time being competitive in historically. There simply aren't a lot of baseball players in the NW to begin with, and OSU and Oregon have a stranglehold on the top recruits. That said, being competitive is doable for sure (as shown by those solid Pilot teams in the 2009-2012 years).

Not trying to make excuses... just trying to be a bit more fair in the assessment.

Geezaldinho wrote:Well, I its just not acceptable for a UP women's  to not make the tournament for four years, so I suspect it was inevitable.

But I don't take much joy in it. He came to the bluff in 1986 and stayed for 30 years as an MVP player, an assistant, and as a head coach. Most of those years, even as head coach, were pretty glorious. He came with Clive and stayed twice as long. There isn't anybody that was more Pilots soccer.

And he was saddled with the curse that he wasn't Clive. Who is? I'm not sure we gave Garrett his due in the good years. I'm not buying the 8 year residual effect UPSF claims. His second 4 years brought more wins than the first 4.He was a national coach of the year twice and
Conference coach of the year more than any coach in his time. (Clive never got a National award)

Maybe it's because he credited Clive more than anyone. Players who never met Clive have talked about that great man.

Co-signed 100%. It did feel inevitable, but it also hurts.

Garrett deserves a lifetime of gratitude from Pilot fans for a job very well done. The struggles of the past few years do not erase the tremendous heights our program reached during his time as head, nor the huge role he played as an assistant before Clive's passing, nor his great career as a player.

Stoney wrote:Women's basketball and baseball have certainly been disappointments, I will grant you that. But don't forget that the current WBB head coach was an assistant of the previous one who retired.

c'mon, Stoney. She was the second assistant. The first assistant is at Concordia. I don't believe he was offered.

Speaking of which, another Solars  assistant who was available for a price we couldn't afford was Kelly who has a perchant to move every few years.

We went for his assistant instead, who declined whatever offer she was given. Maybe she felt that more than 10 scholarships was needed to compete.

Can you name a year UP women's basketball was fully funded?

baseball?

Geezaldinho wrote:Can you name a year UP women's basketball was fully funded? baseball?

Can't say for sure, but I would guess likely never.

So what's your proposed solution? I know you are advocating for increased coaching salaries (for head coach and assistants), as well as fully funded programs (fully funded meaning offering the maximum number of allowable scholarships).

But money doesn't just magically appear. We don't have a huge booster base, and we don't make a lot of money from any of our programs or have a big TV deal that pumps in cash. The WCC has done well in the NCAA tournament (thanks Zags!), so that certainly helps, but it only goes so far.

And it's not like the University doesn't care about athletics... Chiles has been upgraded quite a bit over recent years, we have a new turf baseball field with lights, the new Rec Center is a huge improvement, and the River Campus is getting very close to being developed with a boathouse, new track, new tennis center, and several practice fields.

Do you think it's possible for a school like UP to be competitive without massive investment? Or do you think that expectations for success are out of whack with reality? What do you hope for our athletic department as a whole?

I don't ask that facetiously or in bad faith... I honestly am curious!

For transparency... my hope for all our programs is that they are regularly (as in, once every couple of years) in the mix for a WCC championship, and that they never are in the bottom 2-3 in consecutive seasons. And I hope that, in sum, we have multiple programs every year winning or coming very close to a WCC title and/or being nationally competitive.

And I do honestly think that is possible even with our budget restrictions. It might mean we have coaches that use us a "stepping stone" for a few years while on their way to larger programs. It might mean that we need coaches who are innovative in tactics, recruiting, etc. It might ultimately mean that we have higher turnover than anyone would prefer. I don't know the answers to any of it, but I do believe that the athletic leadership we have now has been doing a pretty good job on a very difficult task.

What I would love to see is our recruiting starting to reflect a lot of the things UP now has going for it that it didn't in years past - lots of upgraded athletic facilities with new stuff on the way, one of the most popular cities in the country, beautiful campus with all sorts of nice new amenities (from new dorms and rec center to upgraded dining facilities, library, and academic buildings. Plus a new academic building on the way), and a very solid mid-major conference in the WCC that is nationally competitive in nearly every sport. Sure would be nice if all that stuff started to give us more of an edge for student-athletes that are choosing between UP and, say, Boise State or UNLV or somewhere like that.

While the debate about funding and resources is of some interest, it would be nice to know if Leykam has a candidate in mind, or who, in fact, may be a candidate for the position?

Ditto.
Just for reference, when Scott stops coming to your games, you ought polish up your résumé.

wrv wrote:While the debate about funding and resources is of some interest, it would be nice to know if Leykam has a candidate in mind, or who, in fact, may be a candidate for the position?

Ha ha, yes, back to the topic at hand!

Historically, top assistants at major programs who are looking for their first head coaching opportunity have been likely candidates for UP coaching jobs. Which makes me wonder about assistants at schools like Stanford, UCLA, USC, etc.

Obviously someone with really strong connections to the major clubs and youth leagues would be a big plus.

Geezaldinho wrote:Just for reference, when Scott stops coming to your games, you ought polish up your résumé.

Oh, oh, Scott was at the last women's soccer match, but he was not at the last men's match because he was watching the women's basketball game.....Senior Associate Athletic Director, Karen Peters, watched the men defeat GU, 1-0.

One game.

Let’s talk his attendance at the rest of the season and his attendance at UP games during Rev’s last year the next time we meet. Terry porter was either predetermined or an amazing feat of work in the few days between the fire and hire. Amazing coincidence that Terry showed such a great interest in UP games in one season.

