- Joined
- Feb 6, 2014
- Messages
- 19,335
Anthony Grant would be a lazier effing hire than Konkol.....so I fully anticipate they'd be the finalists.
forums
Realistic coaching candidates
- Thread starter Gables Canes
- Start date
Advertisement
mtsucalico85
Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 142
Meanwhile, I think you are making the assumption that just because the coach of Team A failed in this one conference tournament, that means he is destined to repeat failure in the future, and/or he hadn't had any success prior to the year in question that did involve winning a conference tournament and making it to the NCAA tournament.
Some of the top coaches in the game were all people that had some sort of questionable tournament records at some point. Scott Drew was hired by Baylor off of one season at Valpo where he won the regular season title by multiple games, but did not win his conference tournament. For that matter, he has yet to win a conference title at Baylor (though the fact that he got Baylor to where they are now given how low they were at when he got there is still astounding, and I expect that this fact changes this year). Jay Wright did win two conference tournaments at Hofstra in his 4th and 5th seasons before getting to Villanova, but then failed to even make it to a conference championship game in the Big East until his 14th season at Villanova. It took Tony Bennett 8 seasons before he won more than one game in a conference tournament.
I do get that comparing a conference like the Horizon League to the Big 12, Big East, Pac 12, and ACC is not apples to apples, but at the same time, Wright and Bennett weren't just getting criticism because of their conference tournament performance, but also their performance at the NCAA tournament. Those two coaches were long considered to be two very good regular season coaches, but ones that never seemed to cut it in March when it mattered. It especially got loud for Bennett after getting demolished by UMBC in 2018. Then they each went out and won titles, and that talk died off quickly.
I think the biggest difference from how you view it and how I view it is that I believe you weigh your three qualifications for a coach equally, and that (1) and (2) will set up (3). Meanwhile, I believe (3) is the most important of the three qualifications in what I am looking for in a mid-major coach to translate to a high-major program, and that (3) will set up (1) and (2), even if it doesn't happen in a singular conference tournament. I don't think either way to view it is wrong, it just comes down to personal preference.
We should probably just agree to disagree, because we would keep going around in circles regarding this.
Consigliere
All-American
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 21,927
You might not read all this and that is fine. I think part of the disconnect is you think I am heavily weighing making the NCAAT over everything else. As I clearly said, it is very difficult to somehow NOT dominate the conference but somehow make the NCAAT. I can't think of a coach at some mid-major that would consistently get lucky during the conference tourney, make the NCAAT but fail to dominate the conference consistently. Who is this guy?
Over the last 10 years I can think of one HC, there may be more, who was able to fail to make the NCAAT at a mid-major but then do it at a higher level. Your lead argument should be Mike White. He should be the guy that you make your case around. He never won the conference tourney, he never made the NCAAT but he somehow was able to consistently (at least for now) dominates at LaTech (76% conference winning percentage). Even with him there are some holes (e.g. he really only finished the conference regular season outright in first once). White then went on to UF and made the Elite Eight at UF and the NCAAT in 3 of his first 4 seasons (e.g. possibly would make it last year too).
I also didn't say it wasn't impossible for a coach who never made the NCAAT at an inferior conference to make it at a bigger conference.
No. I didn't hint at that either. I am saying if a coach can't win in a pressure situation. If a coach can't get to the NCAAT. Then he will likely struggle when the competition is harder. How can you expect a coach to deliver at a higher level when he doesn't deliver at a lower level? This doesn't mean that 100% of the time a coach that fails to get to the NCAAT at an inferior conference will never make it at a better conference.
You use Scott Drew as an example. Scott Drew was an HC for ONE season. Scott Drew became the HC at Valpo because his dad (Homer) was the HC at Valpo for many years and his dad had a lot of success. Homer built Valpo. Homer gets cancer and steps down. Then Scott is promoted because before the season (May, 2011) his dad stepped down. No time to even do a real search (this pattern happens with Scott Drew). Scott Drew was hired by Baylor at 32-33 years old. Scott Drew was hired in August of that season after the Bliss scandal. Again, the pattern repeats itself. No time to do a real search, let's try and find someone who can take the job quickly...
