• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Coaching Carousel

mtgrizrule

Well-known member
Ben Howland is gone from UCLA. Will they court Mark Few? How will this impact jobs coming available and coaches taking them?

Keep in mind, his contract was good through 2016. They are coughing up a lot of money to get rid of him. Will they be willing to pay top dollar, or shopping for a younger coach they can get more affordable? Will they gamble on an alumni like Cameron Dollar? Will they go after a name coach, like Steve Alford, or Mark Few? Could a winning coach without an NCAA tournament win emerge like Rahe or Tinkle? Could Eustachy (sp?) emerge so quickly for big name jobs?
 
mtgrizrule said:
Ben Howland is gone from UCLA. Will they court Mark Few? How will this impact jobs coming available and coaches taking them?

Keep in mind, his contract was good through 2016. They are coughing up a lot of money to get rid of him. Will they be willing to pay top dollar, or shopping for a younger coach they can get more affordable? Will they gamble on an alumni like Cameron Dollar? Will they go after a name coach, like Steve Alford, or Mark Few? Could a winning coach without an NCAA tournament win emerge like Rahe or Tinkle? Could Eustachy (sp?) emerge so quickly for big name jobs?
And how nuts is it for them to get rid of him. Overall record: 233-107 (69%), four conference championships, and repeated NCAA tournament appearances (but no advances to the Sweet-16). But this article makes it clear it was not about his record: http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/basketball/la-sp-ucla-howland-fired-20130325,0,2162674.story

From that, and other accounts, Howland was not good at smoozing with the media .. . and, in fact, alienated some. So it was really about putting butts in the seats.
Foster said:
But selling season tickets, with a per-ticket donation to the Wooden Athletic Fund ranging from $100 to $17,000 for priority seats, proved difficult.
So they need a "glamor" coach who can wow! the media and get people back into the arena. Howland apparently did not have the personality for that. Add in the out-sized expectations at UCLA, and it's gonna cost them some bucks to attract a coach (not to mention the $3.5 million buyout).
 
mtgrizrule said:
Ben Howland is gone from UCLA. Will they court Mark Few? How will this impact jobs coming available and coaches taking them?

Keep in mind, his contract was good through 2016. They are coughing up a lot of money to get rid of him. Will they be willing to pay top dollar, or shopping for a younger coach they can get more affordable? Will they gamble on an alumni like Cameron Dollar? Will they go after a name coach, like Steve Alford, or Mark Few? Could a winning coach without an NCAA tournament win emerge like Rahe or Tinkle? Could Eustachy (sp?) emerge so quickly for big name jobs?

I read on ESPN, Shaka Smart of VCU has already been extended an interview, and the job is basically his if he wants it.

A source told ESPN.com that Guerrero has a fondness for VCU Rams coach Shaka Smart and plans are to focus first on bringing him to Westwood.
 
ordigger said:
mtgrizrule said:
Ben Howland is gone from UCLA. Will they court Mark Few? How will this impact jobs coming available and coaches taking them?

Keep in mind, his contract was good through 2016. They are coughing up a lot of money to get rid of him. Will they be willing to pay top dollar, or shopping for a younger coach they can get more affordable? Will they gamble on an alumni like Cameron Dollar? Will they go after a name coach, like Steve Alford, or Mark Few? Could a winning coach without an NCAA tournament win emerge like Rahe or Tinkle? Could Eustachy (sp?) emerge so quickly for big name jobs?
I read on ESPN, Shaka Smart of VCU has already been extended an interview, and the job is basically his if he wants it.
A source told ESPN.com that Guerrero has a fondness for VCU Rams coach Shaka Smart and plans are to focus first on bringing him to Westwood.
Well, if I'm reading the various articles correctly, the money is there, at least ... Smart could just about double his salary and incentive pay if he made the move. But even with that, I'm not sure he'd want the job, except perhaps as a new challenge. His success at VCU would actually count against him unless he did something like go to the Final Four right out of the box. Fans and alumni out there would figure, if he could do so well at VCU, then -- obviously -- he should own the basketball world coaching at UCLA.
 
IdaGriz01 said:
mtgrizrule said:
Ben Howland is gone from UCLA. Will they court Mark Few? How will this impact jobs coming available and coaches taking them?

Keep in mind, his contract was good through 2016. They are coughing up a lot of money to get rid of him. Will they be willing to pay top dollar, or shopping for a younger coach they can get more affordable? Will they gamble on an alumni like Cameron Dollar? Will they go after a name coach, like Steve Alford, or Mark Few? Could a winning coach without an NCAA tournament win emerge like Rahe or Tinkle? Could Eustachy (sp?) emerge so quickly for big name jobs?
And how nuts is it for them to get rid of him. Overall record: 233-107 (69%), four conference championships, and repeated NCAA tournament appearances (but no advances to the Sweet-16). But this article makes it clear it was not about his record: http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/basketball/la-sp-ucla-howland-fired-20130325,0,2162674.story

From that, and other accounts, Howland was not good at smoozing with the media .. . and, in fact, alienated some. So it was really about putting butts in the seats.
Foster said:
But selling season tickets, with a per-ticket donation to the Wooden Athletic Fund ranging from $100 to $17,000 for priority seats, proved difficult.
So they need a "glamor" coach who can wow! the media and get people back into the arena. Howland apparently did not have the personality for that. Add in the out-sized expectations at UCLA, and it's gonna cost them some bucks to attract a coach (not to mention the $3.5 million buyout).

Not sure where you got the no advances to the sweet 16. He took them to 3 straight final fours from 2006-2008. They have fallen off lately though.
 
Outside of wins and losses, Howland has been a disaster at UCLA.

Read SI's excellent article "Not the UCLA Way" for a good reference.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/magazine/02/28/ucla/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
BDizzle said:
IdaGriz01 said:
And how nuts is it for them to get rid of him. Overall record: 233-107 (69%), four conference championships, and repeated NCAA tournament appearances (but no advances to the Sweet-16). ...
Not sure where you got the no advances to the sweet 16. He took them to 3 straight final fours from 2006-2008. They have fallen off lately though.
:oops: You're absolutely right. Typing too fast and got way ahead of myself. I should have said: "No advance to the Sweet 16 this year, when his job was on the line."
 
IdaGriz01 said:
BDizzle said:
IdaGriz01 said:
And how nuts is it for them to get rid of him. Overall record: 233-107 (69%), four conference championships, and repeated NCAA tournament appearances (but no advances to the Sweet-16). ...
Not sure where you got the no advances to the sweet 16. He took them to 3 straight final fours from 2006-2008. They have fallen off lately though.
:oops: You're absolutely right. Typing too fast and got way ahead of myself. I should have said: "No advance to the Sweet 16 this year, when his job was on the line."

ya it just seems that way. they haven't been in the top 10 in like five seasons. and in that time they have not made the sweet 16 once which is the longest streak since before john wooden. and they have two tourney wins in the last five years and actaully had a losing record a few years ago. all stuff that won't fly at ucla.

combine this with the fact that howland is an asshole and many alumni don't like/respect him. and many former players have spoken out against him. i'm actually surprised they waited as long as they did to fire him. thought when those pics came out of him playing beer pong with students that would do him in...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/03/02/ben-howland-players-join-ucla-students-for-beer-pong-game/1958999/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
AllWeatherFan said:
Tubby Smith is toast in the Twin Cities.

as a gophers fan this is a little surprising. not because i thought he was doing a great job but because i thought he was doing better than anyone else we've had not counting coaches who cheated. :oops:

gonna be interesting to see who they bring in.
 
EverettGriz said:
Outside of wins and losses, Howland has been a disaster at UCLA.

Read SI's excellent article "Not the UCLA Way" for a good reference.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/magazine/02/28/ucla/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even mentions the "embarrassing loss to Montana"... :lol:
 
Would it be that far-fetched to have Wayne grab the job at UCLA? I was listening to Dan Patrick today and he and the guests had some fair points about coaches like Shocka and Brad Stephens not being interested basically because they make good money where they are, can make a good run in the tournament and recruit well without having to compete with the NBA, NHL, and MLB nor have to face expectations that come with the UCLA job. That said, who do they get? I could see Wayne getting an honest look there. He recruits that area well, he can definitely be a good rah rah type of coach with players, AD, and boosters alike. The more I think about it, aside from the NCAA tourney resume', he seems like a great candidate. There's no way he could pass that job up, especially when he could be making ten times what he makes now in the first year and also get Tres into some great program down there, too.
 
PeauxRouge said:
Would it be that far-fetched to have Wayne grab the job at UCLA? I was listening to Dan Patrick today and he and the guests had some fair points about coaches like Shocka and Brad Stephens not being interested basically because they make good money where they are, can make a good run in the tournament and recruit well without having to compete with the NBA, NHL, and MLB nor have to face expectations that come with the UCLA job. That said, who do they get? I could see Wayne getting an honest look there. He recruits that area well, he can definitely be a good rah rah type of coach with players, AD, and boosters alike. The more I think about it, aside from the NCAA tourney resume', he seems like a great candidate. There's no way he could pass that job up, especially when he could be making ten times what he makes now in the first year and also get Tres into some great program down there, too.

Well, mid-year, the general argument against Wayne leaving went something like this: "There's no way he's taking the USC job and competing in L.A. against UCLA, and there aren't any high profile West coast jobs available..."

So much for that theory... :eek:
 
NCAA tournament wins or not, Tinkle will make the lists of possible coaches for most of these schools.
 
Back to the subject at hand.

I was driving home from work tonight. I listened to the College Sports Network. I tuned into an interview with some college basketball guru, that had started before I listened. Sorry not sure who it was, or what more was said before I was listening.

In a nutshell, he broke down the UCLA coaching position very well in the following categories.
(1) Big Name coaches (Petino, Donovan, etc)- This is what the alumni want. Reality is, no way in hell it happens, unless a big name coach wants the challenge. The way the California school structure is for State schools severely limit's a coaches earning power here. Maybe someone in the know in CA can explain this better. Plus the state is not too happy with eating Howland's contract as is. The state of CA system does not have the funds or power to cater to UCLA only.

(2) Quality assistants in the NBA or at major programs chomping at the bit to be the head man with some great program recognition. Examples were Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Brian Shaw.

(3) Well established mid major coaches who are proven NCAA winners. Example Smart, Stevens/Stephens, and Few (VCU, Butler, and Gonzaga) would make everyone happy, and be perfect fits. However, the fear would be losing them for better paying offers in 3 to 7 years. Actually their current jobs may have better earning potential, less pressure, and more realistic expectations. Money aside, why would they leave the current security of programs with bright futures? UCLA's past success, boosters, and competition for fans might be too risky for these guys.

(4) A winning successful program builder good recruiter from a smaller program wanting to improve their pay, and put their stamp on rebuilding the program. Coaches that lack program identity, and UCLA would be considered the marquee program identity, with CA familiarity, and good with boosters. No names were used as examples, but the way they described this category, it was exactly how Rahe and Tinkle are categorized.

He said the reality of the UCLA job now the likely new hire will come from categories 2 and 4 most likely. 1 and 4 is possible, but would take a coach willing to gamble on a challenge and be able to comfortably put aside earning potential in favor of prestige.

I wish I had heard the whole interview, because the 10 minutes I heard were very insightful. The perception and the reality of the UCLA job are not what many think. Finances and their past, are hurting them and other CA schools more than it helps. He also said the USC job is pretty much the same situation minus the history.

Feel free to add to this. I hope someone familiar with the CA university system can expand more on this.
 
mtgrizrule said:
Back to the subject at hand.

I was driving home from work tonight. I listened to the College Sports Network. I tuned into an interview with some college basketball guru, that had started before I listened. Sorry not sure who it was, or what more was said before I was listening.

In a nutshell, he broke down the UCLA coaching position very well in the following categories.
(1) Big Name coaches (Petino, Donovan, etc)- This is what the alumni want. Reality is, no way in hell it happens, unless a big name coach wants the challenge. The way the California school structure is for State schools severely limit's a coaches earning power here. Maybe someone in the know in CA can explain this better. Plus the state is not too happy with eating Howland's contract as is. The state of CA system does not have the funds or power to cater to UCLA only.

(2) Quality assistants in the NBA or at major programs chomping at the bit to be the head man with some great program recognition. Examples were Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Brian Shaw.

(3) Well established mid major coaches who are proven NCAA winners. Example Smart, Stevens/Stephens, and Few (VCU, Butler, and Gonzaga) would make everyone happy, and be perfect fits. However, the fear would be losing them for better paying offers in 3 to 7 years. Actually their current jobs may have better earning potential, less pressure, and more realistic expectations. Money aside, why would they leave the current security of programs with bright futures? UCLA's past success, boosters, and competition for fans might be too risky for these guys.

(4) A winning successful program builder good recruiter from a smaller program wanting to improve their pay, and put their stamp on rebuilding the program. Coaches that lack program identity, and UCLA would be considered the marquee program identity, with CA familiarity, and good with boosters. No names were used as examples, but the way they described this category, it was exactly how Rahe and Tinkle are categorized.

He said the reality of the UCLA job now the likely new hire will come from categories 2 and 4 most likely. 1 and 4 is possible, but would take a coach willing to gamble on a challenge and be able to comfortably put aside earning potential in favor of prestige.

I wish I had heard the whole interview, because the 10 minutes I heard were very insightful. The perception and the reality of the UCLA job are not what many think. Finances and their past, are hurting them and other CA schools more than it helps. He also said the USC job is pretty much the same situation minus the history.

Feel free to add to this. I hope someone familiar with the CA university system can expand more on this.
Money not a problem at either UCLA or USC...in fact, it might be a problem of too much from too many!
 
Back
Top