SCU Men's Basketball - "A Season on the Brink"

John Feinstein's account of Indiana Men's BB 1985-1986 season is an acclaimed look at a program back on the "rise" under fiery Coach Bobby Knight with talented players that are slow to integrate into his system. 

Obviously, we are not a "blue blood" level program like Indiana, but I see a number of parallels with where we are with SCU MBB.

More struggles than successes.  A University with a rich history of notoriety in Men's Basketball.  Fiery Coach.  Animated, vocal, prowling the sideline.  A program trying so hard to rid itself of mid-major mediocrity .  Like Indiana with the "middle America" label, a cut below Kentucky, Duke, and North Carolina as we are in the WCC, a level below Gonzaga, BYU, and St.Mary's.

So far, our season is disappointing to say the least. Our four wins are against teams with losing records. Only one team has an RPI below 250. We are 286.  We do have one quality loss to Arizona.

At 4-8, our season is on the "brink" as the WCC starts.  

Good news. Of the next 10 games, six are at home. Our WCC opener is away at Pacific (1-8).  BUT, then, we play St.Mary's, Zags, and Portland at home.  Away @BYU, @USD, and finally Pepperdine, LMU, and USF at Leavey.  Oh, then off to Spokane to play the Zags again!  Tough....

IMHO, it's not just our season, but our program is on the "brink."

With 18 games left before the WCC tourney, going 9-9 would be heroic, given the road schedule, for a full season 13-17 record. We are headed for our seventh losing season in the last nine years. The only event not to put us over the "brink" is a WCC tourney final upset.  

One thing for sure.  The team will play hard; effort is rarely a problem.

This puts our program on the "brink."  Fr. Engh, the Trustees, and the Commission recommendations are there to see in print - moving to National prominence.  I'm pretty sure this isn't the momentum and progress they are looking for.

As season ticket holders and fans, neither are we.  

Our program history has had its highs and lows like Indiana or any other program, but it just feels like we're treading water not "rising."

So, I looked back.  It's been 20 years since our last NCAA tourney.

But, going further back, since 1982, Santa Clara Men's Basketball has never had a losing record over any eight year period, until now. 

In terms of overall wins, it's all about the spin.  

For WCC coaches, over an eight year period, we're actually fifth not third as our PR suggests.   Our game day program states: "Keating has 128 wins in his seven years as a head coach at Santa Clara.  He is the third-winningest coach in the last 12 years in the WCC behind Gonzaga's Mark Few and Saint Mary's Randy Bennett".  Last time I checked last year would be coach Keating's eighth season and this his ninth.

To make us third, you have to extend the time period for coaches to 12 years and eliminate Dave Rose, Eric Reveno, Rex Walters as WCC coaches since none have tenure of 12 years.  Pretty silly.

For WCC conference only wins spanning eight seasons, we rank seventh with 46 wins and 78 losses.  Again, if you remove Dave Rose we're sixth.  Eric Reveno has been in Portland nine seasons, but still has more wins through eight seasons.  Rex Walters has more wins over seven seasons.

If Bobby Knight was witnessing this, he might throw another chair.

Reality, we'll never be an "Indiana" level program.  But as a program we're on the "brink" and have to ask the tough question, where are we headed?  There are two edges on the "brink." Where will we choose to go?   

As season ticket holders, our answer is pretty simple - UP.  

Up fills Leavey and energizes donors to make "national" a reality rather than another PR campaign.  Is SCU "On a Mission" or just located "On a Mission." 

We'll know soon....

Also on Twitter @Fcrary

Next up:  Close but no Cigar....

 

SCU Men's BB - The We're "Young" Story is Getting "Old"

Will we ever grow up?  It seems that in every game recap I read, the reason we are not performing is because of how young we are.  Frankly, the "young" Bronco story is getting OLD.  Stale.  

Is that the best we've got in our PR repertoire?

So, I decided to check it out.  If you look at the top six WCC contending teams, we're not that young.  The Zags and BYU have more experience.  Most all of the other teams are like us and even younger.

So here's the conundrum.  The issue so far, is that some of our older guys just aren't performing as well as the other teams and our own young guys. 

Consider some data.  

We return 6 of 8 top scorers.  Pugh and Ndumanya are red shirt sophomores and Kratch a RS junior.  They all have the benefit of that extra year of practice and development in the system. 