Scott Drew is a rare example of someone who personally didn't do much to warrant a gig at that level. He hardly had any track record. Baylor needed an HC in August and were able to struggle to find someone. He proves nothing except being available.
Jay Wright and Tony B stuff doesn't prove anything either. It doesn't even fit here. I don't know why you brought it up. Jay Wright is everything I said you look for in hiring an HC from a sub-par conference.
1. He won the conference championship (twice)
2. He made the NCAAT (twice), and
3. He dominated his conference (his last 3 seasons his conference winning percentage was 85%).
As for Tony B. I don't understand the relevance here. He, like Scott Drew, was coaching for his dad. **** Bennett was burnt out, retired, and Tony was there as next in line. Tony B out did what his dad did at WSU.
We're talking about how do we critique/evaluate coaches before they're hired for the next level. How do we find that guy that will perform well at the next level? So please explain.
Over the last 10 years I can think of one HC, there may be more, who was able to fail to make the NCAAT at a mid-major but then do it at a higher level. Your lead argument should be Mike White. He should be the guy that you make your case around. He never won the conference tourney, he never made the NCAAT but he somehow was able to consistently (at least for now) dominates at LaTech (76% conference winning percentage). Even with him there are some holes (e.g. he really only finished the conference regular season outright in first once). White then went on to UF and made the Elite Eight at UF and the NCAAT in 3 of his first 4 seasons (e.g. possibly would make it last year too).
I also didn't say it wasn't impossible for a coach who never made the NCAAT at an inferior conference to make it at a bigger conference.
No. I didn't hint at that either. I am saying if a coach can't win in a pressure situation. If a coach can't get to the NCAAT. Then he will likely struggle when the competition is harder. How can you expect a coach to deliver at a higher level when he doesn't deliver at a lower level? This doesn't mean that 100% of the time a coach that fails to get to the NCAAT at an inferior conference will never make it at a better conference.
You use Scott Drew as an example. Scott Drew was an HC for ONE season. Scott Drew became the HC at Valpo because his dad (Homer) was the HC at Valpo for many years and his dad had a lot of success. Homer built Valpo. Homer gets cancer and steps down. Then Scott is promoted because before the season (May, 2011) his dad stepped down. No time to even do a real search (this pattern happens with Scott Drew). Scott Drew was hired by Baylor at 32-33 years old. Scott Drew was hired in August of that season after the Bliss scandal. Again, the pattern repeats itself. No time to do a real search, let's try and find someone who can take the job quickly...
Scott Drew is a rare example of someone who personally didn't do much to warrant a gig at that level. He hardly had any track record. Baylor needed an HC in August and were able to struggle to find someone. He proves nothing except being available.
Jay Wright and Tony B stuff doesn't prove anything either. It doesn't even fit here. I don't know why you brought it up. Jay Wright is everything I said you look for in hiring an HC from a sub-par conference.
1. He won the conference championship (twice)
2. He made the NCAAT (twice), and
3. He dominated his conference (his last 3 seasons his conference winning percentage was 85%).
As for Tony B. I don't understand the relevance here. He, like Scott Drew, was coaching for his dad. **** Bennett was burnt out, retired, and Tony was there as next in line. Tony B out did what his dad did at WSU.
We're talking about how do we critique/evaluate coaches before they're hired for the next level. How do we find that guy that will perform well at the next level? So please explain.
Fine.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,726
So by your logic, uf made a poor decision hiring White who had 4 20+ win seasons at latech but never made the tourney? Hmmmm!
I'd have Steve Pikiell, the Rutgers HC, on my shortlist. He had a great run at Olaniyi's former school (Stony Brook) and now has made Rutgers more than competitive in the tough Big 10. From the Jim Calhoun coaching tree -- played and coached for Calhoun at UConn. Only 53 years old.
