CougarCorner

Re: Dave Rose - Job Security

2017-10-25T22:16:49-06:00

I think Rose may be enjoying a minor upswing in job security given how horrible the football team is but if Rose doesn't perform this season (fails to make the NCAA tourney) his job security will plummet.

Fans won't be able to take two failed sports. The heat will be intense for Rose if he doesn't win. All the angst from the football season will just carry over to basketball.

People are looking for basketball to save them from their woes. If Rose delivers, he'll gain a lot more fans.

Statistics: Posted by Gunk — Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:16 pm

Re: Dave Rose - Job Security

2017-10-25T17:13:47-06:00

Actually something along these lines happens all the time. Employers often focus their energies on taking corrective action on their problem employees while promoting or ignoring other employees who have smaller, less noticeable problems. AD's only have 24 hours in their day. If they spend 18 of those hours working on the dumpster fire of the football program, they will not have the time to focus on other areas. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, it's just reality.

The flip side of this coin is the "devil we know" mentality. Even if a bug gets planted in the ear of the admin that we should not be complacent with 20 win seasons, the Admin will now be forced to say - "yeah, like we shouldn't have been complacent with 9 win football seasons; let's finish cleaning up that mess before we begin another one..."

Exactly

Statistics: Posted by Jarhead — Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:13 pm

Re: Dave Rose - Job Security

2017-10-25T16:34:40-06:00

First (and you didn't bring this up but Jarhead did), his job security should have NOTHING to do with what is happening with the football program. Again, could anyone here realistically go to their boss and say, "I'm not performing as good as I should but that's ok because Johnny in the other department is a far worse employee than I am"? Rose's performance has to be looked at in a vacuum.

Actually something along these lines happens all the time. Employers often focus their energies on taking corrective action on their problem employees while promoting or ignoring other employees who have smaller, less noticeable problems. AD's only have 24 hours in their day. If they spend 18 of those hours working on the dumpster fire of the football program, they will not have the time to focus on other areas. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, it's just reality.

The flip side of this coin is the "devil we know" mentality. Even if a bug gets planted in the ear of the admin that we should not be complacent with 20 win seasons, the Admin will now be forced to say - "yeah, like we shouldn't have been complacent with 9 win football seasons; let's finish cleaning up that mess before we begin another one..."

Statistics: Posted by ABYUFAN — Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:34 pm

Re: Dave Rose - Job Security

2017-10-25T16:29:22-06:00

byufan4ever, you have BYU having won a tournament game in the 13-14 season, but looking up the tournament results BYU wasn't in the first round (last in) and they didn't win the round of 64. So I think that's may be in error.

Statistics: Posted by hawkwing — Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:29 pm

Re: Dave Rose - Job Security

2017-10-25T16:08:18-06:00

I like seeing your stats and grading point of view. Interesting thoughts!

Statistics: Posted by hawkwing — Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:08 pm

Re: Dave Rose - Job Security

2017-10-25T15:49:36-06:00

It's not sarcastic hyperbole, I really think his Job Security is at an all time high (equal to or greater than any point in his career at BYU). That doesn't mean I think his performance is at all an time high.

With the BYU football program in complete disarray, and including some potential major off field issues, I don't see how the AD is going to be willing to take any risk with the basketball program.

The only thing that would hurt job security this season would be a scandal, as Hawkwing has stated.
I MIGHT BE ABLE to agree with this only if we understand that his "job security rating" on a 1-100 scale, (for lack of a better term) is currently a 97, but it's usually a 96, and has never been below 94. But even then, I think that job security was probably higher in '09 and '13 when returning from cancer surgery

Wow, totally disagree. I'm a harsh critic, but that doesn't mean I hate Rose or think he's a horrible coach.

First (and you didn't bring this up but Jarhead did), his job security should have NOTHING to do with what is happening with the football program. Again, could anyone here realistically go to their boss and say, "I'm not performing as good as I should but that's ok because Johnny in the other department is a far worse employee than I am"? Rose's performance has to be looked at in a vacuum.

Second, unless you've won a national championship in the last few years NO ONE should have a job security of 97 out of 100. That's just a joke. I know we underpay our coaches, but I seriously hope our AD doesn't have the mentality of "as long as you're above average and scandal free you can coach here as long as you want pressure free." Sounds like a government or union job. Good gig.

Third, performance and job security should weigh MUCH more heavily the very recent past compared to 10+ years ago. Sorry if I'm being too cold and logical, but if I look at this from a business perspective (I'm a business/finance analyst so I just can't help it!), the question is what have you done for me recently and what is the trend? That's what happens in the real world. When the last company I worked for went through layoffs they ONLY looked at the past two years for employee performance. Nothing before that mattered.

