Their administration is not doing well at all, he's from the Midwest, and money
2017 Coaching Carousel
- Status
Their administration is not doing well at all, he's from the Midwest, and money
The Worm
- CHICAGO, IL
Facilities are awful. Program support is awful. Very limited historical success.
What makes Cal a "sweet and easy place" to recruit to?
Historically, I don't remember Illinois every paying for a coach to buyout their current position.
If the buyout is reasonable, then the question is whether Martin would want a rebuilding project?
Also, is he really going to move from a major metropolitan area to the cornfields? And is he going to want to move from the mild weather back to the frozen prairie?
MrOizo
- Chicago
Didn't realize that...
Nor this, thanks.
Nice to hear. After reading a bit, I do like the idea of Martin and Webster. I love the potential continuity of Webster returning to Illinois, where he was part of the National Championship game run. Martin and Webster having a piece of the Keady coaching tree makes me feel fairly good about their coaching chops. I know some are questioning his ability to coach but I don't know if that is based on real analysis vs. the advantage of being "up and coming" at a mid-major, where it's easier to control an important variable: how good the competition is.
I found this interesting as well: http://chicago.sbnation.com/illinois-fighting-illini/2012/3/21/2889256/cuonzo-martin-illinois
Got to think that Tracy Webster will be a leading candidate for a low/mid-major head coaching gig after this year. He's put in his time at several great programs and undoubtedly has aspirations to climb higher in his profession. I'd be surprised if he stayed on Cuonzo's staff after this year; if he does, he's almost certainly moving on after 2018. If I'm wrong, I'd love to have him back in Champaign for another go-round.
Catching up on this thread it seems like the consensus is Cuanzo vs the field. Personally, I don't follow these other teams enough to have a strong opinion on the best hire. So, I have a few questions for those who do.
Which of these coaches have the greatest potential to elevate the program? I think that the best programs develop coaches as well as develop players. Some of these coaches mentioned in this thread are supported via the strength of their mentors. Which coaches, given the appropriate resources, can be expected to develop a program healthy enough to spur a coaching tree?
I would like to see Illinois hire a coach with that potential because besides improving the public perception I think it creates a legacy of talent which becomes compoundingly productive.
I would hate to be stuck with a coach too good to fire, yet to poor to elevate the program. In many ways I think it's worse to hire the next Weber as opposed to the next Groce. I'd be OK with a few down years with a guy like Keats while he adjusts if he is the one who has the greatest potential.
Which of these coaches have the greatest potential to elevate the program? I think that the best programs develop coaches as well as develop players. Some of these coaches mentioned in this thread are supported via the strength of their mentors. Which coaches, given the appropriate resources, can be expected to develop a program healthy enough to spur a coaching tree?
I would like to see Illinois hire a coach with that potential because besides improving the public perception I think it creates a legacy of talent which becomes compoundingly productive.
I would hate to be stuck with a coach too good to fire, yet to poor to elevate the program. In many ways I think it's worse to hire the next Weber as opposed to the next Groce. I'd be OK with a few down years with a guy like Keats while he adjusts if he is the one who has the greatest potential.
I also think it's worth the $6 mill a year in the long run to lure a home run hire. Raising home game ticket prices by $10 per ticket across the board should increase revenue by $3 mill + per year.
Nope. I'm ready to just be rid of Groce so I'd welcome Martin for that reason, but I'm just not all that impressed with him. He's an up and down recruiter with as many sweet 16 appearances as Groce (one).
My support for Keatts is well known and I'd also be all over Archie. Monty Williams also intrigues me, but I have no idea if that's realistic or not.
Finding a home run hire that's truly worth $6mil a yr would be really hard. The guys that could elevate your program just by their presence are staying where they are.
Handing Archie Miller $6mil is just burning $$, you can get him or guys like him for less than half that.
I personally don't regard Fred Hoiberg as a sure thing. He inherited some talent at ISU, then supplemented it with multiple transfers. They were good, but can that be repeated the way he did it the first time?
When Webster was at Illinois, wasn't there talk he was recruiting for his new school (Kentucky?). I thought he was the one who tried to get Richmond to Kentucky. Wasn't there statements by Weber to that effect as well?