Advertisement
Consigliere
All-American
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 21,927
1. Please read the whole post.
2. Mike White had (3) 20 Win Seasons at LaTech.
3. Nobody brags about a 20 win season in a sub-par conference. It isn’t an accomplishment.
4. What does “Hmmmm” mean?
mtsucalico85
Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 142
You are right, there really aren't any examples of this. The two closest I could come up with were Will Brown at Albany (who made the tournament in back-to-back seasons with 9-7 records), but he did follow those two seasons with a 15-1 season where he once again won the title. Eddie Biedenbach at UNC Asheville has a title with a team that went 8-8 and another that won the title after going 11-7, though these were separated by 8 years, and after the 11-7 season, he won the title with a team that went 16-2. Those two (especially Biedenbach) would be large stretches. And neither coach would have been someone I would have considered.
Kevin Willard at Seton Hall is another good example. Failed to make it to the NCAAT in 3 seasons at Iona, but Seton Hall has been a top 3 program in the Big East over the past five years. I'm not a huge fan of his, but Cuonzo Martin also fits (he's trickier to evaluate as he hasn't lasted more than 3 seasons at any program before moving on until this season at Mizzou, so we don't know what a sustained program looks like from him yet). You could maybe argue Buzz Williams, but that was a unique situation (only spent one season at New Orleans, then left to become an assistant at Marquette before getting the Marquette job when Crean left one season later), so I don't think he'd qualify for what you are looking for. Put him in the same category with Scott Drew, if you wish.
But the type of coach I'm more thinking of is someone in the mold of Steve Pikiell at Stony Brook. Between 2010-2015, he was 74-22 in conference play (every season except for one was 12-4 or better), but didn't win his conference tournament at all during that span and never played in the NCAAT. 3 of those seasons (2010, 2012, and 2013), his team earned the 1 seed and only made it to the conference title game in one of them, losing in the semis in the other two. Entering 2016, he's certainly a coach you could have questioned about whether or not he was someone who couldn't cut it in March. Yes, he did finally win the conference tournament in 2016, but that is still 7 years it took him to win the title when Stony Brook was going good (and 11 seasons overall). From my view point, though, I would have considered his 88-24 conference record between 2010-2016 to be more representative of him than his 1-for-7 conference tournament record. And him winning that conference championship that final year honestly didn't impact the way I viewed him - I thought highly of him before that championship, and I thought just as highly of him afterwards. Even if he hadn't won yet, I saw what he was doing was sustainable, and it would only be a matter of time before he did win it. He turned that into the Rutgers job - an undeniable bottom 3 job in the Big Ten at the very least and one that was coming off of a 7-25 (1-17 in conference) season - and turned them into a borderline top-25 team by year 4. He technically hasn't made an NCAAT yet at Rutgers, but he would have last season if it didn't get canceled and they are well on their way to making it again this season.
All of that is why I'm so high on Wes Miller and why he'd be my top choice. That program was crap when Miller took it over, and it took some time for him to build. Since 2017, he's been 13-5 or better in league play each season, but he only has the one conference tournament championship (2018) in 9+ seasons. And that one season he made it required a game winning 3 pointer in the semis against Wofford with 20 seconds left to win 56-55. I personally wouldn't feel any differently about Miller as a coach if that three doesn't drop and Wofford wins that game. Going 68-19 in his past 4+ seasons at a time when the SoCon has been the strongest it has been in decades takes precedence.
Only reason I brought up Wright (at Villanova, not Hofstra) and Bennett was to show that even elite coaches go through prolonged periods where they may underachieve in a tournament setting. That doesn't make them bad tournament coaches. And yes, I get that winning the ACC Tournament is a much harder task to accomplish than winning the Horizon League title.
Wright's last two years at Hofstra where he won the conference title were what you like to see from a coach moving up in the ranks. Those two teams were also 16-2 teams in league play those two years, and that was preceded by a season where they were 14-4. The 46-8 conference record weighs more for me than the back-to-back conference titles. He had the coaching profile that we would both be looking for, we just approach his profile from different sides.
