Wow - Marcus: Johnson is arguably at a point in his tenure when he might also need for people to be patient with him.

Donate To GopherHole
Tucker32 said:
"I don't think hiring a $2 million mid-major coach with similar resources is going to magically turn Gopher Basketball around." I agree that this statement is likely true, though they could get lucky like WI did when they hired Bennett and then Ryan. I do think they are going to spend more money than $2 million... they already are. There just was no need to spend more than that the last couple of years.
Click to expand...
It’s crazy the case isn’t “Ben is close”
The case is “the next guy might also suck”
 



Tucker32 said:
"I don't think hiring a $2 million mid-major coach with similar resources is going to magically turn Gopher Basketball around." I agree that this statement is likely true, though they could get lucky like WI did when they hired Bennett and then Ryan. I do think they are going to spend more money than $2 million... they already are. There just was no need to spend more than that the last couple of years.
Click to expand...
Wisconsin was very ballsy and bold to go with Bennett. You're definitely kissing a frog and hoping for the best. There was no question he was an excellent coach, but would it translate to a major conference? Very much like the Smith hire at Utah. You only find out whether or not it works once he's into it.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
It's probably not the solution, but it's also not out of the question. There is truth to allowing coaches to truly grow a culture and program. Its seems nearly impossible in this day and age, however.

Richard got 8 years with one winning conference record.
Tubby got 6 years with zero winning conference records.
Monson got 7 years with two winning conference records.
Click to expand...
Add 0-4 with Ben and it’s three winning years out of the last 25. Embarrassing
 


Bad Gopher said:
Wisconsin was very ballsy and bold to go with Bennett. You're definitely kissing a frog and hoping for the best. There was no question he was an excellent coach, but would it translate to a major conference? Very much like the Smith hire at Utah. You only find out whether or not it works once he's into it.
Click to expand...
I think the fact that Bennett spent his entire career climbing the coaching ladder within the state of Wisconsin (high schools, UW-Stevens Point, UW-Green Bay) prior to landing the UW-Madison job worked in his favor to minimize the risk somewhat, because everybody knew who he was, how often he won and exactly what his coaching style was. Had he done that in stops all over America it may have been harder to get onboard with an unknown entity.
 

WoodburyTim said:
But Coyle made public statements that diversity would be part of the hiring process. Did he ever say that being “one of us” would be part of the process?

Some are trying really hard to change history to support their idealogy…
Click to expand...

Bad Gopher said:
Let's address this...or at least part of this.

Bias exists, and each of us possesses some. The classes I've taken on bias are eye-opening...and that's the point of the courses: to raise awareness and give people tools to overcome their biases and make as objective of decisions as they can.

It's natural and understandable for an African-American writer like Marcus to have affinity and fraternity with an African-American coach. Call it bias or call it whatever, and feel free to judge whether it's proper or not, but it's understandable. And what MNV said: black men have been underrepresented in the coaching fraternity. Most of us feel good when that can be ameliorated through the consideration and potential hiring of qualified African-American candidates. Certainly, Marcus is inclined to feel that way, and more power to him. Lastly, that Johnson is as accessible and friendly as he is gives him a leg up on favorable treatment.

Race aside, access and favor poltics in sports is nothing new and will never go away. Ron Gardenhire would only allow friendly reporters into his inner office after games. Never forget that's part of what we're dealing with here. You're starting to see an extreme of that now with the White House press corps.

This is why you have to take what Marcus and Neal and others have said and written with a grain of salt and make your own judgments, which people are doing here. We're better informed than casual fans, however; they're going to get their perspectives from these major-media reporters, which may be unfortunate but is the way of the world.
Click to expand...
I did a quick search of the columns that Scoggins and Reusse have done on Johnson through the years and they are largely quite positive, certainly more positive than his record deserves. So what's the deal? A few guesses:

1. The media in this market tends to go pretty easy on sports figures. Johnson would have been gone a year or two ago in NYC, Philly, Boston, etc. (Rocco should have been roasted for the Twins' finish last season. Instead it was pretty much, "Well, whatever..."
2. Johnson appears to treat the media well. That makes a big difference.
3. The sports market here is crowded and gopher hoops is now second tier.
4. Racial affinity exists, but to a much lesser degree than some imagine. If Johnson were a jerk, he would be treated differently by everybody.
 

WoodburyTim said:
So saying that diversity in the candidate pool isn’t saying that diversity is playing a role in who they are looking at?

And this is my problem. I don’t have a problem with those advocating for diversity, but then why afterward saying that it never plays a role? If it had no role in the candidate pool then there would be no need for DEI. This is simple logical thinking.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't necessarily mean that. It could be diversity of resumes, styles, philosophies or any number of things for all you know. You are reading into it that which might not be there. (only Coyle knows)

If it was just diversity in the way you mean it...why not hire Gates who has more experience? Why interview White Coaches at all? Maybe race wasn't the primary factor here.

(I am not delving into the politics of all this because I dont care about someone's personal politics when it comes to this site)
 

jamiche said:
I did a quick search of the columns that Scoggins and Reusse have done on Johnson through the years and they are largely quite positive, certainly more positive than his record deserves. So what's the deal? A few guesses:

1. The media in this market tends to go pretty easy on sports figures. Johnson would have been gone a year or two ago in NYC, Philly, Boston, etc. (Rocco should have been roasted for the Twins' finish last season. Instead it was pretty much, "Well, whatever..."
2. Johnson appears to treat the media well. That makes a big difference.
3. The sports market here is crowded and gopher hoops is now second tier.
4. Racial affinity exists, but to a much lesser degree than some imagine. If Johnson were a jerk, he would be treated differently by everybody.
Click to expand...

#4 with a side of "he's one of us" combo platter
 



Some guy said:
It’s crazy the case isn’t “Ben is close”
The case is “the next guy might also suck”
Click to expand...
That is part of the cycle of these things. It is usually the last inevitable coping mechanism for those that can't stomach a coaching change but know the status quo is unacceptable. Its like the 4th stage of grief ;)
 


Bad Gopher said:
Wisconsin was very ballsy and bold to go with Bennett. You're definitely kissing a frog and hoping for the best. There was no question he was an excellent coach, but would it translate to a major conference? Very much like the Smith hire at Utah. You only find out whether or not it works once he's into it.
Click to expand...
And Wisconsin at the time was bottom of the barrel and needed to take a shot. They hadn't had a winning conference record in 2 decades and had only had 2 in like 40 years.
 

Dave H said:
That is part of the cycle of these things. It is usually the last inevitable coping mechanism for those that can't stomach a coaching change but know the status quo is unacceptable. Its like the 4th stage of grief ;)
Click to expand...
Think it is more a stage of despair as opposed to grief. :)
 



Dave H said:
And Wisconsin at the time was bottom of the barrel and needed to take a shot. They hadn't had a winning conference record in 2 decades and had only had 2 in like 40 years.
Click to expand...

And back then there was no social media, no 'winning the press conference', no message boards, no recruiting rankings, no seat 'donations' etc.
 

Dave H said:
And Wisconsin at the time was bottom of the barrel and needed to take a shot. They hadn't had a winning conference record in 2 decades and had only had 2 in like 40 years.
Click to expand...
That whole thing was so interesting. They had Stan Van Gundy (who had replaced Stu Jackson). To be sure, Van Gundy was a more-than-capable coach who went on to a distinguished coaching career in the NBA. Even that didn't work at Wisconsin. According to Wikipedia, "Van Gundy blamed financial concerns at the school for his firing." Whatever that means. Obviously there are a number of things that go into having sucess at the college level. Whatever financial or institutional roadblocks there may have been during Van Gundy's tenure seem to have disappeared suddenly when Bennett came on. That was about the time that the football program was going to Rose Bowls, so the UW administration and athletic department were doing something right to put THEM in a position to win. Sid always talked about how Wiscsonsin woke up and smelled the coffee when Donna came in as Chancellor in 1987, purportedly making the ground more fertile for athletics success, although I never got much in the way of details of her actions and changes.

Where am I going with this? Nowhere!! But, two things:
1. It takes more than a good coach.
2. Certain coaches are better suited to certain situations. Bennett was perfect for college and UW. Van Gundy was obviously better in the pros.

When you find the right person who's well suited to the situation, it's amazing sometimes how things magically come together. I tend to think a capable coach drives his/her bosses to do THEIR part as well. I do believe Minnesota has the kind of potential Wisconsin had back then.
 


Dave H said:
No it doesn't necessarily mean that. It could be diversity of resumes, styles, philosophies or any number of things for all you know. You are reading into it that which might not be there. (only Coyle knows)

If it was just diversity in the way you mean it...why not hire Gates who has more experience? Why interview White Coaches at all? Maybe race wasn't the primary factor here.

(I am not delving into the politics of all this because I dont care about someone's personal politics when it comes to this site)
Click to expand...
Gates wouldn't even interview. If he had, I reckon they'd have taken him all day over Ben. The "Official" finalists were Ben, Sam Mitchell and Ben Jacobsen. Some candidates who would take the job don't want it on that list, so we don't truly know, but that's at best an odd list.
 

howeda7 said:
Gates wouldn't even interview. If he had, I reckon they'd have taken him all day over Ben. The "Official" finalists were Ben, Sam Mitchell and Ben Jacobsen. Some candidates who would take the job don't want it on that list, so we don't truly know, but that's at best an odd list.
Click to expand...

Sam Mitchell wasn't actually a candidate for the job. He just told all of the local media that he should be.
 


howeda7 said:
Gates wouldn't even interview. If he had, I reckon they'd have taken him all day over Ben. The "Official" finalists were Ben, Sam Mitchell and Ben Jacobsen. Some candidates who would take the job don't want it on that list, so we don't truly know, but that's at best an odd list.
Click to expand...
There were other interested candidates that weren't interviewed. Coyle was "sold" by Ben and canceled further interviews. It was dumb, but he rolled the dice. He can't roll the dice like that again and hope he wins.
 



Dave H said:
No it doesn't necessarily mean that. It could be diversity of resumes, styles, philosophies or any number of things for all you know. You are reading into it that which might not be there. (only Coyle knows)

If it was just diversity in the way you mean it...why not hire Gates who has more experience? Why interview White Coaches at all? Maybe race wasn't the primary factor here.

(I am not delving into the politics of all this because I dont care about someone's personal politics when it comes to this site)
Click to expand...
Yeah diversity of the font in the resumes might have been what he meant....

Never said it was the primary factor, in fact just the opposite it. It is possible for something to be a factor without it being the only factor.
 

WoodburyTim said:
Yeah diversity of the font in the resumes might have been what he meant....

Never said it was the primary factor, in fact just the opposite it. It is possible for something to be a factor without it being the only factor.
Click to expand...
This comes up over and over because we've been forced to guess at what went on behind closed doors in what was a very opaque process. I think it's quite possible that the U was heck bent to hire a black man. All I've seen so far, however, is speculation and circumstantial evidence. I've pleaded with anyone having inside information to come forward, and what we tend to get in reply are a bunch of people who are totally certain based on practically no evidence.
 

Bad Gopher said:
This comes up over and over because we've been forced to guess at what went on behind closed doors in what was a very opaque process. I think it's quite possible that the U was heck bent to hire a black man. All I've seen so far, however, is speculation and circumstantial evidence. I've pleaded with anyone having inside information to come forward, and what we tend to get in reply are a bunch of people who are totally certain based on practically no evidence.
Click to expand...

I agree. The lack of hard evidence is frustrating. Clearly this wasn't a hire based on a B1G-worthy resume. You and I discussed this is in a thread a couple years ago. Patrick Reusse stated on the following SKOR podcast that Dutcher was Coyle's first choice but he was overruled (see 13:00 mark). I tend to believe Reusse. However, the question still remains what would drive the administration to go against the AD recommendation? It was either a race-influenced hire or a massive overplay of the local connection angle.

Even if you dismiss the former, the latter scares me also for the next hire (if you believe a change is imminent). We aren't the only school to do so, but pretending Minnesota connections has some meaningful impact unnecessarily limits your candidate pool. We don't live in 1970s/1980s era college basketball where locking down the border is a realistic expectation or even a blueprint for success. Find a guy that can coach.

 




Bad Gopher said:
That whole thing was so interesting. They had Stan Van Gundy (who had replaced Stu Jackson). To be sure, Van Gundy was a more-than-capable coach who went on to a distinguished coaching career in the NBA. Even that didn't work at Wisconsin. According to Wikipedia, "Van Gundy blamed financial concerns at the school for his firing." Whatever that means. Obviously there are a number of things that go into having sucess at the college level. Whatever financial or institutional roadblocks there may have been during Van Gundy's tenure seem to have disappeared suddenly when Bennett came on. That was about the time that the football program was going to Rose Bowls, so the UW administration and athletic department were doing something right to put THEM in a position to win. Sid always talked about how Wiscsonsin woke up and smelled the coffee when Donna came in as Chancellor in 1987, purportedly making the ground more fertile for athletics success, although I never got much in the way of details of her actions and changes.

Where am I going with this? Nowhere!! But, two things:
1. It takes more than a good coach.
2. Certain coaches are better suited to certain situations. Bennett was perfect for college and UW. Van Gundy was obviously better in the pros.

When you find the right person who's well suited to the situation, it's amazing sometimes how things magically come together. I tend to think a capable coach drives his/her bosses to do THEIR part as well. I do believe Minnesota has the kind of potential Wisconsin had back then.
Click to expand...
one of the things I heard (I live in Wisconsin, I hear more about Badger football than I want to) was that Barry Switzer used Title IX to his benefit by pushing to establish the women's team as a huge roster and cutting baseball-- both of those let him have more kids on scholarship and/or as walkons. I think back then they could give a kid 1/4 scholarship like the hockey teams and get more 5 year, big lineman on the roster. The desire for big lineman to hit that training table actually used to be a big draw for the out-state WI kids. I know one parent who said it saved them about $500 a month and that was back when eggs were 99 cents a dozen.
 

golfing18now said:
I agree. The lack of hard evidence is frustrating. Clearly this wasn't a hire based on a B1G-worthy resume. You and I discussed this is in a thread a couple years ago. Patrick Reusse stated on the following SKOR podcast that Dutcher was Coyle's first choice but he was overruled (see 13:00 mark). I tend to believe Reusse. However, the question still remains what would drive the administration to go against the AD recommendation? It was either a race-influenced hire or a massive overplay of the local connection angle.

Even if you dismiss the former, the latter scares me also for the next hire (if you believe a change is imminent). We aren't the only school to do so, but pretending Minnesota connections has some meaningful impact unnecessarily limits your candidate pool. We don't live in 1970s/1980s era college basketball where locking down the border is a realistic expectation or even a blueprint for success. Find a guy that can coach.

Click to expand...
What's striking (in a depressing way) is how many top-notch candidates have blossomed and been snapped up by high-major programs in the past few years. Rhoades at Penn State, Sprinkle at Washington, Dusty May at Michigan (who will get some honor or honors at the end of this season). Sprinkle has taken his lumps, but I predict they won't be down for long. If I were a betting man, I'd bet on Iowa parting ways with or forcing out Fran to snatch McCollum from the jaws of Minnesota or one of his other inevitable suitors. Illinois and Rutgers have their guys, and if I were them, I wouldn't trade either of those coaches for anyone. People snipe at USC and UCLA for their rocky introduction to the rough-and-tumble Big Ten, but they have two of the best program builders in the country. Meanwhile, we've stood pat with the least successful coach in program history, and, admit it or not, there's a significant chance he'll be retained for at least one more year.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom