Ranking the BCS coaching jobs

[howeda7]

The 'Tubby to Mizzou' thread raised the question that comes up a lot: Where does Minnesota rank in relation to the various jobs he's rumored for? In my opinion there are about 5 levels of BCS jobs. 1. The 'Blue Bloods' 2. The 'Elite' 3. Above Average 4. Average 5. Poor. Quickly going through the BCS conferences I would rank the groups as follows (groups by conference):

1. (#'s 1-6) Blue Bloods: UCLA, Kansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina.

I think this group is pretty self-explanatory. The only debatable one is Indiana, but I think they still belong.

2. (#'s 7-12) The 'Elite': Arizona, Michigan State, Maryland, Louisville, UConn, Syracuse.

This group is also pretty clear, I think. Basically schools that have had huge success over a long period, generally including National Title(s), but don't quite qualify for group #1. For example, Syracuse and UConn can match group 1, but have little success before their current coaches. What will happen when they finally retire?

Group 2.5 (#'s 13-15) Elite Football Schools: Florida, Ohio State, Texas

Too hard on coaches' egos to qualify for group 2, too much money to be lumped in with group 3.

3. (#'s 16-35) Above Average: Stanford, Washington, OK State, Mizzou, Purdue, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Vandy, Arkansas, BC, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Pitt, ND, St. John's, Cincinnati, Georgetown, Villanova.

Generally, schools that have made a Final Four and/or won their conference in at least the last 15-20 years, or have some other distinct advantage (ex. St. John's.) I realize MN is near the bottom of this list, but I do think they belong in this group.

4. (#'s 36-56) Average: Cal, Oregon, USC, Arizona St, Oklahoma, Kansas St, Texas A&M, Iowa St, Michigan, Iowa, Tennessee, Alabama, LSU, Florida St, Clemson, Virginia, NC State, West Virginia, Marquette, Seton Hall, Providence.

There are some football schools on this list (Michigan, OU, Tenn.) that you can argue should be higher. But first, they're football schools, and have generally had 'issues' too.

5. (#'s 57-73) Poor: Washington St, Oregon St, Colorado, Nebraska, Baylor, Penn State, Northwestern, Georgia, South Carolina, Miss St, Ole Miss, Auburn, Virginia Tech, Miami, Rutgers, South Florida, DePaul

 

[From the Barn]

Probably need to swap BC, Wake, OK State, and AR with more than half of the next line down. BC is an awful job, and AR hasn't been relevant since Lewinsky was thinking about applying for an intern gig.

 

[howeda7]

Probably need to swap BC, Wake, OK State, and AR with more than half of the next line down. BC is an awful job, and AR hasn't been relevant since Lewinsky was thinking about applying for an intern gig.

I can buy that argument for BC, though it's hardly an 'awful' job. Al Skinner had some very good, but never great teams. They are in a big city and in the ACC. But you might be right.

I disagree on Wake Forest and OK State. Wake has had very good teams not that long ago (though it is amazing the never made a Final Four with Duncan or Paul) and OK State made a Final Four this decade. Both have had coaching issues and bad luck (Skip Prosser) but will be back with the right coach.

Valid point on Arkansas, but they just took Missouri's coach, that should tell you something. (I know he had ties, but still.) They are one of the only schools in that group with a national title and multiple Final Fours. I know it's been a while, but that still counts for something, and they fill a large arena. It's one of the top 3 non-Kentucky jobs in the SEC.

 

[From the Barn]

If you are going by recent success and or final fours, then Marquette needs to move way up along with Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Kansas State, Tenn. and WVA. Virginia, Providence, and Seton Hall also need to drop. Oregon has to be ranked near the bottom of all BCS jobs. They have billions of dollars at their disposal, and got their 12th choice for coach.