To circle back to the name where this all started from - Dennis Gates. Let's say, hypothetically, Cleveland State wins the Horizon League title this season, then loses by 15 points or so as a 15 seed to someone like Illinois. How much would that raise his profile in your view? Would that be enough to at least give him some consideration in your view, even if he wouldn't be your 1st or 2nd choice? Because for me, I would view it as a slight positive, but it wouldn't really change how I view him overall moving forward. I'd still be intrigued with him, but would prefer he gets at least another year of seasoning/success before considering him as one of my top choices.
Consigliere
All-American
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 21,927
Kevin Willard was hired more than 10 years ago. I was asking you to find examples in the last decade. Cuonzo Marin is an example of??? Buzz Williams is not an example of anything he is more like Drew. He also was hired many years ago.
Pikiell did all the things I am looking for. Not sure why he would be the opposite.
He would be in the names I would consider.
I still don't understand why either were brought up.
1. I wouldn't consider Gates this season, even with what you added. He hasn't done anything to warrant this job. He has YET to dominate that conference. Winning the conference in his second season doesn't prove he can dominate inferior competition. If he can dominate the Horizon League in the next 2-3 seasons, win the conference title and make the NCAAT a couple times...then we're talking.
2. Another reason I wouldn't consider him is because they're are much better candidates today. In no particular order, the following guys are much better than Gates (even if Gates won the Horizon League this year).
- Jans
- Turner
- Becker
- W. Miller
- C. Smith
- Willard
- Kelsey
- Pikiell
- Nagy
- Kelsey
- Jacobson
These are just a few names. Remember, you're asking me today if I would consider him. I wouldn't even after he won the Horizon Tourney.
sss
Between besting their current salary (plus buyout number), I'd think we'd have no realistic shot attracting anyone coaching a team in a major conference.
Anyone see the margin UNC walloped Louisville by today? Ugly. We're not the only program in deep trouble.
Anyone see the margin UNC walloped Louisville by today? Ugly. We're not the only program in deep trouble.
Advertisement
mtsucalico85
Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 142
Didn't realize that there was a set and fast rule that it had to be within 10 years.
Cuonzo failed to make it to the NCAAT in 3 seasons at Missouri St., but has made it to the NCAAT in each of his stops at Tennessee, Cal, and Missouri. I'm sure as **** not going to be pounding down the door for him, though.
I never said he was the opposite?
Even if we prioritize different things, in the end both my approach and your approach would end up having a similar list.
Fair enough.
And my list wouldn't be all that different. Don't think Willard or Pikiell would take the job, since they are both Northeast guys (maybe Pikiell isn't impossible; Miami is easier to win at than Rutgers). I'm not a Ben Jacobson fan...every five years or so he gets a good 2 year run, but then recedes back to being a .500 coach. Those two years he gets tend to be very good, but he doesn't have the consistency I am looking for. Wouldn't have an issue with any other name on that list.
Pulling aside Willard/Pikiell - Miller, Smith, and Becker would be my top tier of candidates, and probably in that order. Turner and Jans would probably be the second tier, and then Nagy and Kelsey would go in the third tier (not sure if one of those Kelsey's is supposed to be another candidate). Gates would currently be in that third tier for me, but it's certainly based more off of projection, as he lacks the accomplishments of the rest of the list.
Jans can coach his *** off, but he does not seem like someone Blake James would consider based off of what happened with him at Bowling Green (but that is Blake James for you). Until we have a different AD, I don't view him as a realistic candidate.
Turner still being at Irvine confuses me and makes me feel like I'm missing something for him not to have gotten at least a MWC or Pac 12 job at this point. He's a name I've overlooked though and would need to dig in a little more on him - I could see him climbing into the top tier for me.