Our team shooting has been way off the mark. However, of our usual starters at guard & forward, the top three in FG% are freshman and sophomores.  Go figure.  Exception - Nate Kratch, our center, is on a roll in the paint going 24-39 (61.5%) in the last 3 games.

Meanwhile, on defense we've given up 65 three pointers in the first seven games - many from the corners where our more experienced players are relied upon to cover.  BTW, we made only 33.

Paradoxically, our experience hasn't been yielding enough good experiences.

So, I decided to go back in time and look at more data on the we're "young" byline.   Another irony.  For years, our MBB S.I.D.'s last name was - you guessed it - Young...

It's just weird.

Looking at the career stats of 10 "impact" players from the past seven years, only three had better statistical years as seniors.  In fact for six of them, their best stats were as sophomores!  

Another reason we may stay so "young" is about 18 players left the program before becoming seniors for a plethora of reasons.  I'm actually OK with that, since our motivation is to upgrade talent.  It's the "Peter Pan"* in our program.  Begs other questions, but not the focus of this piece.

Stats are stats.  Open to all levels of interpretation.  Players contribute in may ways.  Defenses adjust, but so should we.  The point - counter point re: performance would be never ending.

Bottom line.  Other than our senior laden 2012-13 CBI Tourney Championship team, we are no closer to a WCC Title or NCAA bid.

Don't get me wrong.  I really like our roster.  Real potential. Unfortunately, as we all know games aren't played on paper.

There's no doubt some freshmen and sophomores are prone to more mistakes.  What counts is progression. Learning to make better "in game" decisions.  Gaining confidence to make the "read" and make an athletic play.  

It just seems to be right now we're more worried about failure than success.  Playing not to lose rather than win.  

Of the top 25 scorers on WCC rosters, 18 are not seniors.  Half of those are Fr/Soph.  

IMHO, we may never be old enough, but being "young" and progressing never gets "old."


* From Peter Pan "I'll never grow Up."

SCU Men's Basketball - Season Outlook - Can we RISE?

Let's just get it out there.  

As season ticket holders and fans, we're not thinking so much about the regular season, but HOW we can get to the post season?

After 20+ years of post season Ground Hog Day, we need to have the spell broken. 

Coach Keating's new program mantra is R-I-S-E... For him, maybe that's the metaphor for resuscitation of a program that was operating below the poverty level for a D1 basketball team.

For us, it means elevate and compete at the top of the WCC and earn NCAA or NIT bids.  We've won two post season tournaments, the CIT and CBI, that were great for our athletes to experience, but largely invisible for "amping" up our program.

Let's face it, the odds of NCAA at-large bids are lower than the U.S. Congress approval rating...

Looking at our schedule, my guess is that an 18-12 record would be a pretty good season, but not post season worthy.

To R-I-S-E from 18-12, we will need to beat BYU, Pepperdine, and St. Mary's at least once and finish 3rd in the WCC.  

At 21-9 we might be NIT worthy.  

The HOW to an NCAA bid on top of the above, is to knock off Arizona or Providence/Evansville(all NCAA teams) in the Wooden Legacy AND make the WCC tourney finals.  Now that would make all our season ticket holders RISE.

At the end of the day, there's only one sure bet:  beat Gonzaga OR BYU in the WCC tourney final game.  I say BYU because some prognosticators have picked them to win the league.

Our team is healthy, bigger, faster and even though young, have more experience than in the past few years at key positions.  We can actually defend the paint and have shooters that can take pressure off Jared Brownridge.  

Tonight marks the start of what we hope is the new Santa Clara Men's Basketball program, blessed by the Blue Ribbon committee and more funding from Father Engh and the Trustees.

Can we R-I-S-E?

I know this.  If we do, the season ticket holders and fans will "rise" with a standing ovation and a campus will be re-ignited and re-energized with true SCU spirit....

SCU Men's Basketball - Season Schedule Preview - Ouch!

I'm just going to be blunt.

Our Men's BB schedule is a hot mess...

It's not necessarily "who" we play as much as it is the "when" we play our key games...It's awful...

I'm not blaming Coach Keating for all of it; rather the WCC and the stuff job they're doing on us and pretty much everyone else not named Gonzaga.

After the Cable Car ends on November 15th, our students will get to see one home game until January 14th...