I'd put his job security much closer to an 80 out of 100 if I was the AD. His seat should be warm. After typing this I tried to quantify Dave Rose's performance and came up with the below:

I came up with two different scoring methods. Score A gave more weight to win % and Score B gave more weight to conference rank, making the NCAA tournament and tournament wins. For the overall weighted score I put the large majority of the weight into the last 3 years with some in the last 5 years and the least in the overall career.

So has Rose done enough to get fired? No. Maybe he should get some bonus points for running a clean program. If 100 is considered untouchable and 60 it's time to look for a new coach then I have him as a 79 at best and 70 at worst.

Statistics: Posted by byufan4ever — Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:49 pm

Re: Dave Rose - Job Security

2017-10-25T11:54:57-06:00

It's not sarcastic hyperbole, I really think his Job Security is at an all time high (equal to or greater than any point in his career at BYU). That doesn't mean I think his performance is at all an time high.

With the BYU football program in complete disarray, and including some potential major off field issues, I don't see how the AD is going to be willing to take any risk with the basketball program.

The only thing that would hurt job security this season would be a scandal, as Hawkwing has stated.

I MIGHT BE ABLE to agree with this only if we understand that his "job security rating" on a 1-100 scale, (for lack of a better term) is currently a 97, but it's usually a 96, and has never been below 94. But even then, I think that job security was probably higher in '09 and '13 when returning from cancer surgery

Statistics: Posted by ABYUFAN — Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:54 am

Re: Dave Rose - Job Security

2017-10-25T09:48:43-06:00

It's not sarcastic hyperbole, I really think his Job Security is at an all time high (equal to or greater than any point in his career at BYU). That doesn't mean I think his performance is at all an time high.

With the BYU football program in complete disarray, and including some potential major off field issues, I don't see how the AD is going to be willing to take any risk with the basketball program.

The only thing that would hurt job security this season would be a scandal, as Hawkwing has stated.

Statistics: Posted by Jarhead — Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:48 am

Re: Dave Rose - Job Security

2017-10-24T12:37:08-06:00

Rose's job just got a lot more secure, assuming of course he isn't letting the football players hang out with the basketball players...

Statistics: Posted by hawkwing — Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:37 pm

Re: Dave Rose - Job Security

2017-10-24T12:38:50-06:00

So why is his job security at an "all time high" when he hasn't made the tournament for 2 years in a row and hugely mismanaged the team last year? Just cause he's not as awful as the football team?

I think this independence plus WCC thing is not working out too well for football and basketball. The WCC has hurt us in basketball not because of recruiting but because it is so top heavy. We are rarely going to be top 2 in conf and the rest of the conf is so sucky it does nothing to help our tournament resume. So a lot of those 20 wins really don't amount to much.

I don't want to sound unappreciative of Dave Rose. But I just hate the talk that he can stay as long as he wants or he'd have to win zero games or have a scandal to get him fired. Nobody should be untouchable. Everybody should be reviewed for what they've done recently. How many of you can honestly tell your boss: "I had a really good 5 year stretch performance wise and even though that was 10 years ago I think I should be able to slack off and not get fired." ? Now, I'm exaggerating here, but do you guys get my point? I don't hate Dave Rose, but he shouldn't be untouchable. Sports is a hobby for us and we get attached to fond memories of the past, but it's a business and job for them (coaches/ADs, etc, not players) so coaches should be held accountable, especially for recent performances.

It's not at an all time high. I think that's just a little bit of sarcastic hyperbole because of how bad football is this year. I don't think he could go 1-25 this year and survive it. On the other hand it would probably take something nearly that bad to get him into immediate danger. The thing is, I think it's moot because we'll be pretty good, for the following reasons:

1. returning to a more efficient type of offense that is more guard focused, which we have thrived on in the past.
2. better, more experienced players and more depth at the perimeter (Seljaas, plus transfers in, Haws with another year to improve off his mission, apparently less drama in Emery's personal life, etc)
3. A change in defensive philosophy to go all out at defending from the 3 line.
4. Dastrup in much better shape. Mika was actually on the record once saying Dastrup's basketball skills were more developed than his were. He just needed time to get into shape after the mission. I don't think he was just saying that to be nice. Dastrup I think should be pretty good after losing the 40 pounds.
5. Yoeli will be even better with a year under his belt

I would also say the expectation that anything other than making the NCAA tournament every year is utter failure is a standard Rose set for the program. It wasn't that way here before him. So while he does deserve some criticism for running the wrong kind of offense last year, he made some needed adjustments both in the staff and on the roster. It's sad for walkon types like Beo, etc, but the guys who left were not originally meant to be scholarship players anyway. The guys coming in to replace them are legit D1 talent.

Statistics: Posted by BlueK — Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:33 pm