Niko Medved at Colorado St. would also fit in to that 3rd tier for me. No conference championships or NCAAT appearances yet, so I get why you wouldn't be as high on him as I would, but he turned around a bad Furman program in four seasons (that Bob Richey has been able to sustain), gave Drake a boost in his one season (which Darian DeVries has been able to move forward off of), and has steadily improved Colorado State to put them into at large consideration this season in his 3rd year there. If I'm taking a MWC coach, Smith clearly is ahead for me, but I wouldn't be upset with him either.
Consigliere
All-American
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 21,927
A few things:
1. We're not getting any of these guys, short of pulling a Coach L, under Blake James and this current system. What I mean by "pulling a Coach L" is that a name on this list "actively tries to get the job" even goes as far as "submitting his resume" which is embarrassing, given we should know a lot about these coaches simply based on running athletics and what is going on out there. Our athletic department (a) didn't know who Coach L was, and (b) they asked him to "submit a resume". Blake James was not the AD at this time, he was a member of the athletic department. He was a member of the ignorant squad who didn't know Coach L.
2. I am of the belief that Blake James is just a puppet and there are other people pulling the strings running the department. I highly doubt this system running the department will fire Coach L this season. Even if Coach L retires/steps down, Blake and this current system running athletics will be caught with their pants down. Nobody could expect that a 70+ year old man coaching would suddenly step down after three atrocious seasons. They will panic and then do something stupid. This means they will make a lazy hire (e.g. promoting Caputo) or a illogical/irrational one. This has happened before. They had no idea Richt was going to retire. So when they were caught with their pants down, they decided the smart thing was to pay Temple $4MM for the rights to promote their DC from a failed regime. They conducted zero search/effort and landed on Manny Diaz.
A competent AD has a list/contacts of the following: (a) qualified up and coming assistants (for both football and basketball) should the HC need help replacing an assistant or to force the HC's hand, and a (b) qualified and talented names to replace the HC should they need to. Blake James has neither.
3. In addition, here is the real problem: If Blake James was (a) competent AND (b) had autonomy, then Blake would have forced Coach L to make coaching changes (with assistants) 3 seasons ago. Now we're many years too late. He doesn't have any clue what is going on and he doesn't know how to lead. Neither do the people pulling the strings on Blake James. They're all losers.
4. Regardless of those specific names, there are plenty of qualified candidates. There will always be plenty of qualified candidates. Look at Chris Jans, his current salary is $900K. Do you really think if we offered him double that, which is less than Coach L makes and very low for the ACC, he wouldn't be on a plane immediately to learn more? It will always be easy to poach guys from these conferences because they can't compete with an average salary in the ACC and coaches may want to coach at the highest level (e.g. the ACC). In addition, there is no issue with Jans and Bowling Green. The issue with Jans is our athletic director and the puppeteers have no idea who he is.
5. As for specific names, you never know how interested someone is in a position until you make an attempt to recruit them. See at Miami, we don't do that. When an HC position is available, you should make a list and go after your targets. You don't make them "apply" for the position. You don't make them "submit a resume". You never know until you make a serious offer and pitch. I wouldn't consider Pikiell or Willard out, should you want them, until you made a real attempt to get them.
I see them at about the same level; certainly, any difference is VERY small and probably in the eye of the beholder. RU is situated in a very fertile NE urban corridor HS recruiting region.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,726
I don’t know... I just wonder if a forced retirement is being discussed. Doubt L is fired
Advertisement
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2016
- Messages
- 2,501
Based on last 3 years, in just about every school in America Coach L and staff would get canned. I still don't think Coach L has forgotten how to coach, but based on how beaten down he looks at times on the sidelines I do wonder if he has anything left in the tank. Will be interesting to see what changes, if any are made after the season.
