Kevin Saal Report Card

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

Position he inherited not on him. Being further behind now than we were when he took over?

You honestly think WSU is further behind in NIL now than they were when Saal took over?? We literally had no NIL or strategy before him. What a joke.

[Dan]

So grade him on putting out the dumpster fire. Did he go full hose extended or merely dribble piss on it?

the embers are still fresh, we have to see if it flares back up

[WstateU]

the embers are still fresh, we have to see if it flares back up

[Stickboy46]

Interesting, hiring an experienced head coach with a deep resume and history of success is a D, but hiring an assistant coach with a relatively short coaching resume including no head coaching experience is a B.

Bolded Part .. um what? Deep resume and history of success?

Has coached for 6 years, won a grand total of ONE conference championship in the freaking summit league. Career 55% win percentage. Outside of the one championship he finished, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th. One good tourney run. All of the good years were tied to one player/recruiting class.

He might work out .. but to say he has a "deep resume and history of success" just is factually incorrect.

[1972Shocker]

Bolded Part .. um what? Deep resume and history of success?

Has coached for 6 years, won a grand total of ONE conference championship in the freaking summit league. Career 55% win percentage. Outside of the one championship he finished, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th. One good tourney run. All of the good years were tied to one player/recruiting class.

He might work out .. but to say he has a "deep resume and history of success" just is factually incorrect.

I can concede that but, Paul Mills' resume vs Terry Nooner's is relatively deep. And that was context in which I was commenting. Comparing one posters giving the hiring of Paul Mills a D and hiring Terry Nooner a B. I also pretty much conceded that a resume doesn't guarantee future success. I find it difficult to assign a grade at this point nor do I have a need to do so.

[Stickboy46]

I can concede that but, Paul Mills' resume vs Terry Nooner's is relatively deep. And that was context in which I was commenting.

Ok fair enough. Probably better to word it as neither coach has a deep history of success, which I'd agree with.

[SubGod22]

I can concede that but, Paul Mills' resume vs Terry Nooner's is relatively deep. And that was context in which I was commenting. Comparing one posters giving the hiring of Paul Mills a D and hiring Terry Nooner a B. I also pretty much conceded that a resume doesn't guarantee future success. I find it difficult to assign a grade at this point nor do I have a need to do so.

But you also have to keep things in perspective as I stated earlier. There are different levels of expectations and history and funding between our men's program and our women's program.

The men's program is capable of reaching out to pretty much anywhere and can pay a fair amount to get what they need. They also have the donors that will chip in for the right guy. The women's program has none of that. Lack a history of success, lack the fan support and don't have the same deep pockets to bring people in. When the men's job opens, there are a lot of established coaches or coaches in top programs that can honestly be approached and pitched the job and be compensated for it. The women's program doesn't have that kind of luxury.

That's why the grading is different. The women's program wasn't going to get a well established HC with years of experience and success. The men's program could have had something more along that line. Or a highly thought of assistant at a top program was a possibility. The women getting the AHC from an NIT championship team is a pretty good get for them. There are questions, but it's solid.

You can't grade them the same way.

[Kung Wu]

I don't understand why folks are upset about consolidating the fund raising events.

I have experience with charity fund raising, and I assure you they are typically expensive and a massive resource drain. And also from experience, if you have them too often you get donor fatigue pretty quickly. I think there's a strong argument to be made that by consolidating them they may end up netting a ton more money with a lot less resource waste (employee effort). For example, you will get a much better auction result because someone that would attend a Sport X fundraiser but not a Sport Y fundraiser, and vice versa, will both be bidding on one more desirable basket -- pushing the price up -- instead of two small baskets with a meager price tag and end result. My experience says larger fund raisers with less frequency generally out-perform lots of fund raisers on a smaller scale.

I don't understand the hate, but I don't attend the WSU fundraisers for the same "charity fatigue" reason I was addressing above. My charity giving goes to Christian based organizations to assist folks in need, so I rarely attend other fundraisers. Because of that my perspective above may be completely off base, I fully admit.

So this is more of a question for y'all than it is pro-consolidation. Why is consolidation bad in your view?

[Kel Varnsen]

I don't understand why folks are upset about consolidating the fund raising events.

I have experience with charity fund raising, and I assure you they are typically expensive and a massive resource drain. And also from experience, if you have them too often you get donor fatigue pretty quickly. I think there's a strong argument to be made that by consolidating them they may end up netting a ton more money with a lot less resource waste (employee effort). For example, you will get a much better auction result because someone that would attend a Sport X fundraiser but not a Sport Y fundraiser, and vice versa, will both be bidding on one more desirable basket -- pushing the price up -- instead of two small baskets with a meager price tag and end result. My experience says larger fund raisers with less frequency generally out-perform lots of fund raisers on a smaller scale.