The problem I have with Arkansas and OK State is that they have been pretty worthless since they lost their legendary coaches. Stanford also needs to drop about 1000 spots considering their coach left voluntarily to go to LSU of all places. BC will never be a good job because if you ask most people in Boston, they don't know that BC is in the ACC, and don't care either.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with UCONN and to a lesser degree Syracuse. Both programs are so wrapped in the identity of their coach that it is hard to say if those are actually good jobs or not. Could someone else win at UCONN or Syracuse?

 

[GopherFan75]

If you are going by recent success and or final fours, then Marquette needs to move way up along with Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Kansas State, Tenn. and WVA. Virginia, Providence, and Seton Hall also need to drop. Oregon has to be ranked near the bottom of all BCS jobs. They have billions of dollars at their disposal, and got their 12th choice for coach.

The problem I have with Arkansas and OK State is that they have been pretty worthless since they lost their legendary coaches. Stanford also needs to drop about 1000 spots considering their coach left voluntarily to go to LSU of all places. BC will never be a good job because if you ask most people in Boston, they don't know that BC is in the ACC, and don't care either.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with UCONN and to a lesser degree Syracuse. Both programs are so wrapped in the identity of their coach that it is hard to say if those are actually good jobs or not. Could someone else win at UCONN or Syracuse?

Geno Aueriemma can.

 

[Weisbrod]

The 'Tubby to Mizzou' thread raised the question that comes up a lot: Where does Minnesota rank in relation to the various jobs he's rumored for? In my opinion there are about 5 levels of BCS jobs. 1. The 'Blue Bloods' 2. The 'Elite' 3. Above Average 4. Average 5. Poor. Quickly going through the BCS conferences I would rank the groups as follows (groups by conference):

1. (#'s 1-6) Blue Bloods: UCLA, Kansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina.

I think this group is pretty self-explanatory. The only debatable one is Indiana, but I think they still belong.

2. (#'s 7-12) The 'Elite': Arizona, Michigan State, Maryland, Louisville, UConn, Syracuse.

This group is also pretty clear, I think. Basically schools that have had huge success over a long period, generally including National Title(s), but don't quite qualify for group #1. For example, Syracuse and UConn can match group 1, but have little success before their current coaches. What will happen when they finally retire?

Group 2.5 (#'s 13-15) Elite Football Schools: Florida, Ohio State, Texas

Too hard on coaches' egos to qualify for group 2, too much money to be lumped in with group 3.

3. (#'s 16-35) Above Average: Stanford, Washington, OK State, Mizzou, Purdue, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Vandy, Arkansas, BC, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Pitt, ND, St. John's, Cincinnati, Georgetown, Villanova.

Generally, schools that have made a Final Four and/or won their conference in at least the last 15-20 years, or have some other distinct advantage (ex. St. John's.) I realize MN is near the bottom of this list, but I do think they belong in this group.

4. (#'s 36-56) Average: Cal, Oregon, USC, Arizona St, Oklahoma, Kansas St, Texas A&M, Iowa St, Michigan, Iowa, Tennessee, Alabama, LSU, Florida St, Clemson, Virginia, NC State, West Virginia, Marquette, Seton Hall, Providence.

There are some football schools on this list (Michigan, OU, Tenn.) that you can argue should be higher. But first, they're football schools, and have generally had 'issues' too.

5. (#'s 57-73) Poor: Washington St, Oregon St, Colorado, Nebraska, Baylor, Penn State, Northwestern, Georgia, South Carolina, Miss St, Ole Miss, Auburn, Virginia Tech, Miami, Rutgers, South Florida, DePaul

I agree with most of this list, but let's be honest. I really do not see the Minnesota job on the same "Above Average" plain as Wake, Wisconsin, Ok State or Purdue. I would rate Minnesota as a decent "Average" job. You have to remember, people outside of the state, unattached to the program, don't really think too highly of the program. But they don't think poorly of it. It's...well...average.

