Coaching Candidates

Donate To GopherHole

tikited said:
I'm losing faith that he can.
Click to expand...

I have to be honest: I lost faith when the Gophers weren't the first major program to offer Dawson Garcia. By the time they did, it had already been upwards of a year since it became obvious to me that they needed to. That's way too slow, and it's evidence to me that Richard continues to not be convinced of the depth and quality of basketball talent around here in general.
 

Bad Gopher said:
I have to be honest: I lost faith when the Gophers weren't the first major program to offer Dawson Garcia. By the time they did, it had already been upwards of a year since it became obvious to me that they needed to. That's way too slow, and it's evidence to me that Richard continues to not be convinced of the depth and quality of basketball talent around here in general.
Click to expand...

Is there any real evidence that being the first offer gets you a recruit more than it doesn't? One of the more overrated things imo. If kids want to come to the U, they will come, it won't be because of when they were offered. If they didn't recruit them at all, then I think you make a valid point.
 

builtbadgers said:
Can he coach the recruits he lands.
Click to expand...

This is the only point that matters. At some point we need to move off where a kid is from and be more worried about if a kid can play and if our staff can coach that kid.
 

builtbadgers said:
Every coach or AD that i know think of the UW job and especially the UVA job to be far better. The endowments matter especially in how they reflect the level of capable donors. At UVA they cash out new facilities, here they are in debt service. It is a far bigger national brand in a better climate, recruiting region and a more prestigous school and in the nations best basketball conference. Have you been to these schools you left out, have you talked to non gopher fans to get a unbiased opinion. If you think it is a near top 15 job then Pitino has done even worse then i thought and we should be able to attract a top 15 coach no problem.
Click to expand...

I think I'm not doing a very good job of expressing what I was trying to say. I don't think this is anywhere near a top 15 job. If I had to rank our job I'd put it somewhere around 40-45.

My original response was about whether we would need to worry about a coach leaving if they came here and had success. And I stand by it. I don't think this is the type of job you voluntarily choose to leave unless you are offered a top 15 job. I don't see a coach having success at Minnesota and then choosing to leave for the Wisconsin job based on the sole reason that they think it is a better job. The difference isn't great enough to warrant a move like that. Would they leave for UCLA or Kentucky based solely on the idea of chasing a better job? Yea, I think so. But I also think that if they had put our program in a good enough place that a program like that wanted them then I would be fine with it.
 


Funny, someone suggesting Minnesota as a top 15 basketball coaching job. Are we even ranked in the top ten in the B1G?

B1G coaching gig rankings:

1. MSU
2. Michigan
3. Purdue
4. Indiana
5. Ohio State
6. Maryland
7. Wisconsin

This is where it gets a little harder to break out:

8. Iowa - Why? I can't explain why. I just know they have always been a little bit better than us. Unexplainable.
9. Illinois - much better historically than Gophers and can recruit Chicago better
10. Minnesota - new facilities, great city, and same old crappy support from the regents. Maybe the new president will make things better.
11. Nebraska - new facilities but still a basketball program at a football school

And the bottom:

12. Northwestern
13. Penn State
14. Rutgers

I agree with the guess that we are in the 40s for jobs, maybe. We could probably get to the 20s, but top 15? No way! Not in this lifetime.
 

Otis said:
10. Minnesota - new facilities, great city, and same old crappy support from the regents. Maybe the new president will make things better.
Click to expand...

Huh? Based on what?
 

manderson1984 said:
Is there any real evidence that being the first offer gets you a recruit more than it doesn't? One of the more overrated things imo. If kids want to come to the U, they will come, it won't be because of when they were offered. If they didn't recruit them at all, then I think you make a valid point.
Click to expand...

No, offering first has nothing to do with where a kid goes, what it does indicate a level and ability to evaluate, a kid like Hurt is obvious, how about a kid like Wright, how hard was he recruited, does Pitino have that ability to search out talent that isn't as highly rated. Tre Williams seems to fit into that mold, not sure Pitino had anything to do with it though.
 




Otis said:
https://watchstadium.com/news/big-t...k-the-best-jobs-in-the-conference-10-11-2018/

Check this ranking from the B1G coaches and see where we rank for resources. Then reconsider why you question my assessment of front office support to the basketball program.
Click to expand...

The Board of Regents can't make resources appear out of thin air. The money has to come from somewhere. We rank in the bottom half of the Big Ten in basketball revenue - of course we're also going to be in the bottom half of basketball budget. The Board of Regents cares so little about the men's basketball program that they committed $166M to build a new practice facility. Imagine if they cared!
 

Otis said:
Funny, someone suggesting Minnesota as a top 15 basketball coaching job. Are we even ranked in the top ten in the B1G?