That's more than half our schedule - "poof" - gone.  Oh, wait, I'm sure they'll swarm back for St. Mary's two days before Christmas or even better, Gonzaga on NEW YEAR'S EVE...

Perspective:  Zag students will miss only four home games on their break.  When they get back - five of the next seven are in Spokane.  For SCU, five of the next eight are ROAD games...

I guess that's the reward the WCC bestows on them as the "rainmakers" for 15 + straight NCAA appearances.

OK, I'm done with the ranting...

Well, not really.

Overall our schedule is pretty strong.   We will play up to six 2015 NCAA qualifiers, one NIT team, and one CBI team.

Our non-league home schedule is made up of teams that mostly only NCAA trivia buffs have heard of; with the exception of San Jose State.   As I wrote in my last blog, we're just not there yet where we can get "name" teams to play us.

This is not a home schedule you can build a "brand" around and will be a significant challenge to achieving one of our new A.D.'s most important goals.

Her first chance to help comes next season.

That being said, the Cable Car does feature two mid-major teams who will compete for NCAA/NIT bids. Lipscomb played Vanderbilt, Belmont, and Texas last year and has key players returning.  Milwaukee played Wisconsin, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and Auburn.

The Cable Car teams are not big names, but they're also not easy W's.

If you want to see the best of the season, you'll need to spend Thanksgiving in Anaheim this year at the Wooden Legacy tourney. We play Irvine, Arizona, Providence or Evansville, then maybe Michigan State or BC.   All NCAA teams.   Now THAT'S a schedule we'd love!!!

In a weird way, our schedule may work in our favor.   If we can beat most of these "patsies" at home and show strong at the Wooden Legacy or "shock" at the WCC tournament, we could get an NIT bid or maybe even an NCAA bid. 

If we could only bring our big name, "away" games home, then our "no name" home games will go away and Leavey will be rockin!!

Next: Season Outlook and Predictions
Also on Twitter @Fcrary

Santa Clara Men's Basketball - We Play Who???

Scheduling used to be a LOT easier.  I recently sat down with Coach Keating to get the details.

Years ago, if you wanted local games with Stanford or Cal... Doable.  Play North Carolina at home - done that...

Today, maybe only a Papal appeal can make those happen.

The real world of NCAA Men's Basketball scheduling is more like "hold-em" poker.  It's all about the RPI, W's, and Benjamin's...

As Season Ticket Holders and Fans, we're like really, we play Lipscomb and Arkansas-Pine Bluff?  Who are these guys???

Students looking at the schedule and seeing the likes of Pacific Union, opt for the library or the couch.   Pretty sad.

Guess what?  Every school plays patsies.

Duke plays Livingston, Central Mission, Fairfield, Furman, and Elon.  Impressive. 

Stanford plays division 3 Carroll and - no joke - Cal plays Incarnate Word...I get chills when I think of that game.

And Yes, Gonzaga plays St. Martin's and Eastern Oregon.  Awesome!

Why?  

NCAA tournament qualification has become the holy grail in Men's Basketball.  The value and prestige both monetarily and in public perception is off the charts. 

So when it comes to scheduling - patsies rule.  RPI baby...

Here's one formula:  

Play at home as much as possible early in the schedule.  

Win the first 5-6 against your patsies.  

Play 1-2 competitive teams with < 100 RPI and beat them or at worst lose 1.

Do that and Bingo - you're a sub 60 RPI.

Last year, Stanford beat their patsies at home and lost on the road in New York City to Duke - boom - RPI 57.

Gonzaga is one of the few teams that doesn't need to play it so safe because they currently own the WCC and the automatic bid.  It's their annuity...

Therefore, every coach is holding their cards close to the vest.

  

Want to play UCLA in a home and home?  I mean Kerry knows UCLA.  No way.  Not enough money and the risk of losing to SCU is a huge RPI hit.  

OK, how about Xavier or Vanderbilt?  Surely, they want to play nice.  Uh-Uh.  

How about local?  Stanford.  Nope.  They still remember our 2006 62-46 beat-down on their court.

Coaches all know about Jared Brownridge now and the daggers he can stick to their RPI.  So, they "hold-em" until the last flop to see what games give them the best odds for an NCAA bid. 

On it goes.  So we end up playing the Denvers and Milwaukees who have lower RPI's, but like their chances vs SCU on the road. We'll take the home win and they'll take the payday and be OK with a lot of empty seats.

It's a rut we must break out of...

Given the above, we have been successful in securing invitations to big stage tournaments - Made for Television (MTE) events.  It's a tough gig to get.  This year it's the Wooden Legacy in Anaheim. We play Arizona, then possibly Providence or Evansville, all NCAA tourney teams.  On the way down, we play UC Irvine; a 2015 NCAA qualifier.  This will be our third try to knock off perennial tournament teams.  

In the 2016-17 season we'll be in a Las Vegas MTE event with more high profile teams.

We get invited to these due to Coach Keating's persistence.  Right now, we are at the level where Arizona and Michigan State aren't that worried about the upset and subsequent RPI hit.

The other "big" thing about scheduling, that all Coaches know, is that it is huge in recruiting.  Simply put, better players want to play against better competition.  

Given all this, how do we break out?  How do we "rise" to be NCAA worthy?  

Of the many iterations, to me, four scenarios are out there for us to be "national" - in an NCAA - before the 2020 first phase plan due date.

First: Win enough games with our current scheduling to be an At-Large NCAA consideration in the next two seasons.  Dramatic changes to our schedule won't happen fast, so we have to "win with what we've got."  It will take a minimum of 24 wins, one "big" upset, AND take Gonzaga to the brink in the WCC tourney final.

Second:  Take out the ZAGS or whoever is in the WCC tourney final game.  That's the only "automatic" in. We could use a "lucky draw" here in our "hold-em" hand....

Third:  Pull off a recruiting "coup" and get the guy we're not supposed to get - Nash-like, who propels us to accomplish one of the two above scenarios. 

Fourth:  Get the students to support the team in their quest to rise to national competitiveness.  If they don't "show up" and represent, why should the team?   How about PRIDE....Do your part...This mentality of "we don't play anybody" or "I don't like the coach" just doesn't fly.  It's like a class where you don't do anything but you expect an "A".  Such an "entitlement" tude.  Lame...

The cards will be dealt starting November 6th with a practice hand against Notre Dame de Namur and then for real November 13 vs Lipscomb.  

SCU is placing big bets for Men's Basketball to go national. The Season Ticket Holders have "anted" up.  

Now, we need the students to rally around as the cards play out and tip the "odds" in our favor.

Next Up:  Season Preview and Predictions

Also on Twitter @Fcrary

  

  

Renee Baumgartner - The Future of Santa Clara University Athletics - Part 2

When it comes to Santa Clara Athletics, and particularly Men's Basketball, our season ticket holders and fans have taken the "Missouri" approach.  Show me...

Maybe, in more relevant terms, we've become a mass of "doubting- thomases" after two decades of waiting for the "how good it's going to be. "  

Oh, and then we "fumble" the new Athletic Director hiring process; maybe the most important athletics personnel decision we've made now that the Commission and Trustees approved SCU going national.  

Now, we just want it TO BE...

Amazingly, we're still here...Supporting, paying, hoping, and yes, griping.  It's been s-o-o long since a Men's Basketball NCAA bid, it's now almost a "bucket list" item...

When I mentioned all this "field of dreams" past to our new athletic director, she kinda just interrupted me and just went to "here are my top priorities."  No binders, glossy charts, or rhetoric like in the past era - boom.  A little "edge" to it...Good.

A short preview:  Not in priority order.

Branding 

Transform and leverage SCU's identity into becoming nationally prominent in Athletics. 

Fundraising

Engage and awaken our dormant donors and build a broader base of new donors who will "buy in" to the plan. The University must lead here by allocating significant money from the operating budget.  If the "U" doesn't invest, why should donors?

Marketing

That's NOT a typo.  Energize a broader community of potential SCU supporters through events, media, and leveraging better on court and field performances.

  

Organization

Simplify and streamline reporting to allow for more focus, autonomy and decision making. 

I think priorities are great, but we all love results a lot more.  I'm not being "homer" here, but there was a distinct "air" of expectations in the delivery.  Straight, crisp. 

There's more...

When asked, "What's our catch up plan from the severe lack of funding for athletics?"  The answer, more money will be coming, but she expects progress now...Harken back to her days as Oregon Women's golf coach where the budget was bleak.  She parlayed the Oregon reputation and was able to get the players needed to succeed.  Much like our Jerry Smith and Jon Wallace have done here.

