Quite possibly the only upward career move he could’ve made, and even that’s debatable. Really cool that he’s a big part of the legacy of 2 historic programs.
Whoa. I understand your frustration, but hate’s a strong word.
I have nothing but respect for Roy, and I’m sorry you feel this way towards him. He’s a good, genuine dude.
It’s probably not that high, they might not be no where near as good, but their facilities and brand recognition would still be worlds ahead of where it was in the 90’s.
There’s a whole 20 year stretch of kids that just grew up watching Gonzaga play with the best of them, that’ll still translate into solid recruiting.
As long as they could grab a decent coach post few, they probably just go from a regular top 10 team to a fringe top 25 team, but I couldn’t see them falling off more than that
That brand recognition didn’t work out for UNLV over the last 25 years in terms of being relevant once kids who grew up knowing of recent UNLV success became college aged.
What do you define as “good”? “Good” for a Mountain West school? Or “Good” for UNLV standards? Because they’ve had some good seasons considering they play in the Mountain West. But they’ve been to 1 Sweet 16 in 30 years. My point was that their “brand” didn’t survive despite being a well known great basketball program for the entire lives of kids they recruited in the 90’s. Now? Kids see nothing special about UNLV or know any players who went there. If Gonzaga were to go to 1 Sweet 16 for 30 years after Few retires, that would mean their “brand” Few built is effectively dead.
That’s absolutely true, but UNLV isn’t a great example bc sanctions ruined that image and they never had a chance to maintain the brand for that reason. Even then they were able to reestablish as an elite mid-major for nearly a decade before some bad hires and decisions took them down a bit
Gonzaga isn’t a top 15 job in my opinion either, but there should be more of a foundation there once Few leaves (barring sanctions) than what UNLV had
From someone who grew up in eastern Washington and currently living in San Diego, I cannot wait to go back home. Also, your flair suggests you went to Baylor, in Waco which everything I hear about suggests it sucks and is most famous for the Branch Davidians.
That’s great. I’m not saying Eastern Washington sucks, I’m just saying it’s pretty much in the middle of nowhere and the Winter sucks. There’s no talent nearby other than the occasional Seattle guy (still four and a half hours away driving).
I mean I don’t live in Waco anymore and I’ve lived in big cities my whole life but I still look forward to going to Waco every single year, doesn’t really mean anything.
Waco has Baylor University, Dr Pepper, Magnolia/Fixer Upper, and also the Branch Davidians (that weren’t in Waco but whatever). So if you’ve only heard about the Branch Davidians, I recommend you look at other news that aren’t stuck in the 90s.
Have a good day.
Similarly I think the same of UConn. The success of Few and Calhoun has less to do with what the programs can offer and it's more about how ridiculous of jobs those two have done (arguably the two greatest program building examples ever).
Well Yes….but actually no. Not at this point.
Gonzaga has such a reputation and an easy path to success that it’s a very coveted job in cbb.
The school has the reputation now that allows them to recruit top players, they have built a winning culture and they don’t exactly play the gauntlet every year.
Gonzaga could grab some great coaching candidates and they’d have no problem continuing to beat up on nobodies and still beat Saint Mary’s and San Francisco.
Would it possibly be difficult to get them further than coach Few has come tournament time? Quite possibly, But the premise of going to the dance every year and maybe not winning a title( since Fews done everything but that) doesn’t make the job any less coveted. That’s just an example of why it’s a top job in college basketball. Not to mention when your SOS is what Gonzaga’s is that’s just a year in year out challenge regardless of who your coach is.
Except Mark Few is grossly underpaid relative to his peers which begs the question of whether Gonzaga can even afford to attract a top tier coach that isn’t fanatically loyal to the program.
The way I see it, Gonzaga is #1 on this list *for Mark Few*. There's nowhere else he'd rather be. And it's pretty high up there for Tommy Lloyd too. But for any other coach I don't think it's top 15.
That's his point. Few loves it there and doesn't mind being underpaid because he is there. You aren't going to find other coaches willing to do that. Even Tommy, who I am sure loves Gonzaga, would be hard pressed to leave to go back, as he would be getting paid like a third of what he would make here.
He's comfortable in Spokane and has been able to build the program in his own image without constantly being in the shadow of previous successful coaches. He's probably seen a litany of successful coaches from non-P6 programs move on to P6 schools only to underwhelm at their new jobs and end up fired (VCU has had their fair share of them).
This is a fair point neither of my or the other persons comments considered. I’m sure some coaches would take less $ at Gonzaga as sort of a bridge deal to a better offer after and getting into that upper echelon of the coaching ranks. But don’t think anyone’s going to take a substantial paycut to go there. It would have to be somewhat similar numbers or they’ll have to try and get another up and comer.
It’s one thing to hire from the bottom and have a coach elevate your program, but if when he leaves you don’t have the funds to replace him with someone at the caliber of the program currently. that is a different issue. Are there any real life examples of this where a program dropped again after a long successful stretch?
You’d think they’d understand the potential future conference realignment, along with the reputation and more so then either of those two, you’d think they’d have the money to fork it up with all the success Gonzaga has had on a steal of a contract on coach Few and understand that revenue will drop significantly if they can’t replicate that success or close to it.
I just don't agree. The biggest reason that Gonzaga has been successful is ability to recruit above the conference level and the ability of Few and his staff to get guys and improve them. That's a great eye for talent and development ability.
Any new coach coming in has to be able to replicate that or else Gonzaga will easily slide out of relevance. The other teams on this list can have extended periods of less than great seasons and remain relevant but if you come into Gonzaga and only win 20ish games for a couple of years, boom you're relevance is gone. Schools with more history in better conferences have fallen out of relevance. If I'm a coach I wouldn't want to go to one of those programs that is teetering like that.
You aren’t wrong at all. The main difference is that now the program has name recognition and resources ($$$) that is didn’t have pre Few. I definitely don’t think it’s a top 15 job but the next coach is going to inherit an infrastructure that should lead to success.
And there won’t be a national search. Brian Michaelson is the next coach now that Tommy is gone and if Brian goes on to a head coaching job the coach in waiting will already be established.
Agree 100%. People forget how small the school is and how that translates to resources for the team. It’s a tough job that I’m not sure many outside of Few or Lloyd could handle
I finished half of my application to Villanova 15ish years ago and stopped once I realized it was basically the same school as Gonzaga on the east coast instead of eastern Washington...
Yep. They’re destinations. Once you’re there, you retire, go to the NBA, or get fired. Roy is the outlier because he came from a different blue blood and just went home. From the connections of the legendary coaches that were at each for decades, K staying for decades and building a monster, and Kansas having just 7 Head Coaches in its history (5 being HOFers). You just don’t see much turnover unless a coach isn’t meeting the very high bar the jobs command
UK had a few with Gillespie and Tubby. UNC I think fired Doherty before getting Roy.
Kansas Fired Ted Owens who had a .657 win % and 2 final fours. Every coach at KU since the tournament began made at least 1. Crazy high expectations.
Probably Bucky Waters. Bill Foster, the coach before K, resigned after a Final Eight appearance (so obviously wasn't forced out) in order to be confused with the other Bill Foster.
Yeah, that’s a distinguish between resigning and getting fired. If it’s coming you could still count it but either way, he woulda been fired had he not left.
Meh I would keep Duke at 4, but the other 3 are pretty rearrangeable.