B1G coaching gig rankings:

1. MSU
2. Michigan
3. Purdue
4. Indiana
5. Ohio State
6. Maryland
7. Wisconsin

This is where it gets a little harder to break out:

8. Iowa - Why? I can't explain why. I just know they have always been a little bit better than us. Unexplainable.
9. Illinois - much better historically than Gophers and can recruit Chicago better
10. Minnesota - new facilities, great city, and same old crappy support from the regents. Maybe the new president will make things better.
11. Nebraska - new facilities but still a basketball program at a football school

And the bottom:

12. Northwestern
13. Penn State
14. Rutgers

I agree with the guess that we are in the 40s for jobs, maybe. We could probably get to the 20s, but top 15? No way! Not in this lifetime.
Click to expand...

Iowa and Wisconsin are closer to Chicago than Minnesota. It’s a very small statistical bias, but I believe it is there.
 

dpodoll68 said:
The Board of Regents can't make resources appear out of thin air. The money has to come from somewhere. We rank in the bottom half of the Big Ten in basketball revenue - of course we're also going to be in the bottom half of basketball budget. The Board of Regents cares so little about the men's basketball program that they committed $166M to build a new practice facility. Imagine if they cared!
Click to expand...

How much of that money came from the U? Seems to me that the bulk, and I mean damn near all of it, came from donations.
 

Otis said:
How much of that money came from the U? Seems to me that the bulk, and I mean damn near all of it, came from donations.
Click to expand...

Schools always try to build facilities (and renovations) with donations. They barely have money to keep academic buildings up to code, as it is.

A notable exception off the top of my head is the University of Wyoming. The state of Wyoming will match donations to the school for facilities, dollar for dollar. So I guess you could call that donation from the state. But most public schools get significant dollars from their states’ one way or another, so at some point it is semantics.
 
Last edited:



Gophers_4life said:
Schools always try to build facilities (and renovations) with donations. They barely have money to keep academic buildings up to code, as it is.
Click to expand...

I agree! But don't blow sunshine up my ass and expect me to believe the Regents did anything more than say, "you raise the money Mega Tongue, and you can build it. You'll get nothing from us."
 

Otis said:
I agree! But don't blow sunshine up my ass and expect me to believe the Regents did anything more than say, "you raise the money Mega Tongue, and you can build it. You'll get nothing from us."
Click to expand...

The fundraising for the Athletes Village is still well short of goal. The Board of Regents covered the cost deficit (with no guarantee of payback) so that the facility could be built. But you're right - they did nothing.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Schools always try to build facilities (and renovations) with donations. They barely have money to keep academic buildings up to code, as it is.
Click to expand...

According to this article: https://thebestschools.org/features/richest-universities-endowments-generosity-research/ the University of Minnesota has an endowment worth $3.5 billion. This is the fourth-largest endowment in the Big Ten, trailing Michigan ($10.9 billion), Northwestern ($10.4 billion) and Ohio State ($4.25 billion).

I believe most endowments are required to spend a certain percentage each year, which generally is a pretty hefty number. There's money available to be spent on the school. Perhaps someone has better information to clarify.
 


Otis said:
I agree! But don't blow sunshine up my ass and expect me to believe the Regents did anything more than say, "you raise the money Mega Tongue, and you can build it. You'll get nothing from us."
Click to expand...

Not saying you’re wrong ... I’m saying, I don’t think any other Big Ten public “University of ___” ’s board would say anything different, when it comes to athletics facilities.
 

Urbandale said:
According to this article: https://thebestschools.org/features/richest-universities-endowments-generosity-research/ the University of Minnesota has an endowment worth $3.5 billion. This is the fourth-largest endowment in the Big Ten, trailing Michigan ($10.9 billion), Northwestern ($10.4 billion) and Ohio State ($4.25 billion).

I believe most endowments are required to spend a certain percentage each year, which generally is a pretty hefty number. There's money available to be spent on the school. Perhaps someone has better information to clarify.
Click to expand...

The U has to beg the state for more dollars, every year, just to keep up with building updates/renovations.

The endowment is composed of various donations, that each usually have some stipulation about how they want the money to be spent (scholarship for Norwegian students studying Scandinavian languages, for example).
 

Otis said:
Funny, someone suggesting Minnesota as a top 15 basketball coaching job. Are we even ranked in the top ten in the B1G?

B1G coaching gig rankings:

1. MSU
2. Michigan
3. Purdue
4. Indiana
5. Ohio State
6. Maryland
7. Wisconsin

This is where it gets a little harder to break out:

8. Iowa - Why? I can't explain why. I just know they have always been a little bit better than us. Unexplainable.
9. Illinois - much better historically than Gophers and can recruit Chicago better
10. Minnesota - new facilities, great city, and same old crappy support from the regents. Maybe the new president will make things better.
11. Nebraska - new facilities but still a basketball program at a football school

And the bottom:

12. Northwestern
13. Penn State
14. Rutgers

I agree with the guess that we are in the 40s for jobs, maybe. We could probably get to the 20s, but top 15? No way! Not in this lifetime.
Click to expand...

Michigan is a bit high on the list. Bielein might be the best coach in college basketball but the arena is kind of a dump.

I would break it down:

Tier 1: Blue bloods
Indiana

Tier 2: Near blue bloods
Michigan State
Maryland
Ohio State

Tier 3: The right coach can win big
Purdue
Illinois
Wisconsin
Michigan
Minnesota
Iowa

Tier 4: Flawed in some way (no local talent in this case)
Nebraska

Tier 5: The bottom-feeders
Rutgers
Penn State
Northwestern
 
Last edited:

howeda7 said:
Michigan is a bit high on the list. Bielein might be the best coach in college basketball but the arena is kind of a dump.

I would break it down:

Tier 1: Blue bloods
Indiana

Tier 2: Near blue bloods
Michigan State
Maryland
Ohio State

Tier 3: The right coach can win big
Purdue
Illinois
Wisconsin
Michigan
Minnesota
Iowa

Tier 4: Flawed in some way (no local talent in this case)
Nebraska

Tier 5: The bottom-feeders
Rutgers
Penn State
Northwestern
Click to expand...

MSU is a blue blood school all day. They've been great forever, great fan support, great coaches, national brand, tons of success, get away with cheating and scandals, etc.

I would also put Michigan, Purdue, and Wisconsin up a category. They have all 3 been powers for a long time now and will continue to win for awhile with name alone.

Tier 1: MSU, Indiana

Tier 2: Michigan, Maryland, OSU, Purdue, Wisconsin

Tier 3: Gophers, Illinois, Iowa

Dumpster Dive: Nebraska, NW, Penn State, Rutgers
 

Go Gophs said:
MSU is a blue blood school all day. They've been great forever, great fan support, great coaches, national brand, tons of success, get away with cheating and scandals, etc.

I would also put Michigan, Purdue, and Wisconsin up a category. They have all 3 been powers for a long time now and will continue to win for awhile with name alone.

Tier 1: MSU, Indiana

Tier 2: Michigan, Maryland, OSU, Purdue, Wisconsin

Tier 3: Gophers, Illinois, Iowa

Dumpster Dive: Nebraska, NW, Penn State, Rutgers
Click to expand...

I get your point on MSU, I just consider the true blue bloods to be UCLA, Kansas, IU, Kentucky, Duke and UNC. As good as MSU has been they only have 2 national titles and they were 40 and 19 years ago. You could probably argue dropping IU down from the list though.

I can't agree with Purdue, Michigan and Wisconsin being on the same level with OSU and Maryland. Maryland has a ton of local talent, and is a basketball school. OSU has decent local talent and more $ than anyone. I think any of the other 3 are a bad coaching hire away from mediocre just as MN and Illinois are a good hire away from joining them. If Michigan hits another HR after Beilein and replaces their awful arena, then I would say they are at OSU's level.
 

Can you call MSU a blue blood when one coach has had nearly all the success?
 

Would Chris Beard leave Lubbock, or is that another pipedream?

Current head coaches that would make sense (Minnesota connection). Niko Medved (Colorado State), Craig Smith (Utah State).

Mike Davis (Detroit Mercy). ... bring his son with him, try for immediate eligibility?

Current top assistant at major program? Dane Fife (Michigan State).
 
Last edited:


howeda7 said:
I get your point on MSU, I just consider the true blue bloods to be UCLA, Kansas, IU, Kentucky, Duke and UNC. As good as MSU has been they only have 2 national titles and they were 40 and 19 years ago. You could probably argue dropping IU down from the list though.

I can't agree with Purdue, Michigan and Wisconsin being on the same level with OSU and Maryland. Maryland has a ton of local talent, and is a basketball school. OSU has decent local talent and more $ than anyone. I think any of the other 3 are a bad coaching hire away from mediocre just as MN and Illinois are a good hire away from joining them. If Michigan hits another HR after Beilein and replaces their awful arena, then I would say they are at OSU's level.
Click to expand...

Indiana has 0 national titles in 32 years and one Final Four appearance in the last 27. MSU has a championship and 7 Final Four appearances in that time frame.
 

Winasota Gopher said:
Can you call MSU a blue blood when one coach has had nearly all the success?
Click to expand...

People who say that don't remember the Judd Heathcote era. He was an excellent coach. But both he and Izzo only have one title in 20+ years.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Indiana has 0 national titles in 32 years and one Final Four appearance in the last 27. MSU has a championship and 7 Final Four appearances in that time frame.
Click to expand...

Understood. UCLA only has one in 24 years. I would still consider them at that level. It's a subjective argument.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom