A question Coyle/the new coach must answer

[golf]

that's part of the issue. it's easy to say "go out and hire a better coach."

but, that coach has to want to come to MN.

MN - a program that has struggled to be competitive, plays in an old building, doesn't have a lot of NIL money, and with an administration that is not necessarily supportive of athletics.

If you are hot-shot Coach X, why do you want to come to MN? the one answer would be money - if MN was willing to cough up a really big-time contract. But is that going to happen under Coyle and the current administration? I am skeptical.

Would be interesting to see the NIL for the BB team. I have seen a ranking showing gopher athletic dept as a whole ranks 10th among big10 schools ( private schools USC and NW excluded).

 

[JZABR]

I could not agree more on this. The U has been in my view VASTLY over concerned about the sports/education balance and how one plays off the other. I totally get it, the U is an academic institution, that's awesome, all in, but that doesn't mean sports can't play a big role in that. This sounds dumb, but I think it's a fact that the better your teams, the more student apps you get. If the would relax a bit that would help! I think Will Wade is the perfect example, a bit of a checkered past, thus I see no way we hire him (he'd be #1 on my list). While it almost feels inevitable thst we hire Medved, squeaky clean MN guy. He's fine, but to me that is a hire to appease the education side and to say that we are accepting that like 12th place every year in conference is fine.

Back to the original question, some great points made. I look at it like this, I would have 3 templates for hiring a men's basketball coach at the U
1. Defense first slow tempo coach. It's boring I get it, but ask WI/UVA how much better it is than losing. Those coaches tend to rely less on individual talent (which costs more in the portal) and relies on a team game. It's also a more consistent game. You don't need to make 20 3s to be in every game when you slow it down and try to win 60-56 as opposed to 82-76
2. Coach who has guys ready to come with him. Easiest example is IU and Cignetti. He brings a boatload of ready guys, they have a big year and now the hype train can roll. Eventually that levels out, but the initial hype is so strong it lifts you up from level A to B at least.
3. An A level talent evaluator. Sure this sounds like duh, but I am saying it's easy to go into a gym and see a Tre/Tyus, Hurt, Dawson and go yeah I want them! Well no kidding so does Duke KU UK UNC. This coach goes into that gym and sees the 2* Ja Morant, or the 3* Jordan Murphy type and goes that's the kid we can get and I can mold into a great player. This is a tough road as those guys likely leave to greener pastures, but this coach also can replace them easier.

Again I'd love a big splashy name like Muss or Wade, I just don't see it. So that's why I'm looking more at the archetypes above. Good discussion.

I watched some McNeese games last year when they were approaching 30 wins and they made the comment that ''McNeese needed him and he needed McNeese." Kind of seems like they were extending an olive branch to someone who knew he broke the rules and it seemed like it would be make or break for him. The guy can coach. He also seems to make the most out of talent. His team has quality transfers that have upped their games this year. He could have went other places but he really seemed like he was grateful for the 2nd chance and came back for a 2nd year. The more distance is put between his cheating and now, the better I would feel about him coming here.
Besides, we need to take a flyer on someone like him anyway with the reputation that I talked about.

 

[Spaulding!No!]

Huggins