If you're old enough, you'll recall that the hiring of Jimmy Johnson in 1984 to replace Schnelly went over in Miami like a lead balloon. No one had heard much of him before, his record at Ok State was average, etc. And, in his first season, no one would've cared if he was fired after the Maryland game when we (he) blew a 31-0 halftime lead to lose at home against Maryland..
forums
Realistic coaching candidates
- Thread starter Gables Canes
- Start date
Advertisement
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,726
I get what you’re saying, I just meant his teams after 85 had an exponential growth in popularity post Howard.
Consigliere
All-American
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 21,927
I have a question for the board. As it pertains to being an HC in college basketball, how often do you have to achieve or do something for it to be considered the norm versus an anomaly?
For example: Frank Martin, before this season, coached at South Carolina for 8 seasons. During that time he has had ONE great season. In that season, he made the NCAAT and the Final Four.
The other 7 seasons featured 4 losing records in conference. Assuming this season continues as is, this would be the 5th losing season out of 9.
At this point, Frank Martin is a routine loser and the one great season was an anomaly.
Another example: Porter Moser at Loyola, a name we know too well. Not including this season, he has been the HC there for 9 seasons. In that time he has 1 conference championship, 1 NCAAT and 1 final four appearance. All in that same season.
In the other 8 seasons, he has had a losing record in conference 6 times. I think it is fair to note that, including this season, over the last 4 seasons he has a record of 54 - 16 in conference (77%). Perhaps Moser is now a coach who dominates his conference since his last losing season was 5 seasons ago and 4 straight seasons of improved performance is starting to become the norm.
One more example: Anthony Grant is in his 4th season at Dayton. Grant really got hit hard by having the post season cancelled last season. It is very likely he would have won the conference and been a 1-2 seed. On top of that, a sweet 16 appearance was not unlikely. Even if we give him all of that, he had one great season versus 2 sub-par at Dayton. This year, it appears to be more sub-par from Grant as Dayton is 5th in the conference at 8-6. Assuming this team finishes 5th in the conference this year, that makes the one great season more likely an anomaly over routine.
For example: Frank Martin, before this season, coached at South Carolina for 8 seasons. During that time he has had ONE great season. In that season, he made the NCAAT and the Final Four.
The other 7 seasons featured 4 losing records in conference. Assuming this season continues as is, this would be the 5th losing season out of 9.
At this point, Frank Martin is a routine loser and the one great season was an anomaly.
Another example: Porter Moser at Loyola, a name we know too well. Not including this season, he has been the HC there for 9 seasons. In that time he has 1 conference championship, 1 NCAAT and 1 final four appearance. All in that same season.
In the other 8 seasons, he has had a losing record in conference 6 times. I think it is fair to note that, including this season, over the last 4 seasons he has a record of 54 - 16 in conference (77%). Perhaps Moser is now a coach who dominates his conference since his last losing season was 5 seasons ago and 4 straight seasons of improved performance is starting to become the norm.
One more example: Anthony Grant is in his 4th season at Dayton. Grant really got hit hard by having the post season cancelled last season. It is very likely he would have won the conference and been a 1-2 seed. On top of that, a sweet 16 appearance was not unlikely. Even if we give him all of that, he had one great season versus 2 sub-par at Dayton. This year, it appears to be more sub-par from Grant as Dayton is 5th in the conference at 8-6. Assuming this team finishes 5th in the conference this year, that makes the one great season more likely an anomaly over routine.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,726
Easily take grant over the other two. It can even be argued that Bama only started caring about hoops when he was fired. Great question! PS moser won’t stay hot at Loyola.
Consigliere
All-American
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 21,927
1. I agree about Martin. Martin is a loser, no serious person wants him. I was only pointing out that his new normal is losing.
2. As for Grant...It can be argued but it is illogical and wrong. It also is an excuse. That is it. An excuse.
A. Before Grant, Bama went after and hired Gottfried. Gottfried was doing great things at Murray State.
B. Gottfried coached at Bama for 11 seasons before he "resigned" but was fired. During those 11 seasons, Bama went to the NCAAT 5 times and made the Elite Eight. Bama fired Gottfried after two sub-par years. So clearly, Bama cared about hoops to fire Gottfried who took Bama to the NCAAT 5 out of 11 seasons.
