Jump to content

UT's next basketball coach - discussion/debate


alphahorn

Recommended Posts

Cuse has nice history but I don't think it's particularly easy to recruit at and Boehim has been running that show for a looooong time. They've produced very few notable NBA players despite all of their tournament success. I think it's a top 15 job but probably not much better than that. It's closer to a Baylor or Arkansas than a Duke or UCLA imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, HookEm said:

I also think the Big12 is still going to be one of the premier college basketball conference even with UT and OU gone.  Houston and Cinci make it a wash. BYU can be good as well.

After the 83-84 Houston squad finished runner up, they next won a tourney game in 2018 under Sampson. In the 33 seasons between, Houston made the tourney a grand total of 4 times. Their program is not nearly the equivalent of OU or Texas. Sampson is damn near 70, and once he's gone they will need to do much better at finding a replacement than they have typically done. The big12 will still be a stout hoops conference, but once Sampson is gone, I bet Houston reverts back to average. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2022 at 2:17 AM, shadow_operative said:

you believe that program is a top program because of its elite 8, final four and title appearances, as well as titles won

Your take is somewhere between stupid and moron on the idiot spectrum. I had to fix (bold) your post because it made no sense and does not reflect my opinion.

The fact that you cannot fathom why a programs elite 8, final 4 and title appearances (and wins) is the measuring stick for top programs, tells us all that you are working with an extra chromosome. 

Now that I know you have 23 chromosomes, I want to tell you that i think you are an inspiration and a hero.

 

Edited by redswingline
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

you believe that program is a top program because of its elite 8, final four and title appearances, as well as titles won

You know what is funny, we aren't even arguing the same points. I think someone else stated as much a couple days back.

if I'm correct, I think your position is how NCAAM jobs are perceived and you are ranking those.

My position is that the clout of a program is based on tourney runs, with more recent (20 years) results having far more weight than decades prior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blotto said:

After the 83-84 Houston squad finished runner up, they next won a tourney game in 2018 under Sampson. In the 33 seasons between, Houston made the tourney a grand total of 4 times. Their program is not nearly the equivalent of OU or Texas. Sampson is damn near 70, and once he's gone they will need to do much better at finding a replacement than they have typically done. The big12 will still be a stout hoops conference, but once Sampson is gone, I bet Houston reverts back to average. 

I'm sorry but nobody but old fans sitting in their seats with crossed arms give two shits about any part of that bolded section. Recruits see that they have been to the SS, the EE and a FF in the last 4 years. They see them ranked 3rd and getting a lot of positive press. That's what matters. Full stop, sprinkle some NIL in there.

Like, think about what you're saying here. "Oh yeah? Well just wait until Kelvin Sampson DIES and we'll see how good they are then." Do you think that is entering the mind of ANY recruit? The guys with legitimate NBA aspirations are going to be at that school for like 2 years, they don't give a fuck about Sampson's longevity past their own narrow window of playtime. 67 ain't that old, he's probably got at least another 6-8 years in him.

A more valid criticism to draw would be the overall inability to fill your arena with any kind of consistency in a city of 2.5 million, but that's another conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, redswingline said:

You know what is funny, we aren't even arguing the same points. I think someone else stated as much a couple days back.

if I'm correct, I think your position is how NCAAM jobs are perceived and you are ranking those.

My position is that the clout of a program is based on tourney runs, with more recent (20 years) results having far more weight than decades prior.

It's both.  The momentum of historical success is hard to dispute.  The lure of money and talent is hard to dispute.  

I mean, does anyone actually think that, were Bill Self to retire tomorrow, the clamor amongst top coaches to grab that job wouldn't be huge? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's both.  The momentum of historical success is hard to dispute.  The lure of money and talent is hard to dispute.  

I mean, does anyone actually think that, were Bill Self to retire tomorrow, the clamor amongst top coaches to grab that job wouldn't be huge? 

maybe so, but it's a weird dichotomy.

I don't think we should confuse ability to pay with program prestige because i think that prestige is built over time, via deep tourney runs.

the last time we got to a final four was the same year we invaded iraq

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, redswingline said:

maybe so, but it's a weird dichotomy.

I don't think we should confuse ability to pay with program prestige because i think that prestige is built over time, via deep tourney runs.

the last time we got to a final four was the same year we invaded iraq

 

 

program prestige and desirability of the head coaching position are not the same thing. how many more people are going to take a simple premise (Texas is an elite, top 5-ish job) and turn it into something else? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm sorry but nobody but old fans sitting in their seats with crossed arms give two shits about any part of that bolded section. Recruits see that they have been to the SS, the EE and a FF in the last 4 years. They see them ranked 3rd and getting a lot of positive press. That's what matters. Full stop, sprinkle some NIL in there.

Like, think about what you're saying here. "Oh yeah? Well just wait until Kelvin Sampson DIES and we'll see how good they are then." Do you think that is entering the mind of ANY recruit? The guys with legitimate NBA aspirations are going to be at that school for like 2 years, they don't give a fuck about Sampson's longevity past their own narrow window of playtime. 67 ain't that old, he's probably got at least another 6-8 years in him.