I don't understand the hate, but I don't attend the WSU fundraisers for the same "charity fatigue" reason I was addressing above. My charity giving goes to Christian based organizations to assist folks in need, so I rarely attend other fundraisers. Because of that my perspective above may be completely off base, I fully admit.

So this is more of a question for y'all than it is pro-consolidation. Why is consolidation bad in your view?

I think a lot of subsets of WSU supporters are big on one sport or another. It's true for a lot of sports at a lot of schools. So consolidating the events at a school the size of WSU could be an affront to the supporters of a particular sport (I would imagine softball and baseball might be some of those). If you give to softball and are gung ho about doing so solely to that program, there's not a huge chance you wanted to give money to a program headed by Gregg Marshall.

I still don't have an opinion on consolidating the events, but it's my estimation that this might be the case.

[BostonWu]

Make no mistake, if Saal is unquestionably right or wrong on basketball then

[Kung Wu]

I think a lot of subsets of WSU supporters are big on one sport or another. It's true for a lot of sports at a lot of schools. So consolidating the events at a school the size of WSU could be an affront to the supporters of a particular sport (I would imagine softball and baseball might be some of those). If you give to softball and are gung ho about doing so solely to that program, there's not a huge chance you wanted to give money to a program headed by Gregg Marshall.

I still don't have an opinion on consolidating the events, but it's my estimation that this might be the case.

Still not sure I follow the downside. If I am only interested in giving to softball, this event doesn't prevent me from doing so.
I have donated money directly to a specfic sport at the college I played for, and being at a multisport event fundraiser wouldn't phase me in the slightest in that regard. I promise I am not trying to be obtuse, I am trying to understand.

I think the cross marketing potential is pretty huge and the reality is that basketball will lift up other programs, not detract from them. For example, I haven't gone to a WSU softball game, but maybe if I showed up at this event to support the basketball team and I ended up meeting some players and their parents, I would probably be more apt to go.

If the bottomline desire of these fundraisers is to maximize the cash for the programs, then this does seem like the clear winning strategy to me.

If on the other hand its essentially to create brand awareness for each program and fundraising is secondary, then I am still somewhat convinced the cross marketing effect of a consolidated large event will be better.

If it's more just a celebration of the season and awards ceremony, where fundraising and brand awareness is a distant consideration, then I might understand.

[shoxlax]

Still not sure I follow the downside. If I am only interested in giving to softball, this event doesn't prevent me from doing so.
I have donated money directly to a specfic sport at the college I played for, and being at a multisport event fundraiser wouldn't phase me in the slightest in that regard. I promise I am not trying to be obtuse, I am trying to understand.

I think the cross marketing potential is pretty huge and the reality is that basketball will lift up other programs, not detract from them. For example, I haven't gone to a WSU softball game, but maybe if I showed up at this event to support the basketball team and I ended up meeting some players and their parents, I would probably be more apt to go.

If the bottomline desire of these fundraisers is to maximize the cash for the programs, then this does seem like the clear winning strategy to me.

If on the other hand its essentially to create brand awareness for each program and fundraising is secondary, then I am still somewhat convinced the cross marketing effect of a consolidated large event will be better.

If it's more just a celebration of the season and awards ceremony, where fundraising and brand awareness is a distant consideration, then I might understand.

I’m not really upset about it, just that it prices some people out of the market of being able to participate. The Gregg Marshall Auction was starting to become that way. However it does consolidate effort and might make our fund raisers not look like pests 12 months per year.

[shoxlax]

I can concede that but, Paul Mills' resume vs Terry Nooner's is relatively deep. And that was context in which I was commenting. Comparing one posters giving the hiring of Paul Mills a D and hiring Terry Nooner a B. I also pretty much conceded that a resume doesn't guarantee future success. I find it difficult to assign a grade at this point nor do I have a need to do so.

I just have this strange feeling Nooner will be successful. Can’t really channel why.

[SubGod22]

I just know that I would personally be less likely to go to an event like this than to sport specific events. I'd want to go to something that was focused on what I was interested in and interested in giving to than an event for everyone.

Maybe I'm in the minority. But I can only speak to what I would like on a personal level. I did put in the caveat in my grade that if they do manage to raise more money this way I'd adjust accordingly. I just know that this type of event would make me less likely to attend if I were in the market to do such. As is, I'm a very small potatoes type and my giving is done from a distance and not in large quantities.

I'll be interested to see how this plays out.

And I also admit that most of my charitable giving goes to those I know who are struggling or have certain fundraisers for specific causes or to ICT SOS.

[Regul8te]

You split these events out to individual sports when energy is high, attendance is high and the money is flowing. When the fan base is fractured and/or apathetic, combine it into one event so attendance is better and it doesn’t look so sad and get to work on winning and rebuilding that energy.