"Doesn't want to hear that we can't get better."  

I asked, "What new performance measurements should coaches expect?"  Use new resources to recruit better, schedule higher, and of course, win some of those.  This will create opportunities to recruit better players, build even better schedules, etc...

With regard to Coach Keating's contract, again, without disclosing terms and details, it's clear Men's Basketball is the centerpiece of this makeover and everyone involved is expecting more.

I feel one of her biggest challenges is to educate both Fr. Engh and his council on the magnitude this move into competitive athletics involves.  

It's not like hiring a new Dean in the School of Engineering where fewer people may pay attention.  

When you hire a new Athletic Director and announce intentions to become nationally relevant - everyone cares.  I believe this naivete' was a shocker to our leadership.  Their "antennas" are up now.

Last question was, "What would you like SCU supporters and fans to know about the future of Santa Clara Athletics?"  Judge the results.  Turns out, Renee has a fair amount of "Missouri" in her fabric as well.  

She'll need it.

Fr. Engh has set the "bar" and declared to all in his introduction speech he expects our new A.D. to lead us to "extraordinary results."

We hope she's the "horse to bet on."

We'll all be watching with "2020" vision....

Also on Twitter @Fcrary.

My Conversation with Renee Baumgartner on The Future of Santa Clara Athletics - Part 1

When I parked in the Leavey lot September 17th, on my way to interview SCU's new athletic's director, Renee Baumgartner, there was total chaos in the lot and in the building.  

Stuff was everywhere.  Trucks, rolling carts, giant trash bins.   People were in purge mode.  That, in conjunction with the Men's BB locker room reconstruction, made me feel like I was witnessing an episode of HGTV's "Fixer Upper."

After my interview, I realized that this was actually a "planned" purge versus chaos.  

The metaphors for change were in your face.  

Metaphor # 1

Good riddance to the "old" everything:  out goes the musty carpets, furniture, ancient uniforms, attitudes, and other "gear" that was hoarded by everyone "just in case."   Message:  this is a clean start folks.  A reboot that says show pride, take pride, step up.  Just check out our teams in their new Nike wear...

Metaphor # 2

We are SCU Athletics, not just individual teams, but part of something to build together.  SO, as "suggested", be there to support your other teams.  The Water Polo team must have loved the extra "kick" from having the other SCU teams on campus that day showing support in the stands.

Metaphor # 3

The initial phase of the The Blue Ribbon and Trustees Plan goes to 2020.  I know this is a stretch, but in Ophthalmology terms that's considered perfect vision.  The plan states national relevance by 2020.  To me, this means Men's Basketball and Baseball need to make a pretty big move:  NCAA or College World Series qualifications.  M/W Soccer are already there as is Women's Volleyball.  

I can tell you there are many "eyes" on this target; not just a new athletic director wanting to make a mark.

Metaphors are nice, but there are many skeptics after 20 years of a woefully underfunded athletic department operating budget.  Other than a few breakout teams, SCU has been mostly irrelevant in the WCC and NCAA.  We've heard a wealth of ambitions, but have been chasing them with an empty wallet. 

BTW, the Men's Basketball budget in the WCC, last, by more than $200K.*

Whether Dr. Renee Baumgartner was an "are you kidding me" choice or the perfect choice, I can tell to this for sure.

She really doesn't care...You heard me...

To her, the decision is "old" news and her sole focus is to exceed the 2020 objectives.  "Just judge me on what we accomplish, that's all I ask."  Fair enough.  The "Supreme Court" made up of of SCU major sports fans will be weighing the evidence in excruciating detail.

I found her engaging, energetic, open, and wait a minute, candid. Communication is actually part of the plan - not a void or a "distasteful" task like it seemed in the past.  

There is an all coaches meeting every Tuesday.  While many coaches probably hate more meetings, guess what, it allows airing of needs, priorities, and assignments to address/fix issues.  No hiding in the corner office. 

Renee is also a member of Fr. Engh's council.  She sits at the table and comes ready to get things done. According to other sources, Fr. Engh is not just listening and learning, but ponying up money to plug holes. You may be surprised to learn that before the Blue Ribbon Commission, our prior A.D., during his 10 years, never presented to the Trustees. 

Metaphors, harbingers, there are methods and things moving...

