Coaching Carousel

[mtgrizrule]

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!

Apparently I might have misunderstood the interview regarding the money aspect of the jobs. I did clearly understand the emphasis being the perception and reality of the job are not close to being the same. I did interpret that booster support might be a little overwhelming influence in this process, and needs to be addressed at some point in time, preferably soon.

Does that mean, the boosters are overstepping some boundaries, and trying to have little too much power, with a few too many boosters trying to have a say in the UCLA and USC jobs?

 

[GrizLA]

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!

Apparently I might have misunderstood the interview regarding the money aspect of the jobs. I did clearly understand the emphasis being the perception and reality of the job are not close to being the same. I did interpret that booster support might be a little overwhelming influence in this process, and needs to be addressed at some point in time, preferably soon.

Does that mean, the boosters are overstepping some boundaries, and trying to have little too much power, with a few too many boosters trying to have a say in the UCLA and USC jobs?

Not sure but both schools are reeling from big changes..UCLA is becoming more and more international and I would not be surprised to see foreign players showing up. Both schools are very concerned about boundaries, and caution is the key word. I know more USC donors and fans that are not happy with the football coach and they have actually talked to the previous basketball coach, Floyd, who left Dodge when things got tough....I don't see either being impressed by UM's past tournament performances. fortunately, the game was not seen by anyone I know, or they are being polite.. Frankly, the real emphasis in Westwood is the football program...SC is focused on Basketball....strange times we live in. Neither school has financial troubles. I have never seen a media story that is not wrong about the actuality of the UC system or SC....they are healthy but the expectations are probably too high for now.

 

[Gaeilge1]

I thought USC was a private institution anyway. If that is the case why would they be subject to the Univerisity of California system's pay scale?

 

[GrizLA]

I thought USC was a private institution anyway. If that is the case why would they be subject to the Univerisity of California system's pay scale?

it is private...not subject to UC system..but they are subject to conference and NCAA bylaws, plus unbelievable booster and donor interests. The AD at USC has to be one of the toughest jobs in the country.

 

[GrizDDS]

Not long ago some people were up in arms about UCLA offering P-Diddy's son a scholarship to play cornerback, I think it was. This happened in the climate of budget shortfalls, tuition raises, student protests, etc. UCLA basically shot it down by saying that their athletic dept is almost entirely run on private money and that no public money is used for football scholarships.

 

[mtgrizrule]

Florida Gulf Coast, Coach, Andy Enfield to USC. One great NCAA tournament run, and wham huge pay raise with a major school. That goes to show how quickly a coach can go, when they have a run like that.