I want C Martin, but Webster seems a little to shifty for me.
Also if things don't get too ugly at Illinois bb, I believe Illinois will announce the firing immediately following selection Sunday.
The more I think about the more I think it will come down to Miller, Keatts and Cuonzo Martin. I'll take any of these three guys over Groce who can't coach. Any of these guys will have us in the tourney next year if they can keep Tilmon and Frazier there is enough talent already here to win 22-23 games at least.
I agree and in that order
There's like, 5 coaches being paid anywhere close to that much right now, so I wouldn't expect us to pay anywhere close to that. 3 million is much more likely, 6 million would be buying a grand slam, and would require a walk-off grand slam hire to justify. 6 million is proven coach money, not coach with high upside money.
This is pretty much my stance as well. I'm a little less risk-averse, so I'm less afraid of Keatts, and I like Archie's upside, but I'll be content with all 3. I also have some interest in Monty - think he could be a killer recruiter, but I can't actually determine what my interest level is relative to Cuonzo (my current #3)
I like shiftiness in my running backs and my basketball assistant coaches.
I'm with you on this. I generally would swing for the fences because a perennial 9-seed is not that enticing to me. I want to be a 4-seed or better with regularity.
I go back and forth on whether Cuonzo can be that guy. Some days I think he's sure to get us there and other days I fear we'll be mediocre (8/9-seed) with only occasional very good years.
Most importantly for me is that if we hire any of the 4 guys you've mentioned I will be fully on board, at least temporarily.
Until 2021 actually. I can't find the buyout Illinois would need to pay, but it's most likely seven figures.
Yeah, Webster might be a bit shifty...but thats not necessarily a BAD thing. If you want to win and stay relevant at a high level you need to be able to play in the grey areas.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
I think people need to remember that these are true basketball guys we are talking about; with very few exceptions, the types of guys we'd be going after don't want a cushy job in a cool city (think USC).
They're winners, and they grew up following the sport. Lawrence, KS is no different than Champaign (nice, true college town in the middle of cornfields, not overly far from a big metro), and coaches don't give a rat's a5s. They want to go where they think the infrastructure is there to build a program that has a shot at getting them to a Final Four, and that infrastructure includes good recruiting grounds nearby, facilities they can show off to those recruits, a passionate fan following/good gameday atmosphere they can both show off to recruits and use to steal a home win or two, historical success they can build off of and an administration that will support them, both morally and financially.
I think we check all the boxes. Within the Big Ten - IF you take out personal ties - I think coaches would rank the jobs like this:
TIER ONE
Indiana ... former Blue Blood, enough said
TIER TWO
Illinois - We all know the advantages we enjoy
Maryland - See Illinois' advantages
Michigan State - Izzo has turned this into a top-notch job, and I don't see that changing
Ohio State - Backseat to football but similar advantages to Illinois and Maryland
TIER THREE
Michigan - Share the state of Michigan with MSU and a clear backseat to football but a ton of advantages, too
Purdue - Great basketball tradition/support but share Indiana with IU, Notre Dame and now Butler ... facilities lacking
Wisconsin - Great facilities and fan support, and I think Ryan permanently elevated that program
TIER FOUR
Iowa - Decent job but not overly easy to craft a consistent winner there
Minnesota - No instate competition and decent fan support, cool gym, but not much history to build on
Nebraska - Great facilities and fan support, but poor recruiting location, backseat to football and almost no history
TIER FIVE
Northwestern - Academic restrictions, zero history, crap facilities
Penn State - Really should be a much, much better job, but the hole is dug too deep ... could easily skyrocket in the next 3-4 decades with the right leadership
Rutgers - See Penn State
None of this is to comment on the current state of these programs ... for example, we are a dumpster fire, and NU is lookin' real nice under Collins. This is what I think would be the pecking order if all Big Ten coaches were magically fired, and we all had until Fall 2017 to find a replacement.
They're winners, and they grew up following the sport. Lawrence, KS is no different than Champaign (nice, true college town in the middle of cornfields, not overly far from a big metro), and coaches don't give a rat's a5s. They want to go where they think the infrastructure is there to build a program that has a shot at getting them to a Final Four, and that infrastructure includes good recruiting grounds nearby, facilities they can show off to those recruits, a passionate fan following/good gameday atmosphere they can both show off to recruits and use to steal a home win or two, historical success they can build off of and an administration that will support them, both morally and financially.