You wanted me to engage more. Be careful what you wish for.
G
To be clear. I don’t think Laykem is a bad guy. I don’t think Terry shouldn’t be here.
It’s the mindset here I’m taking about.

Let’s take Basketball, for instance. The Zags have been spending 30 percent of their budget on one sport. Their budget is twice ours.

Are we seriously expected to compete with them in Basketball?

And it isn’t all just money. It also the athlete environment, housing, academic scheduling... all kinds of things that turn athletes away.

I’m not a moron. A couple of us have gone to practice a couple times a week since I retired 12years ago. ( ok, maybe I am a moron). It helps see what drives results.

What I have seen in the last few years is players shuttling in and out of practice due to academic conflicts. That didn’t even happen in 3 sports I played in D3.  Again. If you want a top tier program, do the things it takes.

Stony mentioned how great the dorms are. It turns out to have been a recruiting negative. We lost more than one all American because housing was better and off campus housing was compensated at other schools. It also split the team, because the change only applied to underclassmen. Coincidentally or not, that’s about when UPSF says Rpi started declining.

Geezaldinho wrote:Terry porter was either predetermined or an amazing feat of work in the few days between the fire and hire.

But isn't it usually a good idea to have a replacement in mind/lined up before letting go of someone? Otherwise you can end up in a situation where a search drags on for months and you don't end up with someone you are happy with.

I have zero inside info on how it all went down, but I would imagine that the decision to let Reveno go was not made in haste at the end of the season.

Bringing it back to women's soccer... similarly, I would imagine that this week's decision was not made in haste either. I would imagine that at the very least they have been doing some scouting and research on who they would want to contact for the job, if they haven't done some outreach already.

That seems like the responsible thing to do... it wouldn't really be ideal if they don't already have a working list of candidates and we end up still without a head coach in March or something like that.

Geezaldinho wrote:You wanted me to engage more. Be careful what you wish for.

On the contrary, I LOVE IT!!! You're the OG of the Pilot Forums, Geez... of course we want to hear your honest thoughts!

z

Stonehouse wrote:

Geezaldinho wrote:Terry porter was either predetermined or an amazing feat of work in the few days between the fire and hire.

But isn't it usually a good idea to have a replacement in mind/lined up before letting go of someone? Otherwise you can end up in a situation where a search drags on for months and you don't end up with someone you are happy with.

I have zero inside info on how it all went down, but I would imagine that the decision to let Reveno go was not made in haste at the end of the season.

Bringing it back to women's soccer... similarly, I would imagine that this week's decision was not made in haste either. I would imagine that trat the very least they have been doing some scoutingw and research on who they would want to contact for the job, if they haven't done some outreach already.

That seems like the responsible thing to do... it wouldn't really be ideal if they don't already have a working list of candidates and we end up still without a head coach in March or something like that.

Well, if it’s the responsible thing to do, Scott failed miserably with women’s Basketball. He had a year to do that deal. Instead, we got the last resort at the last minute.
I guess he made up with it by offering 10 scholarships for her to work with.

So much for equal gender  treatment. It of course makes the next hire impossible.

As to women’s soccer, yeah, I heard about possible replacements and alleged talks a year ago. Pretty much the same cast of culprits we are naming so far( and a couple so remote I won’t even name them)

Don’t see it becoming a reality. If things hold true, Miguel wil be the head coach come Spring.

So we’re to embrace the notion that Portland is the impoverished little sister of the West Coast Conference? If that’s true, maybe it is a good idea to head to the WAC.

And we’re supposed to buy into the idea that Garrett Smith was actually a more successful than Clive Charles based on his better winning percentage and only suffered a 4-year setback due to budget cutbacks?

Please stop the insanity.

Clive Charles died when the program he built was at its peak. He wasn’t able to garner the wins he surely would have racked up with the Pilots at the top of Division I. That benefit went to Garrett Smith, who eventually sent the program to the bottom third among all D-1 teams, watching his team get beaten like rented mules.

I recall one outspoken idiot (guess who, Geez) on this board who said Portland would never get a better coach than Garrett Smith. Kind of a pathetic assertion. And this same clown claimed that Smith was instrumental in recruiting Christine Sinclair, when Smith eventually showed he would have little success beyond Multnomah County and certainly not now with anyone in Canada.

I’m thrilled for the program. There’s now finally hope for the program with an opportunity to get a coach who can recruit on his or her own merits and not based on the reflected greatness of Clive Charles.

I’m still old and grouchy. But relieved.

Shannon MacMillan isn’t a consideration because she turned other jobs down? Uh, how does that make sense?

I'm not sure name calling is bringing anything to this conversation, beyond making your arguments seem petty, poorly researched and childish.

Corrado Kid wrote:Shannon MacMillan isn’t a consideration because she turned other jobs down? Uh, how does that make sense?

Shannon isn't a consideration because she has multiple times stated she doesn't want to raise her kid away from family in San Diego.

Here, for example, is an equalizer soccer article in which she is quoted as saying the three cities she would consider being in are San Diego, San Diego, and San Diego.

http://equalizersoccer.com/2016/05/12/coach-shannon-macmillan-doing-things-her-way/

In addition, it's the base for her soccer coaching with kids and she is an investor in an effort in bringing a soccer stadium in San Diego.

So unless we want to move the University there or change the name of Portland, it doesn't look like a fit.

That's how it makes sense.