Old is out and change is in, be it carpets, habits, ideas.  Given resources, losing is "out" and competitive is in...

One last HGTV Metaphor:  It sorta feels like we're trying to move out of "This Old House" towards our "Dream Home" - relevance.

It will need 2020 Vision and execution to have a chance...

Next up:  Part 2.  I get answers to your tough questions...Stay tuned...

Follow the Bucking Bronco on Twitter @Fcrary

* 2013-14 reporting year

 

SCU's Senior Associate A.D. - My Interview with Jeff Mitchell - Fresh Air

Even though Jeff Mitchell was the acting A.D. during the recent search process, I can assure you he's wasn't "acting."  He's real.

He's wasn't there to make big changes, but the "little" things he changed, maybe helped start something big...

The first is, communication.  I'll call it "fresh air."  It's not Febreze. It's a willingness to engage and talk about the opportunities and magnitude of the challenges the new A.D. and University Exec team will confront.  

Let me be upfront - Jeff Mitchell was not a candidate for the full time position.  Although he'd like to be an A.D. at some point in his career, he recognizes that an "external" candidate was the right choice for SCU.

Some of you may be saying, "Who's Jeff Mitchell?"

Jeff is in his 10th year at SCU, rising from volunteer to Senior Associate A.D. and the sports supervisor responsible for Men's Basketball, Baseball, Tennis and Women's Volleyball; Big programs.  He's a lawyer, has an MBA, has media relations experience and was, prior to the above, responsible for NCAA compliance.  
Many of the MBB season ticket holders know him as the "voice" of the Broncos at Leavey  - "Jared Brownridge for t-h-r-e-e!!!"

During  my interview, I found his "voice" inside the department compelling and ready to tackle his role in the "makeover."

To be fair, he also wears the results from the past 10 years of mediocrity in his sports.  Exception - Women's Volleyball.  Coach Jon Wallace has taken the ladies to 12 NCAA tourneys!  Now that's a model we'd LOVE for MBB.

Now that Dr. Renee Baumgartner is on board, she inherits a staff that, for the first time in many of their careers, will be included in the strategy and at the same time tasked and measured to get SCU to national level performance in major sports.
  
And that's where Jeff Mitchell will be squarely positioned and have his chance to elevate his "voice" and SCU's reputation in MBB.

I felt that's exactly where he wants to be.  A "go to" catalyst to get things done. 

For example, he was already pushing for funding to relieve coaches of the extra hours spent fundraising just to try to make their budgets work.  When Fr. Engh announced $500,000 to alleviate much of those extra hours, Jeff was a key driver.  He had hands in the Nike all sports apparel deal and the locker room upgrades happening now.  
He also believes in communication.  I'm hopeful that the "cone of silence" around athletics and MBB will be lifted.  In the past regime, it was like you needed a Government "SCI" (Top Secret) clearance just to say hello to a coach.  

Press the link to read my prior Blog on "What we have here is a Failure to Communicate."  Pretty interesting.

SCU Failure to Communicate Blog - March 2014

Maybe the new S.I.D. (Sports Information Director) to be hired will actually want to listen to season ticket holders and fans and not press the "mute" button on our coaches.

Coaches will get clearer expectations from Dr. Baumgartner.  Over time, they'll be given proper resources and expected to perform per Fr. Engh's announced standard to "deliver extraordinary results." 

We'll be watching...

Expecting national level results is novel for SCU, but old hat for serious NCAA programs.

The work to be done to get us "National" in Men's Basketball is a huge task from where we are now.  That's a subject for my next column.

Short term to "National" in MBB is pretty straightforward, but not easy.  Either earn an At-Large NCAA bid OR win the WCC Tourney.  IMHO the second option might be the easiest.

In either case, Jeff Mitchell will be a co-architect of our progression in MBB.  With Men's Basketball being the centerpiece of SCU becoming "National", the "spotlight" will shine bright on everyone to perform.

And the Jeff Mitchell I met isn't "camera shy"...


Follow The Bucking Bronco on Twitter @Fcrary.

SCU's Athletics Director Decision - The "Final"

If the hiring of our new A.D. was a final exam and I was grading the process, communications, and our reaction to the SCU Athletics Director's decision, it would be a low "C" for all of us including the University. 

Barely Passing.  And our APR* would take a big hit.  

