Would we want Howland? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Would we want Howland? (/thread-4970.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Would we want Howland? (/thread-4970.html)
Re: Would we want Howland? - Bruce Wang - 03-27-2013
(03-26-2013, 06:20 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Why are you shouting?
Just like the way STANFORD looks in all caps. Don't worry not going ALL CAPS LIKE OUR FRIEND FROM THE THUNDERDOME.
Re: Would we want Howland? - Bruce Wang - 03-27-2013
(03-26-2013, 06:20 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Why are you shouting?
Just like the way STANFORD looks in all caps. Don't worry not going ALL CAPS LIKE OUR FRIEND FROM THE THUNDERDOME.
Re: Would we want Howland? - 76lsjumb - 03-27-2013
(03-27-2013, 06:21 AM)Publius link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=7688.msg60578#msg60578 date=1364347237]
Why are you shouting?
Just like the way STANFORD looks in all caps. Don't worry not going ALL CAPS LIKE OUR FRIEND FROM THE THUNDERDOME.
[/quote]
Speaking of which, I don't know if johnnyO follows basketball, but, if he does, it would be interesting to see a post from him regarding the coaching situation.Â
Then again, I'm not sure this Board supports a 1,244-point font size...
Re: Would we want Howland? - 76lsjumb - 03-27-2013
(03-27-2013, 06:21 AM)Publius link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=7688.msg60578#msg60578 date=1364347237]
Why are you shouting?
Just like the way STANFORD looks in all caps. Don't worry not going ALL CAPS LIKE OUR FRIEND FROM THE THUNDERDOME.
[/quote]
Speaking of which, I don't know if johnnyO follows basketball, but, if he does, it would be interesting to see a post from him regarding the coaching situation.Â
Then again, I'm not sure this Board supports a 1,244-point font size...
Re: Thank God Shaka Smart Turned Down UCLA - Bruce Wang - 03-28-2013
I can't believe Shaka Khan turned down UCLA. He must really plan to stay at VCU for the long haul. Good for him.
Re: Thank God Shaka Smart Turned Down UCLA - Bruce Wang - 03-28-2013
I can't believe Shaka Khan turned down UCLA. He must really plan to stay at VCU for the long haul. Good for him.
Re: Thank God Brad Stevens Turned Down UCLA - Bruce Wang - 03-29-2013
I can't believe Brad Stevens turned down UCLA. He must really plan to stay at Butler for the long haul. Good for him.
Is there something bad about UCLA that I'm missing? Seems like the main problem is coaching in the shadow of Wooden.
Re: Thank God Brad Stevens Turned Down UCLA - Bruce Wang - 03-29-2013
I can't believe Brad Stevens turned down UCLA. He must really plan to stay at Butler for the long haul. Good for him.
Is there something bad about UCLA that I'm missing? Seems like the main problem is coaching in the shadow of Wooden.
Re: Would we want Howland? - pincemob - 03-29-2013
I think some of the drawbacks at Ucla are:
1) Unrealistic expectations lead to shorter lifespan
2) Not only do you have to win, you have to stand out in the LA market
3) Adidas contract means you have to take Adidas AAU players whether they fit the program or not
4) You have to live in LA (certainly a plus to some, but a deal killer for others); do you want TMZ on your a&& all day?
5) TJ Simers
6) Your players have a lot of distractions
7) Assistants' cost of living issues
I think the main positives would be the money, the conference, and having a renovated facility. If Wooden were alive, I would add that as a positive (getting to know/learn from him). Monty always said he had the better job at Stanford when he was asked about UCLA. All in all, I don't think it's a top-10 job any more but I do think it's top 20. I think someone like Scott Drew, Andy Enfield, or maybe an NBA assistant will end up there. But they can't expect to get the Smart's or Stevens who would be giving up a lot of job security and being at schools they clearly care about.Â
Re: Would we want Howland? - pincemob - 03-29-2013
I think some of the drawbacks at Ucla are:
1) Unrealistic expectations lead to shorter lifespan
2) Not only do you have to win, you have to stand out in the LA market
3) Adidas contract means you have to take Adidas AAU players whether they fit the program or not
4) You have to live in LA (certainly a plus to some, but a deal killer for others); do you want TMZ on your a&& all day?
5) TJ Simers
6) Your players have a lot of distractions
7) Assistants' cost of living issues
I think the main positives would be the money, the conference, and having a renovated facility. If Wooden were alive, I would add that as a positive (getting to know/learn from him). Monty always said he had the better job at Stanford when he was asked about UCLA. All in all, I don't think it's a top-10 job any more but I do think it's top 20. I think someone like Scott Drew, Andy Enfield, or maybe an NBA assistant will end up there. But they can't expect to get the Smart's or Stevens who would be giving up a lot of job security and being at schools they clearly care about.Â
Re: Would we want Howland? - washingtonismoney - 03-29-2013
Is there really a unrealistic expectations/short lifespan problem? Howland lasted 10 seasons despite mediocre, Tedford-like underachievement on the court toward the end of his tenure and off-court revelations I consider fireable. Lavin, before Howland, was more consistently mediocre and lasted 7 years. Seems to me UCLA is a patient bunch with its basketball coaches.
They expect Final Fours and championships, but that's their history and they have greater resources and brand to compensate.
I'm shocked coaches aren't running to take that job. It's one of the plum jobs in college sports.
Re: Would we want Howland? - washingtonismoney - 03-29-2013
Is there really a unrealistic expectations/short lifespan problem? Howland lasted 10 seasons despite mediocre, Tedford-like underachievement on the court toward the end of his tenure and off-court revelations I consider fireable. Lavin, before Howland, was more consistently mediocre and lasted 7 years. Seems to me UCLA is a patient bunch with its basketball coaches.
They expect Final Fours and championships, but that's their history and they have greater resources and brand to compensate.
I'm shocked coaches aren't running to take that job. It's one of the plum jobs in college sports.
Re: Would we want Howland? - 81alum - 03-29-2013
(03-29-2013, 08:14 PM)norcalcard link Wrote:3) Adidas contract means you have to take Adidas AAU players whether they fit the program or notI'm ignorant about this. What are the details of this "Adidas contract" and what are "Adidas AAU" players? I have not followed MBB closely enough lately to know these things. It sounds deplorable--like a form of corruption.
Re: Would we want Howland? - 81alum - 03-29-2013
(03-29-2013, 08:14 PM)norcalcard link Wrote:3) Adidas contract means you have to take Adidas AAU players whether they fit the program or notI'm ignorant about this. What are the details of this "Adidas contract" and what are "Adidas AAU" players? I have not followed MBB closely enough lately to know these things. It sounds deplorable--like a form of corruption.
Re: Would we want Howland? - pincemob - 03-29-2013
Lavin made the Elite 8 or Sweet 16 in 5 of his first 6 years. They lost in the first round in year 3 in a game where I think Baron Davis tore his ACL. I don't think they could have fired him after making the Sweet 16. Has that even happened? Anyway, the first year he missed the Sweet 16 he was gone. Imagine if Stanford held Monty to that standard? We would have fired him 5 or 6 times with all those second round failures.Â
Howland made 3 Final 4s. Has there ever been a coach fired who made 3 Final 4s? Maybe there has (I can't think of any), but I doubt it happened in a year they won their league regular season.Â
Harrick won a NC so he got more time. The other coaches who followed Wooden were all gone within 4 years. The pressure there is unreal. I don't think it's considered a top job any more.Â
Re: Would we want Howland? - pincemob - 03-29-2013
Lavin made the Elite 8 or Sweet 16 in 5 of his first 6 years. They lost in the first round in year 3 in a game where I think Baron Davis tore his ACL. I don't think they could have fired him after making the Sweet 16. Has that even happened? Anyway, the first year he missed the Sweet 16 he was gone. Imagine if Stanford held Monty to that standard? We would have fired him 5 or 6 times with all those second round failures.Â
Howland made 3 Final 4s. Has there ever been a coach fired who made 3 Final 4s? Maybe there has (I can't think of any), but I doubt it happened in a year they won their league regular season.Â
Harrick won a NC so he got more time. The other coaches who followed Wooden were all gone within 4 years. The pressure there is unreal. I don't think it's considered a top job any more.Â
Re: Would we want Howland? - washingtonismoney - 03-29-2013
(03-29-2013, 08:45 PM)norcalcard link Wrote:Lavin made the Elite 8 or Sweet 16 in 5 of his first 6 years. They lost in the first round in year 3 in a game where I think Baron Davis tore his ACL. I don't think they could have fired him after making the Sweet 16. Has that even happened? Anyway, the first year he missed the Sweet 16 he was gone. Imagine if Stanford held Monty to that standard? We would have fired him 5 or 6 times with all those second round failures.Â
Howland made 3 Final 4s. Has there ever been a coach fired who made 3 Final 4s? Maybe there has (I can't think of any), but I doubt it happened in a year they won their league regular season.Â
Lavin did OK in the tournament, but only once finished above 3rd in the Pac-10. That's bad.
Howland made 3 Final 4s, but this is like saying Tedford guided kal to four top-25 finishes. Impressive, but irrelevant to the future. This also ignores the thuggish culture Howland allowed to flourish in the team (and the probable violations involved in recruiting the most recent freshman class). Again, read the George Dohrmann expose on UCLA and Howland and try to justify his retention: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/magazine/02/28/ucla/index.html
Like I said, UCLA has high standards and expectations for its coaches, but so does Kentucky basketball, Alabama football, N.D. football, Texas football, etc. These are all highly desired jobs because while the expectations are high, the pay and the resources are raised accordingly. UCLA is similar. Payment will not necessarily be quite as high, but you get to recruit in one of the richest regions in the country; and oh yeah, you can compete for just about anyone you like nationally too. If you're an ambitious coach, and you aren't currently at one of the ultra-desirable jobs, I think it's pretty odd to be turning down UCLA.
Then again, Rich Rodriguez turned down the 'bama job, so I suppose it's not an insanity peculiar to UCLA.
Re: Would we want Howland? - washingtonismoney - 03-29-2013
(03-29-2013, 08:45 PM)norcalcard link Wrote:Lavin made the Elite 8 or Sweet 16 in 5 of his first 6 years. They lost in the first round in year 3 in a game where I think Baron Davis tore his ACL. I don't think they could have fired him after making the Sweet 16. Has that even happened? Anyway, the first year he missed the Sweet 16 he was gone. Imagine if Stanford held Monty to that standard? We would have fired him 5 or 6 times with all those second round failures.Â
Howland made 3 Final 4s. Has there ever been a coach fired who made 3 Final 4s? Maybe there has (I can't think of any), but I doubt it happened in a year they won their league regular season.Â
Lavin did OK in the tournament, but only once finished above 3rd in the Pac-10. That's bad.
Howland made 3 Final 4s, but this is like saying Tedford guided kal to four top-25 finishes. Impressive, but irrelevant to the future. This also ignores the thuggish culture Howland allowed to flourish in the team (and the probable violations involved in recruiting the most recent freshman class). Again, read the George Dohrmann expose on UCLA and Howland and try to justify his retention: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/magazine/02/28/ucla/index.html
Like I said, UCLA has high standards and expectations for its coaches, but so does Kentucky basketball, Alabama football, N.D. football, Texas football, etc. These are all highly desired jobs because while the expectations are high, the pay and the resources are raised accordingly. UCLA is similar. Payment will not necessarily be quite as high, but you get to recruit in one of the richest regions in the country; and oh yeah, you can compete for just about anyone you like nationally too. If you're an ambitious coach, and you aren't currently at one of the ultra-desirable jobs, I think it's pretty odd to be turning down UCLA.
Then again, Rich Rodriguez turned down the 'bama job, so I suppose it's not an insanity peculiar to UCLA.
Re: Would we want Howland? - pincemob - 03-29-2013
Quote:I'm ignorant about this. What are the details of this "Adidas contract" and what are "Adidas AAU" players? I have not followed MBB closely enough lately to know these things. It sounds deplorable--like a form of corruption.George Dohrmann from Sports Illustrated wrote a good book about it, which is better and more accurate than anything I can summarize here. Basically what happens is the shoe companies create these player pipelines by paying off AAU coaches to channel their players to their affiliated colleges. I think Adidas gives UCLA something like $10 mil per year to sponsor them, and it sponsors AAU programs around the country, such as "Pump and Run" which was mentioned in the recent S.I. article in this thread. It was Sonny Vaccaro from Adidas (which merged with Reebok) who placed Howland first at Pitt and later at UCLA. He pulls a lot of the strings. In addition to Adidas paying these AAU coaches, some boosters also donate to these AAU programs to make sure their players end up at their schools (UCLA has been mentioned in this practice). Some of that money goes to things like Shabazz Muhammed's sister's tennis sponsorship deal from Adidas, when she was not even a top 300 type player. I guess you could consider that an advantage for UCLA, but it sounds like what happened was that the AAU programs affiliated with Adidas stopped getting the best players. The guys running that "Pump and Run" program did things like set up a headhunting business so they could get paid for placing coaches, after which they would send their players off to the schools who hired their coach clients. That probably diluted the talent UCLA was getting. Whatever the reasons it seemed like over time the Adidas AAU programs fell behind the Nike programs (which funnel players to Arizona, USC and elsewhere) which hurt UCLA (which had gotten guys like Farmar, Shipp, Collison from Adidas programs). Anyway, it is hard to explain in a few paragraphs but it's a pretty ugly "grass roots" basketball culture at the moment. Schools that take less shoe money are probably less reliant on taking their AAU players.Â
Re: Would we want Howland? - pincemob - 03-29-2013
Quote:I'm ignorant about this. What are the details of this "Adidas contract" and what are "Adidas AAU" players? I have not followed MBB closely enough lately to know these things. It sounds deplorable--like a form of corruption.George Dohrmann from Sports Illustrated wrote a good book about it, which is better and more accurate than anything I can summarize here. Basically what happens is the shoe companies create these player pipelines by paying off AAU coaches to channel their players to their affiliated colleges. I think Adidas gives UCLA something like $10 mil per year to sponsor them, and it sponsors AAU programs around the country, such as "Pump and Run" which was mentioned in the recent S.I. article in this thread. It was Sonny Vaccaro from Adidas (which merged with Reebok) who placed Howland first at Pitt and later at UCLA. He pulls a lot of the strings. In addition to Adidas paying these AAU coaches, some boosters also donate to these AAU programs to make sure their players end up at their schools (UCLA has been mentioned in this practice). Some of that money goes to things like Shabazz Muhammed's sister's tennis sponsorship deal from Adidas, when she was not even a top 300 type player. I guess you could consider that an advantage for UCLA, but it sounds like what happened was that the AAU programs affiliated with Adidas stopped getting the best players. The guys running that "Pump and Run" program did things like set up a headhunting business so they could get paid for placing coaches, after which they would send their players off to the schools who hired their coach clients. That probably diluted the talent UCLA was getting. Whatever the reasons it seemed like over time the Adidas AAU programs fell behind the Nike programs (which funnel players to Arizona, USC and elsewhere) which hurt UCLA (which had gotten guys like Farmar, Shipp, Collison from Adidas programs). Anyway, it is hard to explain in a few paragraphs but it's a pretty ugly "grass roots" basketball culture at the moment. Schools that take less shoe money are probably less reliant on taking their AAU players.Â