G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXXIII: A Fanbase Gets Smarter When All The Idiots Jump Shi
Solo's gonna lose his mind over this one...

Solo's gonna lose his mind over this one...
That's an astonishing piece of information
Solo's gonna lose his mind over this one...
![]()
If true, the only thing I can think that would make sense is Eaves knew Oz wanted to try other things. Maybe at that moment Oz calling him was a safe move for Oz and Eaves thought his heart won't be there or would leave for advancement at first chance. Eaves' ego would never have seen how bad things would be getting 2-3 years down the road.
Now given the circumstances Eaves needs to stop the bleed and doesn't mind if Oz ends up pursuing greater things while a UW Asst coach.
I am just trying to toss a possible reasonable(Mike Eaves' thought process) explanation out there.
I'm not sure looking at it as Oz vs. Walsh is at all correct as they wouldn't have been hired for the same job. Hiring Oz would have more likely meant firing/demoting Shuchuk who would have completed his 3rd year on the staff in '13. So do you fire Shuchuk, who Eaves was clearly comfortable with, to hire back a guy that left you a few years earlier and (at the time) appeared to be looking for a stopover before another HC job was offered to him? In retrospect, sure, it looks good, but at the time I'm not sure it was very clear cut, or would have seemed like a very good move if you're thinking about long term stability in the program. Just saying there's a lot more to it than just Walsh or Oz.
Now if you hire Oz, you're talking multi-year commitment and bigger $$, so of course it makes a lot of sense in the longer view.
\
Associate Head Coach would be a great title for Oz.
Along with being told that you are next in line, whether that be a year from now or when Eaves retires on his own.
I'm not sure looking at it as Oz vs. Walsh is at all correct as they wouldn't have been hired for the same job. Hiring Oz would have more likely meant firing/demoting Shuchuk who would have completed his 3rd year on the staff in '13. So do you fire Shuchuk, who Eaves was clearly comfortable with, to hire back a guy that left you a few years earlier and (at the time) appeared to be looking for a stopover before another HC job was offered to him?
I honestly thought this whole thing had reached the bottom, and then this news comes out.
You demote Shuchuck to #2 and make OZ #1, on the assurance from Oz we wants to stick around. That's a no brainer!
I agree that today it seems a no brainer. But then? I have to disagree it was clear cut at all.
How do you possibly get any assurance from Oz then when there was only one year contracts for assistants? Let alone the fact that his stock was still very high even after being fired and most believed he would be offered another HC job very soon. I don't see how any longer term commitment was possible from either side. Certainly not one that could be trusted.
Oz wasn't fired from OSU until 3 weeks after UW's season was done. It seems highly likely that Shuchuck was told he would be retained as top assistant before then. And remember, that it's 2013. Since Schuchuk was promoted to top assistant in the wake of the November Butters debacle, the Badgers had the best record in the country at 21-5-5, and several players certainly credited Shuchuk's steady hand in seeing them through to a turn around. And they had a loaded team coming back. So Eaves had just told Shuchuk he was the guy, but then three weeks later he was supposed to go back on his word to Shuchuk (who at that point could certainly be judged to have been successful in his duties) to take a $30k cut in pay and a demotion because Oz was suddenly without a job and available for the next year? (Which is probably ostensibly the same thing as firing him.) I just find that would have been a very, very difficult way to operate the business at the time.
Walsh's job was up for grabs to some extent and was posted. Obviously Oz wasn't going to apply for Walsh's job. So it wasn't Walsh instead of Oz.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're making about a ton of assumptions here.