C. Before Gottfried was Hobbs. He made the NCAAT 2 out of 6 years, both times to the Second Round.
D. Grant on the other hand went to the NCAAT 1 out of 6 years at Bama.
E. Johnson was after Grant, he went to the NCAA 1 out of 4 years. He was fired for sub-par performance.
Others did a much better job and all were fired for sub-par performance. They all did better than Grant too. Going back to Wimp Sanderson, Bama has expectations and Grant like the others, failed to live up to them. They didn't just start caring about hoops after he was fired. Since Gottfried, all of their hires can arguably make sense. Even Avery Johnson. He had a winning coaching record in the NBA.
3. Moser can go either way. He clearly has been hot going on 4 years now. Another successful season and it likely becomes the norm.
Last edited:
Advertisement
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,726
you wouldn’t give grant a look here? I think a lot of what we have to look at is recruiting. Will we get a recruiter that would enhance our our talent level?
I think Pitino Junior falls into the category of he’d be a better coach with a better job.
Be an interesting experiment if, say, Martin and Calipari switched jobs. Or, Moser and Self. How different would the affected teams' records be? Is it genius coaching strategy, the program tradition, or the ability to recruit the top players that determines success, or all three?
I look at Brad Stevens at Butler, and Mark Few at Gonzaga, and Beilein at the various places he coached and think, THOSE are the type of coaches you'd want to have identified at the outset of their careers. Easier said than done.
I look at Brad Stevens at Butler, and Mark Few at Gonzaga, and Beilein at the various places he coached and think, THOSE are the type of coaches you'd want to have identified at the outset of their careers. Easier said than done.
Consigliere
All-American
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 21,927
As of today, I wouldn’t consider Grant. There are other candidates who I would consider over him. Grant already did sub-par at a higher level, I don’t see how he will do a good job at a higher level then that. He needs to dominate the A10 again consistently and he hasn’t done that.
I am not concerned with recruiting, per se. Look at Tony B. Look at our best teams under Coach L. Those teams we’re not the ones with the highest ranked recruits. Coach L had the combination of the right coaching and mature players and he did a great job. When we lost that coaching and landed the higher players, we performed worse.
If Richard Pitino’s last name was Clark, would you care? Because his track record at Minnesota is sub-par and he shouldn’t be coaching in the ACC today.
Consigliere
All-American
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 21,927
Those coaches are elite and it would be very difficult to find some early in their careers and know they had the goods. I think a lot of it is luck.
Few and Gonzaga:
1. Fitzgerald was the HC at Gonzaga. His long time assistants were Dan Monson and Mark Few. Fitzgerald took Gonzaga to the NCAAT for the first time in 1995. Fitzgerald was the guy who recruited Stockton. He also was the AD and the HC. He stepped down in 96-97 because of an NCAA investigation. Fitzgerald was 50 at the time.
2. After Fitzgerald, Dan Monson was named as HC. Monson has 2 years darn good years at Gonzaga. He takes them to the Elite 8. It would take Few 16 seasons to match that accomplishment. Monson leaves Gonzaga for Minnesota.
3. After Monson, Few is named the HC. Few essentially continued that success, built off of it and dominated that conference...made them a national elite program.
So to review:
1. But for a recruiting investigation, perhaps Fitzgerald doesn't step down that season. That investigation starts the process of getting to Few.
2. But for Monson leaving Gonzaga, Few doesn't get the HC gig. Perhaps Monson, being from Washington, wanted to wait for a gig closer to home.
3. If either Monson or Fitzgerald kept that HC gig, perhaps Few leaves to be an assistant or HC elsewhere.
-
Bonus: How many times do you think Oregon made a serious attempt at Few? It had to be at least ONCE before Altman.
------------------------
Do you really think Gonzaga believed that Few was going to do what he did? Think of all the randomness that had to transpire to get him an HC gig at Gonzaga.
Last edited:
Advertisement
mtsucalico85
Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 142
I don't disagree with any of this (though Gates could at least check off your first box today, as a win or a Wright St. loss today will get them a share of the conference title). I like Nagy, too, and I do think he is currently the top coach in the league. He did take over a much better situation at WSU than Gates did at CSU, though...what he did at South Dakota State honestly impresses me more than what he has done to date at WSU. Nagy certainly has the higher floor of the two, while Gates would be a higher risk, higher reward type of hire. I do think Nagy would need to get at least one assistant with some East Coast connections, as his career has been entirely in the Midwest, and his recruits are almost entirely from the Midwest.
The Horizon may not be the level of a Missouri Valley or recently a league like the SoCon, but it is a step up from leagues like the Summit or even the OVC (even with Belmont/Murray St., the rest of that league has been atrocious).
As I said, he would not be my top choice if the job opened up (guys like Wes Miller at UNCG, John Becker at Vermont, Craig Smith at Utah St. stick out to me). I'd like to see him get more experience and have more accomplishments before making that move. But I like the trajectory he is on, and I remained convinced that James won't make a move on Coach L after this season, even if we finish out the season playing like we did today and get blown out by 25-30+ each time out. So I'm trying to project to who we should be looking at after the 2022 or 2023 season.
For those throwing out Richard Pitino's name, just know that there is a significant portion of the Minnesota fan base that is done with him and would be ecstatic if Minnesota either let him go or if Pitino left on his own accord.
Consigliere
All-American
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 21,927
1. FYI: Conference Title is who wins the conference tourney. Regular season doesn’t count. Even if Gates won it all this year, I’d hardly consider him someone who dominates the conference after two years.
2. Richard Pitino is a garbage coach with a great last name.
3. If we’re projecting for 2022 or 2023, too much could change between now and then. But I get what you’re doing. That is why I do it by who you would take today.
4. Craig Smith, Becker and Wes Miller will all be coaching at better programs soon.
Advertisement
Well, Illinois smoked Pitino's Minnesota team today 94-63. So ... he very well might fit in at UM.
Consigliere
All-American
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 21,927
All Pitino needs is to be challenged in a more difficult conference!
That will be the trick. He isn’t challenged enough.
mtsucalico85
Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 142
I get that, especially in the ACC, the conference tournament has historically meant more than the regular season title. And for leagues like the Horizon, it ends up mattering more for NCAA Tournament purposes. But if I'm evaluating a coach, I'd glean more from a coach who has a team who has had a strong season from start to finish rather than someone who was just okay during the regular season, but gets hot for a week during the conference tournament.
The goal is to shoot for someone who can win both, obviously. But if my choices are someone who goes 16-2 during the season and then loses in the conference title game, or someone who goes 12-6 in the same league but wins the conference tournament as a 3 seed, more often than not I'd prefer the 16-2 coach.
Advertisement
If you say so. This season, the Big 10 appears far superior to the ACC.
Consigliere
All-American
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 21,927
Okay. For the Horizon, which team gets the auto bid?
Team A goes 16-2 during the regular season and finishes first. They lose in the quarter finals.
Team B goes 12-6 during the regular season and finishes third. They win the conference tourney.
-
I want the guy who wins the actual conference. I want the guy who makes the NCAAT.
mtsucalico85
Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 142
Obviously Team B goes, but that doesn't mean that the coach of Team B developed a better team than the coach of Team A did.
How many times a coach made the tournament at his prior stop matters next-to-nothing by the team he gets to Miami. What matters is what kind of roster you build and how you can develop them in order to make tournament runs at Miami. And from that limited data, I would trust the coach of Team A to put the better team together than I would the coach of Team B. I gain more from the 18 game sample size of the regular season than I do a 1-3 game sample over a the period of a few days.
Consigliere
All-American
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 21,927
I think we're not going to agree as we’re on very different pages.
Nobody cares about regular season championships because they’re bullchit. The point is to get to the NCAAT. There are many ways to get there but the point is to get a chance to enter the dance. The point is to find a coach who can handle the pressure and win the big game. Not some random coach that can win at a very slow pace over the course of a season but fails when it matters most. You want to find a coach who can handle the pressure, winning at the next level and at tournament conditions.
As for the underlined part. It means that Team B's coach delivered and Team A's coach didn't. That is it. Nobody cares about the guy who won a mythical regular season championship but failed when it matters most. The coach for Team B did what matters most...win. He wins and get his team to the NCAAT. For all you know, Team B beat Team A twice during the regular season or Team B lost one more game than Team A.
As for the part in bold. It absolutely matters because these are the guys who can win and make it to the next level. These are the guys that are leading their teams to the postseason and the next level. A coach that is unable to make the tourney against inferior competition will likely NOT make it to the tourney at Miami. Because if an HC can't deliver at the inferior program and against inferior competition then why would he be able to do it against better competition.
You assume that Team A's coach is better at building a team. There is no proof of that. You also assume that Team's B coach was some lucky ******* that had no business being in the NCAAT. But for getting hot over a 1-3 game sample, they're sitting at home watching the NCAAT. Sure, it happens. Some sub-par team gets hot and wins the conference tourney and gets lucky. With that said, we already know Team A is likely to be at home because they can't hack it at the Horizon League Tourney and the Horizon League doesn't typically send multiple teams/per year.
I want an HC who does the following:
1. Wins conference championships,
2. Makes the NCAAT, and
3. Dominates the inferior conference.
The guy who can't do (1) and (2) probably struggles to do (3).
Advertisement