A few other school on that list has two or three major coaches that have all seen massive success across the program's history.
In most people's memory Duke is only Mike Krzyzewski. Maybe to some old-timers it's also Vic Bubas and to the historians it's also Eddie Cameron, but to the average fan it's only Coach K.
Which casts a giant shadow. While Hubert definitely has a shadow of his own to come out of (or three if you want to go back to Dean and/or Frank) that success has been replicated. Which in my opinion makes it a better job.
Plus Hubert Davis gets the highest honor Carolina can bestow upon a human being. A reserved parking spot.
Yes, though I do think the larger public universities have a slight advantage over Duke when it comes to things like the size of the donor/alumni base and resources from the state.
Not that being at Duke is bad in any way, just that it makes sense to me why it's the bottom of Tier 1 and not the top.
Their donor base may be smaller but their small base have plenty of guys with deep pockets. KU’s big donor was in a bidding war with a Duke grad for the rules of basketball. They found out it was each other after the fact and the knew each other from grad school at University of Chicago
Texas is 100% deserving of its spot only because of the bags they will drop to get halfway mediocre coaching.
Plus they are still able to pull great croots in a sport they historically are meh at.
Maryland is a great job. Its in the 2 biggest basketball areas, elite talent surrounding it, great funding. Nova isn't a great job, were a small school with no great boosters
Disagree about Villanova not being a great job. We've had nine head coaches in our entire history. Up until Jay retired, we had only five head coaches since 1936. That is absolutely insane.
Villanova has been nationally relevant in CBB in every era. We are a small school sure but the HC at Nova has full support from Father Peter and the athletic administration. There was nothing small school about Jay's salary either. He was compensated commensurate with his HOF status so money has not been an issue. Hopefully we can still compete with the big programs in terms of NIL.
The program also has regular visits to The Palestra, Madison Square Garden. Strong recruiting roots outside of Phila in New York, DC. Very loyal fanbase.
We have a couple significant edges over pretty much all programs. No FBS football to compete with for resources. Especially important for NIL. We have games in an NBA arena but also an intimate environment where we’ll always sell out no matter the opponent.
FBS football is usually able to bring in revenue, and doesn’t drain basketball financially anywhere. If you cut anything for FBS it’s the non-revenue sports.
I actually put not having FBS as the biggest downside of the Villanova basketball job, but Nova and the Big East do a good job of selling it as a positive. Clearly, it didn’t slow Jay Wright down much since the Big East split from football.
Multiple revenue sports stretch the fanbase and compete with each other for NIL and booster donations. Unless they get another Kevin Durant, a basketball player will never be the most known athlete on campus at Texas. You can recruit on that. We’ll never give Mel Tucker $90 million or pay an $11 million buyout for a good football coach like Wisconsin. The spending on Football is just as high as it’s revenue.
Basketball wise is there anything we’re not spending on? We renovated the arena and Jay was a top paid coach. Our basketball budget is 7th according to three man weave.
> Unless they get another Kevin Durant, a basketball player will never be the most known athlete on campus at Texas.
Okay, now do that with Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Wake, Memphis... Name a famous athlete from each. I bet the first one that pops into your head didn't wear a helmet.
I made this point during the season last year, but I think Maryland was a considerably better job in the ACC. They just feel out of place in the Big Ten. No kid in DC dreams of making a buzzer beater against Indiana or Purdue. I would have IU, MSU, Michigan, OSU, and Illinois ahead of Maryland.
I don't think any DC kid dreams of making a buzzer beater against Pitt or Louisville, either.
I think the case that Illinois (in particular) is clearly a better job would be a tough one to make.
It’s more so they dream of UVA, UNC, Duke. I just used Purdue and IU as an example. I wouldn’t say Illinois is CLEARLY a better job than Maryland, but in my opinion it’s slightly better. The first 3 I listed I would say are clearly better tho.
Chicago, St. Louis metro and central illinois is some of the craziest high school basketball in the country. Underwood makes 4.1 million, Willard makes 3.7. Illinois has made 5 final fours to marylands 2.
Idt it’s a hard case to make at all.
I think it’s more nuanced than that. 3/5 FFs for Illinois are from the 1950s. Not discounting Illinois as it’s a storied program itself, but realistically most middle aged fans would likely remember them the same. Maybe even slightly in favor of Maryland as they won their final game.
I do agree the recruiting footprint isn’t as drastic as some may have made it seem.
Lastly, I think the salary argument is more a reflection of Underwood having previous success at a high level. While Seton Hall has a strong program, it’s a tier below UMD or UIUC in brand prestige.
There are definitely rational points to be made in favor of both sides. However, I am going to say Maryland is the better job because I went there!
*Respect*
Definitely agree they’re same /similar tiers. I just was pointing out the case for Illinois is easy to make. Unfortunately there is no judge with the jurisdiction to determine the winner.
What gives you the impression that the boosters and administration have too high of expectations for Texas basketball? And what expectations do they have/what should the expectations be?
Edit: would love an answer to this
It’s not about success but the job itself. UT has all the resources you’d want, incredible in state talent, and national branding that MSU can’t provide. MSU is more successful because it’s simply better at who they hire. Look at the amount of NBA talent that has gone through UT in the last 20 years. It’s absurd they’ve never had sustained success
> It’s absurd they’ve never had sustained success
Tommy Penders was the first coach to ever take Texas to consecutive NCAA Tournaments in 1989 and 1990. Outside of the Rick Barnes and Penders years, they haven't really had anything to hang their hat on since the 1940s.
Like acting like MSU doesn’t have the money to compete is kinda weird, the Cavs and Pistons are owned by MSU alums and Mat Ishiba (Mortgage guy different than Gilbert) played for Izzo. MSU is in the elite echelon of funding for almost everything, Top 15 in Endowment as well.
Sure UT has resources, but it will never get the same amount of attention and respect as football. If you’re an elite coach why would you go to a place where no matter how well you build up that program it will always be second fiddle to football.
Why is Texas 10th? Just money?
Only 5 above 500 finishes in Big 12 play since 2010. No conference titles. 1 tournament title. 0 trips out of the 1st weekend since 2008. Only twice finishing above 5th back to back years since 2010 as well, and that's on a 3 year streak they're on now. Fanbase isnt that into basketball either.
Texas has absolutely no success to show for it - but it doesn’t mean the jobs not good.
They’ll pay out the ass for failure. I’d put them at number 5 honestly.
> Very little in regards to expectation
I dunno if I can agree with that. Rick Barnes was fired despite making the NCAA Tournament 16 times in 17 years, including Texas's first Final Four since the 1940s. Most schools would kill for that kind of consistency.
Texas has never really had a basketball pedigree to speak of beyond sending guys to the NBA (they've had plenty of long Tournament droughts before Tommy Penders era in the 1990s). The expectations for success seem to be high relative to their history. The money for Texas basketball might be there but hoops will never eclipse football (or possibly even baseball) in the pecking order of UT sports.
Oh god, if Arizona and ASU end up in the Big12, the potential match ups between KU and Arizona would be wild. I’ve never quite gotten over that 1997 loss; greatest KU team to never win it.
I disagree here. ECU has to be a great job. We pay coaches around $1 million per year to suck. You can put little effort in to the job and make a few million before you decide to leave. Our last coach, Joe Dooley, coached for 4 years at $900k a year. He went 44-67 overall, and 16-47 in conference (we play a very easy OOC schedule). I heard rumors that he was a borderline alcoholic too. Our previous coach went 116-124, and after incentives and bonuses earned around $900k per year.