Fundamentally, we all choked a little bit...

For us, the season ticket holders, fans, alums, and donors reacted to a decision without additional facts.  We did not receive details from the University to reassure us that the process and vetting was broader and deeper than it seemed.

For the University, and I'm going to be a little harsh here, it was a failure to grasp the magnitude of the decision being made.  The vast majority of the SCU constituency were unaware of the unique qualities the selection committee, the broad spectrum of others who interviewed the candidates and Fr. Engh saw in Dr. Baumgartner that made her the consensus choice. 

It's s-o-o-o, Santa Clara...

I'm not trying to light a bonfire under our communications staff, I'm just sayin' we don't get it....Athletics....

After all the work of The Commission, Trustees, Athletics and University Staff, I believe this is our "Achilles Heel" - to national prominence in Athletics and, in particular major sports, and the centerpiece - Men's Basketball.

Someone once told me "You don't know, what you don't know." Maybe if we all would have recognized this flaw, we all could have "aced" the final.

For nearly 30 years, the "program across the street" has been given just enough gas in the tank to keep the engine going.  Now that we are committing to "revving" up the horsepower, we need a crew of mechanics to make it happen.  

To be fair, the University staff on board are great people, but they weren't hired for expertise in Athletics communications.  Our coaches are both talented and engaged, but need a "go to" person or two who get it.  

This just in - a top 20 Debate and Forensics Team is not going to energize a University like a Top 20 Men's Basketball program - and for SCU, BOTH are achievable.  

IMHO, one of Dr. Renee Baumgartner's biggest challenges is to educate the SCU staff of what is takes to build a competitive Athletics program. 

As to the decision itself,  it is FINAL.  We just need get over ourselves and "Melo" out, focus on the one thing we might all agree on - that Santa Clara INTENDS to be nationally relevant in Athletics.

  

You may not like the decision - and full disclosure - I felt other candidates on paper had more experience to bring.  

There were about 30 applicants that was whittled down to 9. The 9 was culled down to the final 3.  

Multiple interviews from more than 30 separate and diverse SCU University staff, athletics staff, coaches, former athletes, trustees, regents, donors, about 90 in total, (3 finalists) gave the edge to Dr. Baumgartner.  

Each interviewer was asked to privately answer questions and write in pros and cons.  The data was then tallied by an independent survey engine that quantified the feedback.

There were small social meetings where the above could observe candidates out of full blown interview mode.  The "vetting" went deeper than just her cheerleaders at Oregon and Syracuse.  I feel it should have gone further, but it wasn't a "stuff job." I can't give you the "inside" names because I said I wouldn't, but they're legit.

It also seemed the process was rushed.  I get the need to have a decision in the summer, but given the magnitude of the hire, a few more weeks to ensure some key SCU people would have been in town to interview would have been appropriate..

It also wasn't a money decision....like we have all suspected in the past with other hires where "frugal" is maybe being generous.

I can go on and on.  Summary, we didn't run the best process due to our naivete' regarding Athletics and the press release against the backdrop of the Syracuse issues was a non-starter.

  

It was written through an Academic vs Athletics "lens."  When you use the word administrative or administrator 9 times in your press release, it's not what your SCU community is wanting to see after 30 years.  Some of the right words are there, mentioning her responsibilities, but it was a bare list with not much behind it. We weren't looking for an "overseer."   We were hoping for someone who "directed" the operations and made dynamic changes.

Maybe use the word leadership 9 times?  How about describing what made Renee stand out?  How about more information what was accomplished in marketing, performance of the 8 teams she supervised, which standout coaches did she hire, how did fundraising $$ grow, and were there innovations in communications we should know about?   

The endorsement from the Syracuse Chancellor was tepid at best.  We were looking for something a lot stronger than "positive".  Then there was the gratuitous veiled reference to "values" that was slipped in for the right spin.

The PR retries, although more to the point, didn't do the trick as we were by then in defensive mode. There's also memories of past hires that still rankle alums. 

Dr. Baumgartner didn't deserve this reception.  So, we all are on probation...Everyone of us.

We booted the "Final" and we all need to raise our grade and game.

The tentative plan from the Commission, Trustees, and Athletics projects milestones out to 2020.  My guess is that's probably the term of the contract.     

Whether or not we liked the process or decision, I'm sure of one thing.  ALL of us want to see Santa Clara realize it's potential and "break out" of the funk of the past.  

I'm hopeful Dr. Baumgartner can be the catalyst for us to become National instead of Local in Athletics. She's here and deserves our support to reach our goals. 

I'll have my "grade book" with me to chart our progress.

*APR stands for Academic Progress Rate; a measurement of how well Athletes do in School.

Next Up:  What must SCU do to help build Men's Basketball into an NCAA Caliber Program.

Also follow The Bucking Bronco on Twitter @Fcrary

The Choice of SCU's New AD is...Brilliant!!!

You read the title correctly...Brilliant!

It has to be...

A brief summary of what some Broncos are saying:

When the initial reaction to the selection has former athletes, alums, fans, season ticket holders and potential donors scratching their heads - it must be "over their heads" as to what we didn't know. Brilliant!

When the new AD has no apparent connections to the University, Silicon Valley, the WCC or a rolodex of "go to" supporters and donors.   Brilliant! 

When the "vetting" process seemed to include mostly the cheerleaders for Dr. Baumgartner and not looking deeper into other sources at Oregon, the NCAA committees she worked on and private sources of people we know.  Brilliant!

When we pass on an opportunity with another candidate who had the potential to reunite decades of disconnected former Bronco star athletes who could work together to elevate the program and energize fans and donors.  Brilliant!

That being said, I DO THINK THE CHOICE IS BRILLIANT...

Here's why...

For the first time in 3 decades, the new AD - Dr. Renee Baumgartner, is set up for success.  It's a "can't fail" opportunity. The University leadership, Fr. Engh, his Cabinet, The President's Commission's on Athletics, The Trustees, and The Regents, will not allow that to happen.  There's just too much at stake.....

It's Brilliant!

All the success "pressure points" are aligned and as Fr. Engh now knows, the visibility to the University is enormous...And so is the potential.

Consider:

$The Funding will be there$  

Fr. Engh laid out the short term budget infusions that have happened and are committed.  That's never been made public before.  

The AD reports directly to Fr. Engh and is part of his Cabinet

As I've mentioned before, one of the most important things to a University President is his Legacy - what big things were accomplished.  The success of Athletics will be a centerpiece of that Legacy.  Therefore, he will be involved in whatever is required to ensure Athletics rises to national prominence.

Major sports will have to become Major

National relevance in athletics is all about VISIBILITY.  Major sports success is the "igniter" for national PR. Scheduling, recruiting, and beating better opponents.  We are already there in Women's Soccer and Volleyball.  Their consecutive NCAA appearances and wins are impressive.  This MUST happen in Men's Basketball and Baseball.  Men's Soccer has had NCAA success and the new facilities will help build consistency.

Donors know their contributions will have major impact

While it's great to have your name on an Engineering building, the visibility of having your name associated with building a nationally relevant Men's Basketball program, for example, is enticing.  

The new Stevens Soccer training facility and stadium expansion is a game changer...And now it's a surer bet that donors loyalty will be rewarded on a national scope.

Everyone will be Watching and Measuring

SCU's new direction in Athletics is a total "wake up" call.  The Athletic staff, alums, season ticket holders, the Press - everyone's antennas are up.  I like it.

So, it is brilliant!

Finally, at the announcement event on Wednesday, I have to say, both Fr. Engh and Dr. Baumgartner did well.  Fr. Engh, shared new details about the selection process and the unique qualities Dr. Baumgartner possesses that probably should have been done upfront in the original announcement.  It would have dampened the sharp response from Alums and the media.  It exposed SCU's naivete' when it comes to Athletics and communications.

The energy and enthusiasm in Dr. Baumgartner's remarks was palpable.  She showed a command of the stage and shared a preview of what to expect from her leadership.  I sensed a little bit of "prove the naysayers wrong" in her delivery; maybe a bit of the competitive former athlete's "tude" surfacing.  It was a good opener.  See the link below if you wish to see the video.

SCU Athletic Director Introduction Video

Occasionally, either intended or unintended, there's a little brilliance in craziness.  Whether you feel the new AD selection is crazy or brilliant - it's doesn't change the reality of what SCU has committed to achieving through athletics.  It won't happen fast, but finally, after decades of just having our athletics program as this "thing" across the campus - it is now "the thing" on campus.

The stage is set.  Can't wait to see the opening act!!