A more valid criticism to draw would be the overall inability to fill your arena with any kind of consistency in a city of 2.5 million, but that's another conversation.

@Blotto made a great point. It took a very, very good coach to resurrect that program after multiple decades of irrelevance and once Sampson departs there is no guarantee that UH will return to the same glory. It's honestly a very legitimate way of evaluating the appeal of a particular job - especially when you're looking 10-15 years into the future. 

Sort of like if you were to evaluate the Texas Tech job based on the results that Chris Beard achieved. That program has been irrelevant for most of its history and will likely continue to be irrelevant in the future. It would be silly to pretend that one coach's results would give it enough momentum to perpetually be a name-brand in college basketball. 

I mean - that's just one example. I'm sure there's other examples that could illustrate the same idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring the lame ass attempt to take a shot at me, all I'm saying is basketball is very much an in the moment sport, much moreso than football, so saying "well if you didn't have X Y Z right now, you wouldn't be shit" is a silly conversation to have, because it applies to just about everyone. It takes a lot of sustained effort for a program to remain relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, redswingline said:

You know what is funny, we aren't even arguing the same points. I think someone else stated as much a couple days back.

if I'm correct, I think your position is how NCAAM jobs are perceived and you are ranking those.

My position is that the clout of a program is based on tourney runs, with more recent (20 years) results having far more weight than decades prior.

If you’re correct? It’s been explicitly stated that you’re yelling at clouds. At least you finally figured out the discussion after 3 days.

The clout? What the fuck are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, redswingline said:

You know what is funny, we aren't even arguing the same points. I think someone else stated as much a couple days back.

if I'm correct, I think your position is how NCAAM jobs are perceived and you are ranking those.

My position is that the clout of a program is based on tourney runs, with more recent (20 years) results having far more weight than decades prior.

How successful a program has been with tournament runs, with recent results weighted more heavily, is a different discussion than which jobs are most attractive. They shouldn’t be conflated, but there are pages of that happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

Ignoring the lame ass attempt to take a shot at me, all I'm saying is basketball is very much an in the moment sport, much moreso than football, so saying "well if you didn't have X Y Z right now, you wouldn't be shit" is a silly conversation to have, because it applies to just about everyone. It takes a lot of sustained effort for a program to remain relevant.

Basically the only thing you addressed in your retort was short-term recruiting. There is a lot more than that that goes into both how attractive a job is and how healthy a program is. Your point is, what - that UH is a great program and job because they will still recruit well for a couple seasons after Sampson hangs it up? UH's recent success is like 80% if not more attributable to who their HC is right now. 

It isn't particularly difficult to win there but at the end of the day it's a commuter school with a terrible fan base and little donor support that had an all-time head coach for 30 seasons and then managed to make a good hire after six bad ones over the course of almost 30 years. They're another bad hire or two away from being an afterthought again in a way that Texas or OU will never be. Even Shaka's dumb ass was getting guys drafted in the first round and getting Texas to the tourney more often than not. A bad hire at Houston does neither of those things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Texas is definitely on the “don’t turn that down” or “oh shit, that job is open? I need to think about that” list. Kentucky wants you winning a NC in year 1. I don’t think coaches want that pressure. 

 

Also, for people wanting Terry long term—I’d imagine he’d be a Sark type at UT. You happy with Sark? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

Basically the only thing you addressed in your retort was short-term recruiting. There is a lot more than that that goes into both how attractive a job is and how healthy a program is. Your point is, what - that UH is a great program and job because they will still recruit well for a couple seasons after Sampson hangs it up? UH's recent success is like 80% if not more attributable to who their HC is right now. 

It isn't particularly difficult to win there but at the end of the day it's a commuter school with a terrible fan base and little donor support that had an all-time head coach for 30 seasons and then managed to make a good hire after six bad ones over the course of almost 30 years. They're another bad hire or two away from being an afterthought again in a way that Texas or OU will never be. Even Shaka's dumb ass was getting guys drafted in the first round and getting Texas to the tourney more often than not. A bad hire at Houston does neither of those things. 

Yeah I guess I don't disagree and am kind of talking in circles. They do need to take further steps beyond retaining Sampson for X years to continue that success, for sure. Like you said, they don't really have good fan support despite recent success, which is kind of an anomaly among "top" programs.

I'd argue that OU is already kind of an afterthought program, though, at least in basketball. Texas will never be unless you guys somehow have a continuous string of bad seasons that lasts until KD is an old man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry seems like a decent coach and good recruiter.  Can go back to a program at the G5 level as HC and do pretty well.  Won’t be the coach at Texas unless our young players rapidly mature and we make a surprising run to the final weekend.  Don’t see that happening with the defensive falloff lately.   As somebody noted on another thread the opp FG% has been trending up.  The shooting is too inconsistent for that to be sustainable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, HookEm said:

In the era of NIL, I think the big, rich schools like UT, Michigan, Florida, Ohio State move way up the list of desirability.  Right now if you are a great coach, and you can coach at Michigan or Indiana, I think you take the Michigan job.  