 

[Gopher Warrior]

In my opinion there are about 5 levels of BCS jobs. 1. The 'Blue Bloods' 2. The 'Elite' 3. Above Average 4. Average 5. Poor. Quickly going through the BCS conferences I would rank the groups as follows (groups by conference):

Is there any consistent criteria used here or is this purely subjective? Appears to be subjective.

 

[tjgopher]

This is an interesting discussion. No true right or wrong answers. Probably a worthwhile discussion. I think no matter where we are from or what team we root for, we probably all overvalue our own program. I'm sure fans from Illinois or Wisconsin would absolutely scoff at the suggestion that MN be lumped in with the same "above average" group. Personally, I think both those jobs are better than the MN gig for a number of reasons. But, that doesn't make me right, that's for sure. I'm sure fans from Iowa or Tennessee or Oklahoma or LSU would be surprised to see their jobs ranked BELOW the Minnesota job.

I think you mentioned it in that Tubby-Mizzou thread that not much separates 15-35. I'd push it further and suggest not much separates 25-50. I see no reason why Mike Montgomery would think he would win at an easier level here in MN than he could at Cal. In fact, you could make some significant arguments to the contrary. West Virginia has had a far more distinctive impact on the NCAA tournament in the last ten years than MN, so the Mountaineers might laugh at us Minnesotans for saying not only is our job is better, but belongs in a category totally different. Again, no one knows for sure, but that's the fun of the discussion.

 

[EG#9]

This is an interesting discussion. No true right or wrong answers. Probably a worthwhile discussion. I think no matter where we are from or what team we root for, we probably all overvalue our own program. I'm sure fans from Illinois or Wisconsin would absolutely scoff at the suggestion that MN be lumped in with the same "above average" group. Personally, I think both those jobs are better than the MN gig for a number of reasons. But, that doesn't make me right, that's for sure. I'm sure fans from Iowa or Tennessee or Oklahoma or LSU would be surprised to see their jobs ranked BELOW the Minnesota job.

I think you mentioned it in that Tubby-Mizzou thread that not much separates 15-35. I'd push it further and suggest not much separates 25-50. I see no reason why Mike Montgomery would think he would win at an easier level here in MN than he could at Cal. In fact, you could make some significant arguments to the contrary. West Virginia has had a far more distinctive impact on the NCAA tournament in the last ten years than MN, so the Mountaineers might laugh at us Minnesotans for saying not only is our job is better, but belongs in a category totally different. Again, no one knows for sure, but that's the fun of the discussion.

You seem to have a very low opinion of the Minnesota job. Iowa fans being surprised to be below the Minnesota job? What planet are you on? Only the most delusional of delusional Iowa fans would think that the jobs are even comparable. Iowa's last coaching searches ended with Fran McCaffery and Todd Lickliter, that shows how there program is viewed.

Some may overvalue Minnesota, but you certainly undervalue it.

 

[ParaBadger]

You have an okay list/tiers when it comes to the best programs in the country, but I don't think that is the same question as the best COACHING jobs in the country.

I'd say the best jobs in the country ARE at the football power schools. High exposure/name recognition, tons of cash/support from the athletic department yet reasonable expectations from the fanbase since they are placated most years by the other sport. Billy Donovan just missed the tourney two years in a row but there wasn't a whole lot of grumbling coming out of Gainesville. Meanwhile, Roy misses one tourney at UNC and the fanbase is NOT happy; not that his job was in jeopardy or anything. If he would have had a repeat performance this year though...

Just looking at the tenures of guys like Tubby, Gillespie, Lavin, Doherty (although he DID stink) at one of the top programs; and Indiana's miserable failure at attracting who they wanted/needed after Sampson tells you all you need to know about having a job at one of the Blue Bloods (Crean is vastly overpaid and looks like he may pop one of these years due to the pressure).