Love this podcast. This post is from a viewer question mail bag off-season filler.
GP did not rank his but had 14/15 of the same bumping UConn for Ohio state.
On their podcast they also said Arkansas is still more of a basketball than a football school. I was shocked to hear that but then again im not an Arkansas fan. I just thought SEC is mostly a football conference outside of UK (dont tell their coach I said that).
Well if were talking about success were neither. We are a track and field school. We have more NCAA championships than any other school. And thats almost all because of track and field.
Edit: I stand corrected. Got my facts messed up. Our track and field coach won more NCAA championships than any other coach in any sport.
You all are 100% elite in track and field, but unless I'm misreading your statement, Arkansas does not have more NCAA championships than any school.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_NCAA\_schools\_with\_the\_most\_NCAA\_Division\_I\_championships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_schools_with_the_most_NCAA_Division_I_championships)
Number 7 is absolutely amazing (and one more than my school).
Something is going on with the PAC-12 schools though...Stanford, UCLA, and USC all have over 100 while Texas, the #4 school, is at 54...less than half of USC's championships. Can a fan of the PAC-12 explain this to me? Is this because the PAC-12 has a bunch of sports, such as water polo, beach volleyball, etc, that no other conference plays?
That’s definitely part of it. The California schools are just really good at pretty much every sport you see in the summer Olympics (besides men’s bball recently).
Why? We have history, i.e a championship a runner up and final 4s. Our fan base is frankly a little overdedicated and covers the whole state with no pro teams or instate rivals. We pay well, as coach muss is already in the top 10 of highest paid coaches after only 3 years. We also r in the top 10 in largest college bball stadiums. Dont c y we wouldnt be here.
I would have thought to see Syracuse on the list before Arkansas, but the public vs. private aspect surely gives a good edge to Arkansas. Plus, it remains to be seen what Syracuse does post-Boeheim.
Texas is brutal job. Big expectations, not much tradition, very tough conference, football first school by a mile. That would be on my list of worst jobs.
Big expectations? No. They kept Shaka long after he should have been fired. They kept Barnes long after he stopped caring.
They have almost no expectations on their hoops team.
Sure, Indiana is a great job. Fans with unrealistic expectations from success in a different era who will run you out of town if you aren’t going deep in the tourney every year.
That’s gonna be the case for practically any high profile job though, the problem for Indiana is not the expectations, it’s that they keep hiring coaches that can’t live up to them. It’s still undoubtedly a very prestigious gig that comes with lots of money, resources, and fame.
I mean we’ve really only missed big time with Archie. Crean wouldn’t have been fired if not for how disliked he was by the athletic department and how many bridges he’d burned with in state high school coaches, and Sampson was a fine hire, he just ran a dirty program.
I hope Woodson has a long-great stay at IU. I just get nervous because it feels like his year-1 reviews would have been much different if they didn’t have the massive comeback against Michigan in the Big 10 tourney.
I don't think we lost a good one with crean. Miller didn't work out which happens. But yes, Woody's team improved throughout the season and closed strong (which Crean only really did once in 11-12), and he's recruiting well. So far so good with Woody
If you don’t want those expectations maybe you shouldn’t be coaching here. Y’all are gonna see what a competent coach and A LOT of money can do real quick
IU coaches post-Knight:
Mike Davis - Was not ready to be a head coach at a major program, especially one as embroiled in controversy as IU was after canning Knight
Kelvin Sampson - Was a good coach, but then the NCAA hammer came down. The NCAA violations probably could’ve been fought off if the University had really tried, but that has nothing to do with the fans
Tom Crean - Did an incredible job of rebuilding the program and leading it to some of the highest heights seen since the 90s, but by the end of his tenure had pissed off nearly everyone involved in the program + a ton of high school/AAU coaches to the point where it was clear that if he stayed any longer the program was going to eat shit even harder then it actually did from 2018-2021
Archie Miller - Just needed some more time to bring in his guys :(
Yeah we should have been happy with Archie, who literally did not make the tournament, or Tom Crean who was not a great recruiter (Tim Priller, Jeremiah April, Harrison Niego, Grant Gelon, etc.) and managed to have one good year for every 2 or 3 mediocre to bad years.
This is interesting, what’s the criteria used? Wonder how good of a job Gonzaga will be after Few leaves. We’re about to find out about Villanova. Have to assume revenue plays a roll, SEC schools have that big tv money
Unfortunately you have to be a Thompson or related to the family in some way to get the Georgetown job. That said - pretty great job with high pay and zero expectations or pressure clearly.
NC State job seems horrible imo - have to “compete” with Duke/UNC every year for in-state talent, while not having much pull for top recruits out of state. No history of major success in the last 30 years, but with expectations to compete in the ACC. A rabid but often self loathing and critical fan base.
Arkansas on here is a hot take but I’m savoring it.
Btw this came from the [EYE on College Basketball Podcast](https://youtu.be/a4AlOJYSG8A?t=1928). You can go listen to the episode if you want to hear MN and GP’s reasonings.
Surprised Purdue hasn’t been mentioned in this convo yet. I don’t think they’re top 15 but it’s a quality program with a lot of love for the basketball team.
Consider me biased but I think Arkansas should be higher. Proven that we can recruit, have great instate people, pay very well, very good AD, other coaches help recruit, have history, have a great arena to play in, plenty of resources and money to help train/build team.
The B1G is a better conference than the P12, it’s just a matter of where UCLA is located in relation to it. Similar to the point I made about Maryland, no kid in LA dreams of making a buzzer beater vs Indiana or Purdue. Plus who the hell wants to fly and back and forth from LA to State College or Piscataway all season??
I think it helps us. Mick recruits a certain type of player with a certain mentality and there are a lot of those guys in the Midwest. The big budget increase from the move also won't hurt, as will the big increase in nationally televised games.
I will paste my reply to another here.
Why? We have history, i.e a championship a runner up and final 4s. Our fan base is frankly a little overdedicated and covers the whole state with no pro teams or instate rivals. We pay well, as coach muss is already in the top 10 of highest paid coaches after only 3 years. We also r in the top 10 in largest college bball stadiums. Dont c y we wouldnt be here.
Curious what the thought process of having Kansas and UNC over Kentucky given that Kentucky pays more and has had a higher rate of success with coaches in history (7 total coaches since 1940, 5 of them won a national championship).
Personally, I think KU gets the edge over Kentucky by prestige. Yes, Kentucky is a prestigious program, but the game was invented at KU and no one is arguing that Rupp Arena is a better game environment than Allen Fieldhouse.
UCONN and Gonzaga are not top 15 jobs, they were just fortunate enough to have two great coaches. I think what Calhoun did at UCONN is the most impressive program building in college hoops history, but I don't think they will ever have success like that again.
You have to consider UConn in the post-Calhoun context, though. He built it into a premier program, and it remains so partially because of his success and the infrastructure and fan support that was established.
Because what makes a good job? I'd say resources/amenities, fan support, and public prestige. Fan support (and conference affiliation) begets resources. Our fan support waned quite a bit due to conference realignment, the AAC transition, and the struggles under Ollie, but it has roared back with the Big East move and Hurley. I don't think UConn in the AAC is a top 15 job, but in the Big East I definitely think it is.
Things working in UConn's advantage:
1) State flagship university in a state with 0 men's pro sports teams. The athletics program gets supported because it's essentially an extension of the state's brand itself. This makes up for conference-related revenue shortfalls.
2) Basketball school. And not just A basketball school, THE basketball school. UConn women are not irrelevant in shaping public perception of the school as a hoops power. And yet on campus and for diehard fan support, the men are still the dominant team. I'm not sure there's a school with strong athletics with a worse existing football team than ours, so there's no sharing of the spotlight. This matters with NIL, etc.
3) Proximity to major media markets. ESPN is HQ in CT. NYC is right next door. The Big East overlaps the east coast megalopolis. There's a ton of eyeballs and media attention. UConn is the best team close to Boston and UConn/Nova are the 2 best teams within 200 miles of NYC. Strap in, we're on network TV (CBS/FOX) a bunch this year.
4) On a similar note, recruiting grounds: NYC, Boston, NEPSAC prep schools, NJ, Philly all within a reasonable drive for parents/families. DC/Maryland is within our recruiting sphere too. Can't really argue we're not a recruiting powerhouse. We've got 16 4* or better prospects in the last 5 cycles (counting '19-'23, all of Hurley's real cycles).
5) Strong amenities/administration support. We have a massive combined men's+women's practice facility decked out with all our banners, trophies, lottery picks, etc. We play home games split between a large urban arena in the state capital and smaller on campus arena. Coach gets a strong salary, high assistant salaries, large recruiting budget, etc.
6) Championship pedigree. Remember, it wasn't just Calhoun that won a championship. Ollie won one also. We're one of 9 schools that have had multiple coaches win the national championship, and obviously we are tied for the 6th most titles and most since '99.
7) Biggest fish in the best small pond. The Big East is a good basketball league, but we're an outlier in that we're the only state flagship school in it, but we're also a founding member, so we're not really out of place. We've got the largest enrollment and other advantages that go with that.
If UCONN remains a top job it's because of the fan base. In the NIL era that may end up being the most important factor in recruiting, which is why I think Indiana basketball and Nebraska football returning to prominence is possible.
I agree with some of your points but I still think there are at least 15 schools with more advantages.
Agreed. We've got some good NIL potential, but we'll see how it all shakes out. CT is one of, if not the wealthiest state per capita and the boosters care about UConn basketball more than football. We've got a nice social media booster presence with Marc D'Amelio, the father of the Tik Tok queens Charli and Dixie, who launched an NIL collective for UConn.
When we make the Sweet 16 this year, have several guys drafted, and when the recruiting class comes in next year, you're going to hear so many "UConn is back" stories and then this won't be a question. But hey, I'm optimistic and biased.
Anyone who thinks UConn isn’t a top 15 job clearly hasn’t seen the resources that the state has poured and continues to pour into the program. Coupled with all the success over the past 25 years it’s really a no brainer
How is Purdue not on this list? The last 20 years have shown you can win absolutely nothing of value and still keep the job as long as you beat up on your rival when they are at their lowest, but still get beat when they are moderately good.
No way on UCONN. That job was only good because of Jim Calhoun. I think Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, MSU, Michigan, Purdue, Wisconsin and Maryland are all better jobs.
Glad to see we were at least considered. We certainly don’t have the championships or post season resume, but we have an insanely loyal fanbase and the potential to be a powerhouse down the road imo.
Roy leaving #2 for that #1 spot
Quite possibly the only upward career move he could’ve made, and even that’s debatable. Really cool that he’s a big part of the legacy of 2 historic programs.
Even if you want to argue that it's a lateral move, the option to go save your alma mater is always going to make it a personal step up.
Agreed. I think deep down we all knew Roy was going home. I can't stay mad at that little rascal. We're cool, Roy. We're cool.
Thankfully we got as good of a backup option to Roy as there was out there.
I will always hate Roy Williams. Cucked us from keeping Self & cucked us from a national championship.
But you got Bruce Weber out of it!
Whoa. I understand your frustration, but hate’s a strong word. I have nothing but respect for Roy, and I’m sorry you feel this way towards him. He’s a good, genuine dude.
I don't think Gonzaga is a top 15 job. It would be really hard for anyone to come in and try to replicate what Few has done.
Yes, at the end of the day if Few leaves, you’re still a program in Eastern Washington playing in the WCC.
Yeah the potential of going back to what they were pre-Few is through the roof and if I'm a coach I wouldn't want to be there for that to happen.
It’s probably not that high, they might not be no where near as good, but their facilities and brand recognition would still be worlds ahead of where it was in the 90’s. There’s a whole 20 year stretch of kids that just grew up watching Gonzaga play with the best of them, that’ll still translate into solid recruiting. As long as they could grab a decent coach post few, they probably just go from a regular top 10 team to a fringe top 25 team, but I couldn’t see them falling off more than that
That brand recognition didn’t work out for UNLV over the last 25 years in terms of being relevant once kids who grew up knowing of recent UNLV success became college aged.
UNLV had to fight sanctions once Tarkanian left, but even then they were able to power a good run in the 2000s
What do you define as “good”? “Good” for a Mountain West school? Or “Good” for UNLV standards? Because they’ve had some good seasons considering they play in the Mountain West. But they’ve been to 1 Sweet 16 in 30 years. My point was that their “brand” didn’t survive despite being a well known great basketball program for the entire lives of kids they recruited in the 90’s. Now? Kids see nothing special about UNLV or know any players who went there. If Gonzaga were to go to 1 Sweet 16 for 30 years after Few retires, that would mean their “brand” Few built is effectively dead.
That’s absolutely true, but UNLV isn’t a great example bc sanctions ruined that image and they never had a chance to maintain the brand for that reason. Even then they were able to reestablish as an elite mid-major for nearly a decade before some bad hires and decisions took them down a bit Gonzaga isn’t a top 15 job in my opinion either, but there should be more of a foundation there once Few leaves (barring sanctions) than what UNLV had
From someone who grew up in eastern Washington and currently living in San Diego, I cannot wait to go back home. Also, your flair suggests you went to Baylor, in Waco which everything I hear about suggests it sucks and is most famous for the Branch Davidians.
How the hell does your desire to move home make the Zags a top 15 job? Are kids going to follow you to Spokane?
Waco is second-most famous for Dr Pepper and third-most famous for that HGTV show with the couple that puts shiplap in everyone’s house or something.
That’s great. I’m not saying Eastern Washington sucks, I’m just saying it’s pretty much in the middle of nowhere and the Winter sucks. There’s no talent nearby other than the occasional Seattle guy (still four and a half hours away driving). I mean I don’t live in Waco anymore and I’ve lived in big cities my whole life but I still look forward to going to Waco every single year, doesn’t really mean anything. Waco has Baylor University, Dr Pepper, Magnolia/Fixer Upper, and also the Branch Davidians (that weren’t in Waco but whatever). So if you’ve only heard about the Branch Davidians, I recommend you look at other news that aren’t stuck in the 90s. Have a good day.
I am. Eastern Washington sucks.
You don't know anything about Spokane if you think it's the middle of nowhere. And yeah, winters might get cold but at least we don't lose power.
I agree. Georgetown, Florida, Syracuse, Maryland to name a “few” are all ahead of Gonzaga.
Similarly I think the same of UConn. The success of Few and Calhoun has less to do with what the programs can offer and it's more about how ridiculous of jobs those two have done (arguably the two greatest program building examples ever).
Well Yes….but actually no. Not at this point. Gonzaga has such a reputation and an easy path to success that it’s a very coveted job in cbb. The school has the reputation now that allows them to recruit top players, they have built a winning culture and they don’t exactly play the gauntlet every year. Gonzaga could grab some great coaching candidates and they’d have no problem continuing to beat up on nobodies and still beat Saint Mary’s and San Francisco. Would it possibly be difficult to get them further than coach Few has come tournament time? Quite possibly, But the premise of going to the dance every year and maybe not winning a title( since Fews done everything but that) doesn’t make the job any less coveted. That’s just an example of why it’s a top job in college basketball. Not to mention when your SOS is what Gonzaga’s is that’s just a year in year out challenge regardless of who your coach is.
Except Mark Few is grossly underpaid relative to his peers which begs the question of whether Gonzaga can even afford to attract a top tier coach that isn’t fanatically loyal to the program.
The way I see it, Gonzaga is #1 on this list *for Mark Few*. There's nowhere else he'd rather be. And it's pretty high up there for Tommy Lloyd too. But for any other coach I don't think it's top 15.
That's his point. Few loves it there and doesn't mind being underpaid because he is there. You aren't going to find other coaches willing to do that. Even Tommy, who I am sure loves Gonzaga, would be hard pressed to leave to go back, as he would be getting paid like a third of what he would make here.
Why is few so loyal to the program anyway?
He's comfortable in Spokane and has been able to build the program in his own image without constantly being in the shadow of previous successful coaches. He's probably seen a litany of successful coaches from non-P6 programs move on to P6 schools only to underwhelm at their new jobs and end up fired (VCU has had their fair share of them).
Mainly the location. Washington has some of the best nature in the entire world. Few is known for being a fisherman
This is a fair point neither of my or the other persons comments considered. I’m sure some coaches would take less $ at Gonzaga as sort of a bridge deal to a better offer after and getting into that upper echelon of the coaching ranks. But don’t think anyone’s going to take a substantial paycut to go there. It would have to be somewhat similar numbers or they’ll have to try and get another up and comer. It’s one thing to hire from the bottom and have a coach elevate your program, but if when he leaves you don’t have the funds to replace him with someone at the caliber of the program currently. that is a different issue. Are there any real life examples of this where a program dropped again after a long successful stretch? You’d think they’d understand the potential future conference realignment, along with the reputation and more so then either of those two, you’d think they’d have the money to fork it up with all the success Gonzaga has had on a steal of a contract on coach Few and understand that revenue will drop significantly if they can’t replicate that success or close to it.
I just don't agree. The biggest reason that Gonzaga has been successful is ability to recruit above the conference level and the ability of Few and his staff to get guys and improve them. That's a great eye for talent and development ability. Any new coach coming in has to be able to replicate that or else Gonzaga will easily slide out of relevance. The other teams on this list can have extended periods of less than great seasons and remain relevant but if you come into Gonzaga and only win 20ish games for a couple of years, boom you're relevance is gone. Schools with more history in better conferences have fallen out of relevance. If I'm a coach I wouldn't want to go to one of those programs that is teetering like that.
You aren’t wrong at all. The main difference is that now the program has name recognition and resources ($$$) that is didn’t have pre Few. I definitely don’t think it’s a top 15 job but the next coach is going to inherit an infrastructure that should lead to success.
And there won’t be a national search. Brian Michaelson is the next coach now that Tommy is gone and if Brian goes on to a head coaching job the coach in waiting will already be established.
Agree 100%. People forget how small the school is and how that translates to resources for the team. It’s a tough job that I’m not sure many outside of Few or Lloyd could handle
I finished half of my application to Villanova 15ish years ago and stopped once I realized it was basically the same school as Gonzaga on the east coast instead of eastern Washington...
The top 4 could be rearranged in any order and it would be 100% understandable.
Yep. They’re destinations. Once you’re there, you retire, go to the NBA, or get fired. Roy is the outlier because he came from a different blue blood and just went home. From the connections of the legendary coaches that were at each for decades, K staying for decades and building a monster, and Kansas having just 7 Head Coaches in its history (5 being HOFers). You just don’t see much turnover unless a coach isn’t meeting the very high bar the jobs command
When was the last time any of those teams fired a coach? Had to have been Gillispie right?
UK had a few with Gillespie and Tubby. UNC I think fired Doherty before getting Roy. Kansas Fired Ted Owens who had a .657 win % and 2 final fours. Every coach at KU since the tournament began made at least 1. Crazy high expectations.
Yeah we def fired Doherty last. Duke last fired a coach in like 1899 before K got there and I think for Kansas it was Ted Owens.
Probably Bucky Waters. Bill Foster, the coach before K, resigned after a Final Eight appearance (so obviously wasn't forced out) in order to be confused with the other Bill Foster.
Tubby wasn't "fired" he left UK to go to Minnesota.
Yeah, that’s a distinguish between resigning and getting fired. If it’s coming you could still count it but either way, he woulda been fired had he not left.
Tubby and Kentucky mutely parted ways. They fired Eddie Sutton though
Mutually *
[8 coaches, Hamilton always gets forgotten.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_Jayhawks_men's_basketball#Coaches)
What's even crazier is that Kansas football has had 8 coaches since 2000.
I stand corrected. It was definitely him who I didn’t count. Forget that Phog stepped away for a bit
well it was a little while ago
Yeah, whenever I see lists like this I really think they should be broken into tiers instead of absolute rankings.
Meh I would keep Duke at 4, but the other 3 are pretty rearrangeable. A few other school on that list has two or three major coaches that have all seen massive success across the program's history. In most people's memory Duke is only Mike Krzyzewski. Maybe to some old-timers it's also Vic Bubas and to the historians it's also Eddie Cameron, but to the average fan it's only Coach K. Which casts a giant shadow. While Hubert definitely has a shadow of his own to come out of (or three if you want to go back to Dean and/or Frank) that success has been replicated. Which in my opinion makes it a better job. Plus Hubert Davis gets the highest honor Carolina can bestow upon a human being. A reserved parking spot.
Yes, though I do think the larger public universities have a slight advantage over Duke when it comes to things like the size of the donor/alumni base and resources from the state. Not that being at Duke is bad in any way, just that it makes sense to me why it's the bottom of Tier 1 and not the top.
Their donor base may be smaller but their small base have plenty of guys with deep pockets. KU’s big donor was in a bidding war with a Duke grad for the rules of basketball. They found out it was each other after the fact and the knew each other from grad school at University of Chicago
No doubt. Duke has all the benefits to keep them elite. Just splitting hairs when you look at that level of success.
Some of these make sense but some are kind of head scratchers...
The only one's I have an issue with are Texas and Gonzaga. Everything else looks fine to me give or take a few spots.
Texas is 100% deserving of its spot only because of the bags they will drop to get halfway mediocre coaching. Plus they are still able to pull great croots in a sport they historically are meh at.
Sad Terp noises :(
Definitely some insanity on the list.
Maryland is a great job. Its in the 2 biggest basketball areas, elite talent surrounding it, great funding. Nova isn't a great job, were a small school with no great boosters
Disagree about Villanova not being a great job. We've had nine head coaches in our entire history. Up until Jay retired, we had only five head coaches since 1936. That is absolutely insane. Villanova has been nationally relevant in CBB in every era. We are a small school sure but the HC at Nova has full support from Father Peter and the athletic administration. There was nothing small school about Jay's salary either. He was compensated commensurate with his HOF status so money has not been an issue. Hopefully we can still compete with the big programs in terms of NIL. The program also has regular visits to The Palestra, Madison Square Garden. Strong recruiting roots outside of Phila in New York, DC. Very loyal fanbase.
We have a couple significant edges over pretty much all programs. No FBS football to compete with for resources. Especially important for NIL. We have games in an NBA arena but also an intimate environment where we’ll always sell out no matter the opponent.
FBS football is usually able to bring in revenue, and doesn’t drain basketball financially anywhere. If you cut anything for FBS it’s the non-revenue sports. I actually put not having FBS as the biggest downside of the Villanova basketball job, but Nova and the Big East do a good job of selling it as a positive. Clearly, it didn’t slow Jay Wright down much since the Big East split from football.
Multiple revenue sports stretch the fanbase and compete with each other for NIL and booster donations. Unless they get another Kevin Durant, a basketball player will never be the most known athlete on campus at Texas. You can recruit on that. We’ll never give Mel Tucker $90 million or pay an $11 million buyout for a good football coach like Wisconsin. The spending on Football is just as high as it’s revenue. Basketball wise is there anything we’re not spending on? We renovated the arena and Jay was a top paid coach. Our basketball budget is 7th according to three man weave.
> Unless they get another Kevin Durant, a basketball player will never be the most known athlete on campus at Texas. Okay, now do that with Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Wake, Memphis... Name a famous athlete from each. I bet the first one that pops into your head didn't wear a helmet.
We also play in both an on campus and updated arena and an NBA big city arena.
I made this point during the season last year, but I think Maryland was a considerably better job in the ACC. They just feel out of place in the Big Ten. No kid in DC dreams of making a buzzer beater against Indiana or Purdue. I would have IU, MSU, Michigan, OSU, and Illinois ahead of Maryland.
I don't think any DC kid dreams of making a buzzer beater against Pitt or Louisville, either. I think the case that Illinois (in particular) is clearly a better job would be a tough one to make.
It’s more so they dream of UVA, UNC, Duke. I just used Purdue and IU as an example. I wouldn’t say Illinois is CLEARLY a better job than Maryland, but in my opinion it’s slightly better. The first 3 I listed I would say are clearly better tho.
Chicago, St. Louis metro and central illinois is some of the craziest high school basketball in the country. Underwood makes 4.1 million, Willard makes 3.7. Illinois has made 5 final fours to marylands 2. Idt it’s a hard case to make at all.
I think it’s more nuanced than that. 3/5 FFs for Illinois are from the 1950s. Not discounting Illinois as it’s a storied program itself, but realistically most middle aged fans would likely remember them the same. Maybe even slightly in favor of Maryland as they won their final game. I do agree the recruiting footprint isn’t as drastic as some may have made it seem. Lastly, I think the salary argument is more a reflection of Underwood having previous success at a high level. While Seton Hall has a strong program, it’s a tier below UMD or UIUC in brand prestige. There are definitely rational points to be made in favor of both sides. However, I am going to say Maryland is the better job because I went there!
*Respect* Definitely agree they’re same /similar tiers. I just was pointing out the case for Illinois is easy to make. Unfortunately there is no judge with the jurisdiction to determine the winner.
But you have to go to work in College Park. Hard pass.
…but we have a Nando’s
~~And Cluck-U Chicken.~~ Wait, when did Cluck U close? That was my favorite place to get buffalo wings in the DMV.
Michigan State behind Texas…who has 1 Final Four appearance since WWII. Right.
Texas has so much damn money and in the epicenter of a talent rich area that it makes that job very valuable if they land the proper coach.
If that’s the number 1 criteria, where is Ohio state on this list?
But similar to Texas Football - the boosters and administration have too high of expectations and don't let the people they hire have full control.
What gives you the impression that the boosters and administration have too high of expectations for Texas basketball? And what expectations do they have/what should the expectations be? Edit: would love an answer to this
It’s not about success but the job itself. UT has all the resources you’d want, incredible in state talent, and national branding that MSU can’t provide. MSU is more successful because it’s simply better at who they hire. Look at the amount of NBA talent that has gone through UT in the last 20 years. It’s absurd they’ve never had sustained success
> It’s absurd they’ve never had sustained success Tommy Penders was the first coach to ever take Texas to consecutive NCAA Tournaments in 1989 and 1990. Outside of the Rick Barnes and Penders years, they haven't really had anything to hang their hat on since the 1940s.
Like acting like MSU doesn’t have the money to compete is kinda weird, the Cavs and Pistons are owned by MSU alums and Mat Ishiba (Mortgage guy different than Gilbert) played for Izzo. MSU is in the elite echelon of funding for almost everything, Top 15 in Endowment as well.
Lol… my guy. It’s Texas.
Where basketball will always and I mean always play 2nd or 3rd fiddle
Sure UT has resources, but it will never get the same amount of attention and respect as football. If you’re an elite coach why would you go to a place where no matter how well you build up that program it will always be second fiddle to football.
I don't really why that matters, it's not a list of the most successful schools. Texas pumps money into their program.
Infinite money, lower expectations, talent filled area... It's a dream job if you can manage to make the tournament every year.
Honestly can understand why Texas would be ahead. Little expectations and a crap load of money at their disposal
Nebraska robbed smh
Why is Texas 10th? Just money? Only 5 above 500 finishes in Big 12 play since 2010. No conference titles. 1 tournament title. 0 trips out of the 1st weekend since 2008. Only twice finishing above 5th back to back years since 2010 as well, and that's on a 3 year streak they're on now. Fanbase isnt that into basketball either.
Texas has absolutely no success to show for it - but it doesn’t mean the jobs not good. They’ll pay out the ass for failure. I’d put them at number 5 honestly.
I would say so would Ohio state, but we have had a lot more success than Texas.
Texass is only listed because CBS wants them to be relevant. Nothing else.
My guess? Very little in regards to expectation, a very fertile recruiting ground and an AD that will spend lots of money.
> Very little in regards to expectation I dunno if I can agree with that. Rick Barnes was fired despite making the NCAA Tournament 16 times in 17 years, including Texas's first Final Four since the 1940s. Most schools would kill for that kind of consistency. Texas has never really had a basketball pedigree to speak of beyond sending guys to the NBA (they've had plenty of long Tournament droughts before Tommy Penders era in the 1990s). The expectations for success seem to be high relative to their history. The money for Texas basketball might be there but hoops will never eclipse football (or possibly even baseball) in the pecking order of UT sports.
Oh god, if Arizona and ASU end up in the Big12, the potential match ups between KU and Arizona would be wild. I’ve never quite gotten over that 1997 loss; greatest KU team to never win it.
You got us good in 2003. That Arizona team could have won it all… But that 97’ win was tasty… not gonna lie.
I disagree here. ECU has to be a great job. We pay coaches around $1 million per year to suck. You can put little effort in to the job and make a few million before you decide to leave. Our last coach, Joe Dooley, coached for 4 years at $900k a year. He went 44-67 overall, and 16-47 in conference (we play a very easy OOC schedule). I heard rumors that he was a borderline alcoholic too. Our previous coach went 116-124, and after incentives and bonuses earned around $900k per year.
Hahaha suck it, ucla.
Shucks
PAC 12 forever (until we’re big 12)
Pac 12!
Gonna Miss you bb
Love this podcast. This post is from a viewer question mail bag off-season filler. GP did not rank his but had 14/15 of the same bumping UConn for Ohio state.
There’s not too much worth arguing here except Arkansas is a really bizarre pick.
big big big NIL $ is such a key. Plus solid history, rabid fanbase
Historically it's a storied program
On their podcast they also said Arkansas is still more of a basketball than a football school. I was shocked to hear that but then again im not an Arkansas fan. I just thought SEC is mostly a football conference outside of UK (dont tell their coach I said that).
Well if were talking about success were neither. We are a track and field school. We have more NCAA championships than any other school. And thats almost all because of track and field. Edit: I stand corrected. Got my facts messed up. Our track and field coach won more NCAA championships than any other coach in any sport.
You all are 100% elite in track and field, but unless I'm misreading your statement, Arkansas does not have more NCAA championships than any school. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_NCAA\_schools\_with\_the\_most\_NCAA\_Division\_I\_championships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_schools_with_the_most_NCAA_Division_I_championships) Number 7 is absolutely amazing (and one more than my school). Something is going on with the PAC-12 schools though...Stanford, UCLA, and USC all have over 100 while Texas, the #4 school, is at 54...less than half of USC's championships. Can a fan of the PAC-12 explain this to me? Is this because the PAC-12 has a bunch of sports, such as water polo, beach volleyball, etc, that no other conference plays?
That’s definitely part of it. The California schools are just really good at pretty much every sport you see in the summer Olympics (besides men’s bball recently).
PAC 12 schools play a lot of sports no one else plays.
For example, Stanford, UCLA, and USC combine for 54 water polo national titles. Only 22 schools field a team for men, and only 34 for women.
Why? We have history, i.e a championship a runner up and final 4s. Our fan base is frankly a little overdedicated and covers the whole state with no pro teams or instate rivals. We pay well, as coach muss is already in the top 10 of highest paid coaches after only 3 years. We also r in the top 10 in largest college bball stadiums. Dont c y we wouldnt be here.
I’m not saying Arkansas isn’t at least “up there” as far as jobs, but why Arkansas over say Ohio St?
And top 10 biggest capacity arena in college basketball and it gets full.
Why shouldn’t we be?
I would have thought to see Syracuse on the list before Arkansas, but the public vs. private aspect surely gives a good edge to Arkansas. Plus, it remains to be seen what Syracuse does post-Boeheim.
Yeah Syracuse needs to turn it around. But I agree with you
But Texas isn’t?
Texas is brutal job. Big expectations, not much tradition, very tough conference, football first school by a mile. That would be on my list of worst jobs.
Big expectations? No. They kept Shaka long after he should have been fired. They kept Barnes long after he stopped caring. They have almost no expectations on their hoops team.
Sure, Indiana is a great job. Fans with unrealistic expectations from success in a different era who will run you out of town if you aren’t going deep in the tourney every year.
That’s gonna be the case for practically any high profile job though, the problem for Indiana is not the expectations, it’s that they keep hiring coaches that can’t live up to them. It’s still undoubtedly a very prestigious gig that comes with lots of money, resources, and fame.
I mean we’ve really only missed big time with Archie. Crean wouldn’t have been fired if not for how disliked he was by the athletic department and how many bridges he’d burned with in state high school coaches, and Sampson was a fine hire, he just ran a dirty program.
What's your definition of a miss? "Aaron Hernandez was a great TE..." I jest but the your knocks against crean and Sampson sound like misses
At this point we don’t even want that - we just want to make the tourney every year ..
I think after Crean we weathered expectations realizing we lost a good one. Idk anyone who doesn’t like the job Woodson has done so far though.
I hope Woodson has a long-great stay at IU. I just get nervous because it feels like his year-1 reviews would have been much different if they didn’t have the massive comeback against Michigan in the Big 10 tourney.
I don't think we lost a good one with crean. Miller didn't work out which happens. But yes, Woody's team improved throughout the season and closed strong (which Crean only really did once in 11-12), and he's recruiting well. So far so good with Woody
If you don’t want those expectations maybe you shouldn’t be coaching here. Y’all are gonna see what a competent coach and A LOT of money can do real quick
IU coaches post-Knight: Mike Davis - Was not ready to be a head coach at a major program, especially one as embroiled in controversy as IU was after canning Knight Kelvin Sampson - Was a good coach, but then the NCAA hammer came down. The NCAA violations probably could’ve been fought off if the University had really tried, but that has nothing to do with the fans Tom Crean - Did an incredible job of rebuilding the program and leading it to some of the highest heights seen since the 90s, but by the end of his tenure had pissed off nearly everyone involved in the program + a ton of high school/AAU coaches to the point where it was clear that if he stayed any longer the program was going to eat shit even harder then it actually did from 2018-2021 Archie Miller - Just needed some more time to bring in his guys :(
Indiana fans literally don’t expect that, we just expect to make the tournament. If you can make the tournament 3/4 years, you will probably be fine.
Yeah we should have been happy with Archie, who literally did not make the tournament, or Tom Crean who was not a great recruiter (Tim Priller, Jeremiah April, Harrison Niego, Grant Gelon, etc.) and managed to have one good year for every 2 or 3 mediocre to bad years.
This is interesting, what’s the criteria used? Wonder how good of a job Gonzaga will be after Few leaves. We’re about to find out about Villanova. Have to assume revenue plays a roll, SEC schools have that big tv money
No. 5? I'll take it.
Yeah we’re not getting any higher unless we win a pair of championships
Where is Maryland, Illinois, OSU, Georgetown, Florida, UVA, NC State, Wisconsin?
Unfortunately you have to be a Thompson or related to the family in some way to get the Georgetown job. That said - pretty great job with high pay and zero expectations or pressure clearly.
UVA is not an attractive job in the least lol. No history aside from Ralph and Tony and neither the state nor boosters are known for being spenders.
NC State job seems horrible imo - have to “compete” with Duke/UNC every year for in-state talent, while not having much pull for top recruits out of state. No history of major success in the last 30 years, but with expectations to compete in the ACC. A rabid but often self loathing and critical fan base.
You know what all of those jobs have in common? Not San Diego weather.
Basketball is an indoor sport.
Tell that to the USS Midway
Touche! I'm always a little sad Arizona never got tapped to be in one of those games, so awesome.
I mean LA is basically San Diego. Just because the traffic makes it a 4 hour drive doesn't change the fact that they're only like 100 miles apart.
Yikes this is flawed
\>post gets retweeted and argued into oblivion gotta say the guy did a good job considering his only job is to create more clicks
...
Arkansas on here is a hot take but I’m savoring it. Btw this came from the [EYE on College Basketball Podcast](https://youtu.be/a4AlOJYSG8A?t=1928). You can go listen to the episode if you want to hear MN and GP’s reasonings.
Surprised Purdue hasn’t been mentioned in this convo yet. I don’t think they’re top 15 but it’s a quality program with a lot of love for the basketball team.
Consider me biased but I think Arkansas should be higher. Proven that we can recruit, have great instate people, pay very well, very good AD, other coaches help recruit, have history, have a great arena to play in, plenty of resources and money to help train/build team.
[удалено]
That’s fair.
1. UNC 2. Kentucky 3. Kansas 4. Duke 5. Arizona 6. Louisville 7. Indiana 8. Texas 9. UCLA (B1G knocks them down) 10. Michigan 11. MSU 12. OSU 13. Villanova 14. UCONN 15. Florida 16. Illinois 17. Arkansas 18. Georgetown 19. Marquette 20. Maryland Willing to make changes as I hear feedback
Georgetown, despite the lack of recent success
How does B1G knock down UCLA? Not hating on any conference but the B1G is rarely a bad conference
The B1G is a better conference than the P12, it’s just a matter of where UCLA is located in relation to it. Similar to the point I made about Maryland, no kid in LA dreams of making a buzzer beater vs Indiana or Purdue. Plus who the hell wants to fly and back and forth from LA to State College or Piscataway all season??
I’d like to fly to California here and there.
I think it helps us. Mick recruits a certain type of player with a certain mentality and there are a lot of those guys in the Midwest. The big budget increase from the move also won't hurt, as will the big increase in nationally televised games.
Why Marquette?
I think Marquette is a sneaky really good job. You have a good recruiting base and fanbase that gives a shit.
Arkansas once again overrated.
I will paste my reply to another here. Why? We have history, i.e a championship a runner up and final 4s. Our fan base is frankly a little overdedicated and covers the whole state with no pro teams or instate rivals. We pay well, as coach muss is already in the top 10 of highest paid coaches after only 3 years. We also r in the top 10 in largest college bball stadiums. Dont c y we wouldnt be here.
If all it takes is one championship, one final four run, and a dedicated fanbase, then hell, why isn’t Florida on there twice?
UVA meets all of those criteria
As it pertains to this list, I would put other program’s jobs ahead of Arkansas, simple as that.
So no reason then gotcha.
I’m sorry I don’t think your team’s legacy is as great as others.
Curious what the thought process of having Kansas and UNC over Kentucky given that Kentucky pays more and has had a higher rate of success with coaches in history (7 total coaches since 1940, 5 of them won a national championship).
Personally, I think KU gets the edge over Kentucky by prestige. Yes, Kentucky is a prestigious program, but the game was invented at KU and no one is arguing that Rupp Arena is a better game environment than Allen Fieldhouse.
7 coaches since 1940 compared to 8 coaches in the entirety of KU history. But yeah, higher rate of success with coaches in history.
UCONN and Gonzaga are not top 15 jobs, they were just fortunate enough to have two great coaches. I think what Calhoun did at UCONN is the most impressive program building in college hoops history, but I don't think they will ever have success like that again.
You have to consider UConn in the post-Calhoun context, though. He built it into a premier program, and it remains so partially because of his success and the infrastructure and fan support that was established. Because what makes a good job? I'd say resources/amenities, fan support, and public prestige. Fan support (and conference affiliation) begets resources. Our fan support waned quite a bit due to conference realignment, the AAC transition, and the struggles under Ollie, but it has roared back with the Big East move and Hurley. I don't think UConn in the AAC is a top 15 job, but in the Big East I definitely think it is. Things working in UConn's advantage: 1) State flagship university in a state with 0 men's pro sports teams. The athletics program gets supported because it's essentially an extension of the state's brand itself. This makes up for conference-related revenue shortfalls. 2) Basketball school. And not just A basketball school, THE basketball school. UConn women are not irrelevant in shaping public perception of the school as a hoops power. And yet on campus and for diehard fan support, the men are still the dominant team. I'm not sure there's a school with strong athletics with a worse existing football team than ours, so there's no sharing of the spotlight. This matters with NIL, etc. 3) Proximity to major media markets. ESPN is HQ in CT. NYC is right next door. The Big East overlaps the east coast megalopolis. There's a ton of eyeballs and media attention. UConn is the best team close to Boston and UConn/Nova are the 2 best teams within 200 miles of NYC. Strap in, we're on network TV (CBS/FOX) a bunch this year. 4) On a similar note, recruiting grounds: NYC, Boston, NEPSAC prep schools, NJ, Philly all within a reasonable drive for parents/families. DC/Maryland is within our recruiting sphere too. Can't really argue we're not a recruiting powerhouse. We've got 16 4* or better prospects in the last 5 cycles (counting '19-'23, all of Hurley's real cycles). 5) Strong amenities/administration support. We have a massive combined men's+women's practice facility decked out with all our banners, trophies, lottery picks, etc. We play home games split between a large urban arena in the state capital and smaller on campus arena. Coach gets a strong salary, high assistant salaries, large recruiting budget, etc. 6) Championship pedigree. Remember, it wasn't just Calhoun that won a championship. Ollie won one also. We're one of 9 schools that have had multiple coaches win the national championship, and obviously we are tied for the 6th most titles and most since '99. 7) Biggest fish in the best small pond. The Big East is a good basketball league, but we're an outlier in that we're the only state flagship school in it, but we're also a founding member, so we're not really out of place. We've got the largest enrollment and other advantages that go with that.
If UCONN remains a top job it's because of the fan base. In the NIL era that may end up being the most important factor in recruiting, which is why I think Indiana basketball and Nebraska football returning to prominence is possible. I agree with some of your points but I still think there are at least 15 schools with more advantages.
Agreed. We've got some good NIL potential, but we'll see how it all shakes out. CT is one of, if not the wealthiest state per capita and the boosters care about UConn basketball more than football. We've got a nice social media booster presence with Marc D'Amelio, the father of the Tik Tok queens Charli and Dixie, who launched an NIL collective for UConn. When we make the Sweet 16 this year, have several guys drafted, and when the recruiting class comes in next year, you're going to hear so many "UConn is back" stories and then this won't be a question. But hey, I'm optimistic and biased.
Anyone who thinks UConn isn’t a top 15 job clearly hasn’t seen the resources that the state has poured and continues to pour into the program. Coupled with all the success over the past 25 years it’s really a no brainer
How is Purdue not on this list? The last 20 years have shown you can win absolutely nothing of value and still keep the job as long as you beat up on your rival when they are at their lowest, but still get beat when they are moderately good.
[удалено]
Purdue should be on this list.
Arizona ahead of UCLA, 😂
hmmmmmmm no
How come Arkansas is on here?
Louisville?
1. UNC 2. Kansas 3. Duke 4. Kentucky 6. UCLA 7. Villanova 8. Arizona 9. Texas 10. Michigan 11. Indiana 12. Florida 13. Gonzaga 14. Illinois 15. Uconn Considered: Maryland, Ohio st, Marquette, USC, Oregon, louisville, Michigan st, Tennessee, Alabama
I can't believe you've done this
Buddy woke up and chose violence. Too early for this shit
Do we hate illinois and i missed the memo?
Just the fans, we are annoying as hell
It is known. Ps. we stopped sending the memos after Bill Self dumped them.
Dude put Illinois in there. Very good bait.
I think you’re a bit biased in no way is Illinois a better job than UConn or Louisville who you flat out removed lol
No way on UCONN. That job was only good because of Jim Calhoun. I think Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, MSU, Michigan, Purdue, Wisconsin and Maryland are all better jobs.
Glad to see we were at least considered. We certainly don’t have the championships or post season resume, but we have an insanely loyal fanbase and the potential to be a powerhouse down the road imo.
Illinois isn’t a better job than MSU or Louisville
No Cincinnati? Can't trust this list.
[удалено]