I think this would be my ranking of job attractiveness if the job "suddenly" came open.

  1. UNC - Jordan, Nike, history, fan support, money, class
  2. Kansas - Passionate, knowledgeable fanbase
  3. Kentucky - Biggest, most rabid fanbase who will do anything to win, but unrealistic
  4. UCLA - Dominate the west coast and live like a king in LA
  5. Duke - Money, history, huge NBA alumni base, fans  (but who knows if this will hold)
  6. Texas - Money, new arena, low expectations, 'cruits
  7. Michigan
  8. Indiana
  9. Louisville
  10. Arizona
  11. Florida
  12. Syracuse
  13. Michigan State
  14. Ohio State
  15. Baylor
  16. Cincinnati
  17. UCONN
  18. Villanova
  19. Illinois
  20. Gonzaga
  21. Arkansas
  22. Oklahoma
  23. Tennessee
  24. Oregon
  25. Maryland
  26. NC State
  27. Mizzou
  28. Oklahoma State
  29. Texas Tech
  30. Memphis
  31. LSU
  32. Iowa State

 

Thanks.  Why Syracuse above 13-14?  And fuck Baylor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syracuse still can be the premiere basketball school for NYC area recruits. Put someone like Calipari there and they could dominate. Their last title isn’t that long ago.

Regarding Tech vs OU, I guess a case could be made for Tech. They have shown a willingness to win and have hired some decent coaches in the last 20 years. And I think they could do better in the Big 12 than OU will in the SEC. Call it a wash I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, HookEm said:

Syracuse still can be the premiere basketball school for NYC area recruits. Put someone like Calipari there and they could dominate. Their last title isn’t that long ago.

Regarding Tech vs OU, I guess a case could be made for Tech. They have shown a willingness to win and have hired some decent coaches in the last 20 years. And I think they could do better in the Big 12 than OU will in the SEC. Call it a wash I guess.

OU plays in the worst arena in the Big 12, has underwhelming attendance numbers and doesn’t recruit all that well.  That’s something other than a wash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, HookEm said:

Syracuse still can be the premiere basketball school for NYC area recruits.

Not really. Nova and UCONN are both closer to NYC. 

I mean I guess it "could" be but it isn't and never really has been. 

It's a good job but I wouldn't want to be the guy that follows Boehim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Not really. Nova and UCONN are both closer to NYC. 

I mean I guess it "could" be but it isn't and never really has been. 

It's a good job but I wouldn't want to be the guy that follows Boehim. 

Yeah I think he has stayed too long at this point, and the longer he drags his feet on retirement, the harder it's going to be on the next guy up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 12/30/2022 at 8:10 AM, hobbes2702 said:

 

The clout? What the fuck are you talking about?

You cannot completely separate what a top program is from the desirability of the job. They are intertwined.  While I have focused on tourney runs as the measuring stick for a program, it still relates to the job. There's a slight nuance there.

if you are not sure what clout means, go look it up.

 

Edited by redswingline
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit I'm surprised Sampson has done this well at Cougar High.  I never really thought all that much of him at OU.  Not that he didn't have some success, he did, but he always struck me as less than compelling when compared to the top coaches in the game at the time (K, Williams, Izzo, Pitino, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well he really knows his basketball, and he's got an identity, which really helps in recruiting in gbat you can go search for the right guys to fit your system/identity, which means getting a high ROI on lower rated players if you can identify the right ones. defending, rebounding, and physicality are his trademarks, and he can really coach em up. i agree with you, he's done better than i thought he would, and proven himself a top tier college coach with the job he's doing at U of H.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

well he really knows his basketball, and he's got an identity, which really helps in recruiting in gbat you can go search for the right guys to fit your system/identity, which means getting a high ROI on lower rated players if you can identify the right ones. defending, rebounding, and physicality are his trademarks, and he can really coach em up. i agree with you, he's done better than i thought he would, and proven himself a top tier college coach with the job he's doing at U of H.

Sampson is basically 5% better coach than Rick Barnes but they are the same guy for good or ill- he’s just slightly more accomplished at it. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2022 at 4:48 PM, shadow_operative said:

well he really knows his basketball, and he's got an identity, which really helps in recruiting in gbat you can go search for the right guys to fit your system/identity, which means getting a high ROI on lower rated players if you can identify the right ones. defending, rebounding, and physicality are his trademarks, and he can really coach em up. i agree with you, he's done better than i thought he would, and proven himself a top tier college coach with the job he's doing at U of H.

The only real negative against him is he's getting older imo

Plenty of programs would hire him if they could I think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Droopy said:

So...who's it going to be, now that the Beard era is over at Texas? Please, please, be someone that is good and doesn't have weak ass shit moments like Beard. What an absolute waste. 🤬🤘

It's January. 

It's way too early to tell. 

But this news has probably gotten a few people talking. We will have to wait until April for a hire though. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...