I'm not so sure that Indiana and Duke are Blue Blood programs so much as they've been fortunate to have the second and third greatest coaches in the history of college basketball at their institution. UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas and UNC have all won multiple national titles and been to multiple Final Fours under many different coaches. Notso at Duke and IU. IU may never get back to that status and who knows what will happen at Duke after coach K leaves; would anybody want to have to step into that job when he steps down? It'll have to be one of his former players who will have built in relationship with the fanbase/boosters.

OSU, Texas and Florida also have inherent recruiting advantages compared to other football powers (premier programs in hugely populated talent rich states) as opposed to Alabama, Michigan, Notre Dame, USC, or Oklahoma (although that is also a GREAT job due to it's proximity to Texas--Lon Kruger will make a Final Four with that school)

 

[GopherInPittsburgh]

Maybe I'm biased, but Pitt has been one of the best programs for the last 10 years..

 

[EG#9]

That's an interesting take on the football jobs as I normally view tham as less desirable. The pressure may be less, but I would think it would turn off a lot of elite players in recruiting. Why would you want to go to a school where the basketball team is not the biggest thing on campus? That's why I am somewhat surprised by Matta's success recruiting at Ohio State. Putting myself in the shoes of a Greg Oden, Jared Sullinger, etc, I would rather be at a school where the results on the hardwood matter more than those on the field.

I do agree with the "coaching jobs" angle though. That Duke job is going to be a tough one for whoever follows Coach K unless they have already have a sterling resume of their own (Brad Stevens?). I think a job at Wake is really unattractive right now when it's the 3rd best basketball job in state (and they all are in the same conference) and you have NC State willing and able to spend whatever it takes in an attempt to move up the ladder. There's no upward mobility for Wake, they'll likely have another Tim Duncan, and there's a real possiblity of being passed by NC State at some point.

 

[CrocShots]

I do agree with the "coaching jobs" angle though. That Duke job is going to be a tough one for whoever follows Coach K unless they have already have a sterling resume of their own (Brad Stevens?). I think a job at Wake is really unattractive right now when it's the 3rd best basketball job in state (and they all are in the same conference) and you have NC State willing and able to spend whatever it takes in an attempt to move up the ladder. There's no upward mobility for Wake, they'll likely have another Tim Duncan, and there's a real possiblity of being passed by NC State at some point.

Duke will stay in house for sure. Wake is an interesting one though.

 

[GopherInPittsburgh]

That's an interesting take on the football jobs as I normally view tham as less desirable. The pressure may be less, but I would think it would turn off a lot of elite players in recruiting. Why would you want to go to a school where the basketball team is not the biggest thing on campus? That's why I am somewhat surprised by Matta's success recruiting at Ohio State. Putting myself in the shoes of a Greg Oden, Jared Sullinger, etc, I would rather be at a school where the results on the hardwood matter more than those on the field.

Kids from Ohio grow up dreaming of being an athlete for the Buckeyes. It is beat into their heads. It makes them loyal. Maybe we should take part in this "brainwashing."

 

[ParaBadger]

That's an interesting take on the football jobs as I normally view tham as less desirable. The pressure may be less, but I would think it would turn off a lot of elite players in recruiting. Why would you want to go to a school where the basketball team is not the biggest thing on campus? That's why I am somewhat surprised by Matta's success recruiting at Ohio State. Putting myself in the shoes of a Greg Oden, Jared Sullinger, etc, I would rather be at a school where the results on the hardwood matter more than those on the field.

I do agree with the "coaching jobs" angle though. That Duke job is going to be a tough one for whoever follows Coach K unless they have already have a sterling resume of their own (Brad Stevens?). I think a job at Wake is really unattractive right now when it's the 3rd best basketball job in state (and they all are in the same conference) and you have NC State willing and able to spend whatever it takes in an attempt to move up the ladder. There's no upward mobility for Wake, they'll likely have another Tim Duncan, and there's a real possiblity of being passed by NC State at some point.