GO CANES!!!
mtsucalico85
Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 142
It's fertile, but there are a lot more programs in the area that will be fighting for those recruits, and Rutgers isn't at the top of that food chain. Programs like UConn and Syracuse would still get top billing, and then you have programs such as Seton Hall, Providence, Georgetown, Maryland, etc. that still historically carry more weight than a Rutgers would. And that doesn't include the more national type programs like the Duke's of the world that come up there to take the elite players. Meanwhile, Florida may not have the quantity (ignoring IMG and Montverde) that the NYC to DC stretch has, but if locking down in-state talent is your goal, you really are only fighting with Florida and Florida St. outside of the odd Vernon Carey-type recruit where the blue bloods would be coming down here. That would require us to actually go after local kids, but that is for another thread.
Until last season, the last time Rutgers even had a winning record in conference play was 1991 (that was also the last time they made the NCAAT). Miami has 9 NCAAT appearances and 10 seasons having a winning record in conference play during that time frame.
There are reasons to stay at Rutgers opposed to going to Miami if you are Pikiell - he's a Northeast guy with Northeast connections, he has a more established roster currently at Rutgers, and he doesn't want to take over what is currently a mess when he is just in the process of getting a program that was an even bigger mess to respectability. But on a macro level, it has been much easier for a coach to win it at Miami than at Rutgers. ****, Perry Clark and Frank Haith accomplished more at Miami than any Rutgers coach of the past 30 years did until Pikiell arrived.
jkdood
All ACC
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2018
- Messages
- 6,484
I would like to see Coach L replaced by some method, but I see no point in the unclassy move of firing him a couple weeks before season's end, like Boston College just did. Coach L is quite an accomplished fellow (despite limited accomplishments here of late) and deserves some "consideration".
I'm hopeful he will see the handwriting, and step aside, maybe with a secret smaller buyout, at season's end. Then maybe the Flake Department will conduct a worthwhile search. They should start by reading this CIS thread!
I'm hopeful he will see the handwriting, and step aside, maybe with a secret smaller buyout, at season's end. Then maybe the Flake Department will conduct a worthwhile search. They should start by reading this CIS thread!
Advertisement
Another reason I equate the Rutgers and Miami programs is coaches compensation. Reports are that we pay L around $2.3M a year now. Pikiell takes down $2.2M or thereabouts.
Pikiell's 2020-signed extension would pay him $2.6M for 2021-22, and $3.75M by the end of the contract in 2026. As a private school, L's contract details with UM are not available.
Anyone know what we pay our Assistants? Here's the clause from Pikiell's RU contract. Wonder how we compare? This was written in 2018 so dollar amounts would have increased.
"Assistant coaches salary compensation: The pool for assistants salaries will not be less than $800,000, and is subject to annual increases of no less than 3 percent, or no less than 5 percent if the team has a winning record and competes in the postseason (other than conference tournament). Additionally, a bonus pool determined by the athletic director shall be available after each season to compensate all applicable assistant basketball coaches, up to a maximum of 10 percent of the total actual assistant coach salaries at the start of the respective season and made available each season for performance-based bonuses recommended by the head coach and subject to the athletics director's approval."
Pikiell's 2020-signed extension would pay him $2.6M for 2021-22, and $3.75M by the end of the contract in 2026. As a private school, L's contract details with UM are not available.
Anyone know what we pay our Assistants? Here's the clause from Pikiell's RU contract. Wonder how we compare? This was written in 2018 so dollar amounts would have increased.
"Assistant coaches salary compensation: The pool for assistants salaries will not be less than $800,000, and is subject to annual increases of no less than 3 percent, or no less than 5 percent if the team has a winning record and competes in the postseason (other than conference tournament). Additionally, a bonus pool determined by the athletic director shall be available after each season to compensate all applicable assistant basketball coaches, up to a maximum of 10 percent of the total actual assistant coach salaries at the start of the respective season and made available each season for performance-based bonuses recommended by the head coach and subject to the athletics director's approval."
Da_Lucky_One
All ACC
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2018
- Messages
- 7,136
Consigliere
All-American
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 21,927
Buyout is between $650,000-$850,000. He makes less than half of what Larranaga currently earns.
Advertisement