I agree about the recruiting angle if you are at Notre Dame, Alabama, Oklahoma, Penn State, etc. OSU is THE program in Ohio for both basketball and football. Same for Florida and Texas. There is plenty of talent instate. Matta has gotten Oden/Conley from Indiana next door (along with DeShaun Thomas), but otherwise all his players have been instate guys. That's why it's such a great job. It recruits itself. Kentucky, Kansas, UNC and Duke all have to go national while recruiting (there is lots of talent in North Carolina, but lots of competition for the talent as well), often going up against each other as well as against the local BCS team(s) for recruits.

 

[tjgopher]

You seem to have a very low opinion of the Minnesota job. Some may overvalue Minnesota, but you certainly undervalue it.

I don't think I'm undervaluing the MN job. I think it is a Top 35-40 type job. And, again, I don't think much separates any of the jobs from about #25-#50. Just curious, where would you rank it?

Iowa fans being surprised to be below the Minnesota job?

I'm not saying Iowa is a better job. No way. I'm suggesting Iowa fans might think that, much like Michigan fans or Alabama fans or Marquette fans might think their job is better than our's. It doesn't mean it is reality or that I think that.

Only the most delusional of delusional Iowa fans

In case you haven't noticed, they have a few of those.

 

[SelectionSunday]

Out of curiosity

Though it's not a BCS program, where would you put Butler amongst these BCS jobs?

Certainly Butler going to back-to-back Final Fours and VCU making a run puts a lot more pressure on coaches at major schools like Minnesota, which are struggling simply to win a NCAA Tournament game.

 

[matt]

You seem to have a very low opinion of the Minnesota job. Iowa fans being surprised to be below the Minnesota job? What planet are you on? Only the most delusional of delusional Iowa fans would think that the jobs are even comparable. Iowa's last coaching searches ended with Fran McCaffery and Todd Lickliter, that shows how there program is viewed.

Some may overvalue Minnesota, but you certainly undervalue it.

I don't think he undervalues it. I think he is right in saying that Minnesota is an average job. In your opinion, what makes Minnesota above average? I hate to focus solely on the negatives for a second, but we haven't had any postseason success in a long time, we were punished pretty badly by the NCAA not too long ago, we have an AD who isn't too pleasant to work for, and we don't have a practice facility. That is not easy to overcome, and I believe the positives that we do have bring us up to an average power conference job. In the Big Ten alone, I would say we are the 7th best job out of 11 behind Ohio State, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, and Wisconsin and ahead of Northwestern, Iowa, and Purdue (only because of what we recently learned about the Purdue Athletic Department). Just my two cents.

 

[Pewterschmidt]

Duke will stay in house for sure. Wake is an interesting one though.

Coach K will basically get to pick his replacement and he'll pick someone in house. If Johnny Dawkins can prove he can coach at Stanford, he'll be the leading candidate. I think Coach K is 4 to 6 years away from retiring so there's time for other candidates to emerge but Dawkins is the favorite to replace him as of right now.

 

[tjgopher]

Though they're not a BCS program, where would you put Butler amongst these BCS jobs?

Great question. There are some other "non-BCS" level jobs that could rank ahead of the majors. Xavier, Memphis, UNLV, BYU, UAB, Gonzaga, New Mexico, Temple are all pretty good jobs that offer a varying degree of good pay, good facilities, etc. and are places you can win.

 

[GoFerit]

Very subjectively, I think the Big Ten jobs "as of now" can be tiered as followings.

1. Indiana
2. MSU, OSU,
3. Illinois, Michigan, Purdue
4. Wisconsin, MN, Iowa
5. NW, PSU

(Partly based on tradition, access to a pool of talent, facilities, living conditions/life style, etc.)

 

[howeda7]

Is there any consistent criteria used here or is this purely subjective? Appears to be subjective.

Largely subjective of course. I tried to note the general thoughts with each group, but it is subjective. I think groups 1, 2 and 5 are pretty self-explanatory. Group 3 vs. Group 4 is where we can debate and have varying opinions.

 

[howeda7]

That's an interesting take on the football jobs as I normally view tham as less desirable. The pressure may be less, but I would think it would turn off a lot of elite players in recruiting. Why would you want to go to a school where the basketball team is not the biggest thing on campus? That's why I am somewhat surprised by Matta's success recruiting at Ohio State. Putting myself in the shoes of a Greg Oden, Jared Sullinger, etc, I would rather be at a school where the results on the hardwood matter more than those on the field.

I do agree with the "coaching jobs" angle though. That Duke job is going to be a tough one for whoever follows Coach K unless they have already have a sterling resume of their own (Brad Stevens?). I think a job at Wake is really unattractive right now when it's the 3rd best basketball job in state (and they all are in the same conference) and you have NC State willing and able to spend whatever it takes in an attempt to move up the ladder. There's no upward mobility for Wake, they'll likely have another Tim Duncan, and there's a real possiblity of being passed by NC State at some point.

I generally feel that the 'football school' jobs are less desirable too, which is why I have most of them as average or poor. But Florida, OSU and Texas seem to have over-come this for a long enough period, especially Florida. But I do think that jobs like Michigan, Alabama, Tennesee, etc. are inherently less attractive due to thier second-class status on their own campus.

 

[SoMplsHawkI]

The 'Tubby to Mizzou' thread raised the question that comes up a lot: Where does Minnesota rank in relation to the various jobs he's rumored for? In my opinion there are about 5 levels of BCS jobs. 1. The 'Blue Bloods' 2. The 'Elite' 3. Above Average 4. Average 5. Poor. Quickly going through the BCS conferences I would rank the groups as follows (groups by conference):

1. (#'s 1-6) Blue Bloods: UCLA, Kansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina.

I think this group is pretty self-explanatory. The only debatable one is Indiana, but I think they still belong.

2. (#'s 7-12) The 'Elite': Arizona, Michigan State, Maryland, Louisville, UConn, Syracuse.

This group is also pretty clear, I think. Basically schools that have had huge success over a long period, generally including National Title(s), but don't quite qualify for group #1. For example, Syracuse and UConn can match group 1, but have little success before their current coaches. What will happen when they finally retire?

Group 2.5 (#'s 13-15) Elite Football Schools: Florida, Ohio State, Texas

Too hard on coaches' egos to qualify for group 2, too much money to be lumped in with group 3.

3. (#'s 16-35) Above Average: Stanford, Washington, OK State, Mizzou, Purdue, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Vandy, Arkansas, BC, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Pitt, ND, St. John's, Cincinnati, Georgetown, Villanova.

Generally, schools that have made a Final Four and/or won their conference in at least the last 15-20 years, or have some other distinct advantage (ex. St. John's.) I realize MN is near the bottom of this list, but I do think they belong in this group.

4. (#'s 36-56) Average: Cal, Oregon, USC, Arizona St, Oklahoma, Kansas St, Texas A&M, Iowa St, Michigan, Iowa, Tennessee, Alabama, LSU, Florida St, Clemson, Virginia, NC State, West Virginia, Marquette, Seton Hall, Providence.

There are some football schools on this list (Michigan, OU, Tenn.) that you can argue should be higher. But first, they're football schools, and have generally had 'issues' too.

5. (#'s 57-73) Poor: Washington St, Oregon St, Colorado, Nebraska, Baylor, Penn State, Northwestern, Georgia, South Carolina, Miss St, Ole Miss, Auburn, Virginia Tech, Miami, Rutgers, South Florida, DePaul

Iowa spending $40 million on an upgrade in facilities puts them in the above average category, delusional or not.

 

[howeda7]

Very subjectively, I think the Big Ten jobs "as of now" can be tiered as followings.

1. Indiana
2. MSU, OSU,
3. Illinois, Michigan, Purdue
4. Wisconsin, MN, Iowa
5. NW, PSU

(Partly based on tradition, access to a pool of talent, facilities, living conditions/life style, etc.)

I strongly disagree that Michigan is a better than Wisconsin at this point. I also don't think Michigan is better than MN, but maybe I am biased. I certainly have no bias towards Bucky though, and there's nothing that's better about Michigan than Wisconsin.

 

[howeda7]

This is an interesting discussion. No true right or wrong answers. Probably a worthwhile discussion. I think no matter where we are from or what team we root for, we probably all overvalue our own program. I'm sure fans from Illinois or Wisconsin would absolutely scoff at the suggestion that MN be lumped in with the same "above average" group. Personally, I think both those jobs are better than the MN gig for a number of reasons. But, that doesn't make me right, that's for sure. I'm sure fans from Iowa or Tennessee or Oklahoma or LSU would be surprised to see their jobs ranked BELOW the Minnesota job.

I think you mentioned it in that Tubby-Mizzou thread that not much separates 15-35. I'd push it further and suggest not much separates 25-50. I see no reason why Mike Montgomery would think he would win at an easier level here in MN than he could at Cal. In fact, you could make some significant arguments to the contrary. West Virginia has had a far more distinctive impact on the NCAA tournament in the last ten years than MN, so the Mountaineers might laugh at us Minnesotans for saying not only is our job is better, but belongs in a category totally different. Again, no one knows for sure, but that's the fun of the discussion.

Valid point on West Virginia. I am probably biased against them. I can't stand Huggins. And the fact that Boehline left for Michigan tells you something. Ad have ever been to West Virginia? Plus they are a football school. The only reason they got Huggins is that he is an alum. But they have had 3 good coaches in a row now, and even made a Final Four, so they are probably above average.

As for Cal, if the Stanford job had opened 2 weeks earlier, Montgomery would have probably much rather taken his old job back. Cal got very lucky there. Certainly it's not a bad job, but Stanford is a better job right in their own backyard. Both have tough academic standards, and the kids who qualify will mostly choose Stanford. I think this is a major disadvantage.

 

[howeda7]

Iowa spending $40 million on an upgrade in facilities puts them in the above average category, delusional or not.

In the Dr. Tom era I would have agreed. But the sight of tumbelweeds blowing through Carver-Hawkeye one too many times in the last 4-5 years has lowered by opinion. It seems Iowa has become SEC-like in it's devotion to being a football school. You can bring 25K to Minnesota and defile our restrooms but you can't bother to show up for a home basketball game?

 

[dpodoll68]

Why do you have your stipulations for Group #3 as "schools that have made a Final Four and/or won their conference in at least the last 15-20 years, or have some other distinct advantage", and include Minnesota, when it has none of those 3 things?

 

[SoMplsHawkI]

It seems Iowa has become SEC-like in it's devotion to being a football school.

You read the part about the $40 million, right?

 

[ParaBadger]

I generally feel that the 'football school' jobs are less desirable too, which is why I have most of them as average or poor. But Florida, OSU and Texas seem to have over-come this for a long enough period, especially Florida. But I do think that jobs like Michigan, Alabama, Tennesee, etc. are inherently less attractive due to thier second-class status on their own campus.

This just doesn't seem right to me. In general, most college basketball coaches aren't attention wh*res. They'd rather be in the gym than at a press conference or booster banquet. The only true advantage to being the top dog on campus would be the bump in pay; but I think that is matched when you are at one of the football power schools.

There are exceptions out there (Pitino, Crean, Jay Wright to name a few), but I think that most coaches put up with all the extraneous crap that goes along with coaching young men rather than relish it. At a blue blood school/basketball only type school there is a lot more of that extraneous stuff than at a football school.

Barnes, Donovan, and Matta have the best jobs in the country. Billy Donovan already turned down the Kentucky job (despite a likely bump in pay) because he realized this.