I think we check all the boxes. Within the Big Ten - IF you take out personal ties - I think coaches would rank the jobs like this:
TIER ONE
Indiana ... former Blue Blood, enough said
TIER TWO
Illinois - We all know the advantages we enjoy
Maryland - See Illinois' advantages
Michigan State - Izzo has turned this into a top-notch job, and I don't see that changing
Ohio State - Backseat to football but similar advantages to Illinois and Maryland
TIER THREE
Michigan - Share the state of Michigan with MSU and a clear backseat to football but a ton of advantages, too
Purdue - Great basketball tradition/support but share Indiana with IU, Notre Dame and now Butler ... facilities lacking
Wisconsin - Great facilities and fan support, and I think Ryan permanently elevated that program
TIER FOUR
Iowa - Decent job but not overly easy to craft a consistent winner there
Minnesota - No instate competition and decent fan support, cool gym, but not much history to build on
Nebraska - Great facilities and fan support, but poor recruiting location, backseat to football and almost no history
TIER FIVE
Northwestern - Academic restrictions, zero history, crap facilities
Penn State - Really should be a much, much better job, but the hole is dug too deep ... could easily skyrocket in the next 3-4 decades with the right leadership
Rutgers - See Penn State
None of this is to comment on the current state of these programs ... for example, we are a dumpster fire, and NU is lookin' real nice under Collins. This is what I think would be the pecking order if all Big Ten coaches were magically fired, and we all had until Fall 2017 to find a replacement.
South Farms
- near Ogden & Rt 83
not that coaching carousel discussions are a waste of time, because lets face it, there is not much to discuss right now.
and not that some of the names being tossed out there are not valid , cuz they are, and many of those guys will likely be moving around this spring. But I am willing to bet that our next coach is someone not even discussed on here, or only discussed tangentially .
If JW can get a AA coach that's a home run, I'm all for it. But if he is feeling "pressure" to hire an AA coach, then he needs to quit or tell those people pressuring him to STFU. Our next coach needs to be a home run, skin color be damned.
just my opinion.
and not that some of the names being tossed out there are not valid , cuz they are, and many of those guys will likely be moving around this spring. But I am willing to bet that our next coach is someone not even discussed on here, or only discussed tangentially .
If JW can get a AA coach that's a home run, I'm all for it. But if he is feeling "pressure" to hire an AA coach, then he needs to quit or tell those people pressuring him to STFU. Our next coach needs to be a home run, skin color be damned.
just my opinion.
So let's put together the ledger here.
On the minus side, the baseline expectation for any sitting Power Five head coach who is secure in their job is that they won't leave to take a different Power Five job that isn't a blue blood. That is a consistent reality of college basketball.
Now the plus side.
First it's critical to understand why Cuonzo is at Cal in the first place. He didn't take the Cal job because he was enamored with the opportunity, he took the Cal job because he was fleeing a bad situation at Tennessee, in which prominent boosters and even people within the athletic department were advocating for his ouster in an effort to rehire Bruce Pearl. He actually took a paycut at Cal and didn't officially sign a contract for over two years.
He's making around $1.8 million per year now.
Cal athletics are in somewhat desperate financial straits. That's also not a school or a town that is particularly passionate about sports.
The AD that hired Martin is gone. The new AD doesn't appear to be terribly well thought-of, and he just made a very bizarre move in firing Sonny Dykes as football coach who had done a pretty solid job there. That can't be a boss Cuonzo feels a ton of trust in.
And plus we know home and where he's from are things that mean a lot to him. He and his staff have actively recruited the Midwest and Chicago both at previous stops and at Cal.
From a roster perspective, Cal graduates 5 guys including Jabari Bird, one of their best players and most likely loses their best player Ivan Rabb to the draft. There is some talent coming in, including a transfer from Kentucky, but you'd pick them for a step back next year, and then who knows?
So it's someone who is underpaid, at a job that he took on something of a whim, far, far away from home, at a school which is undergoing a good deal of turbulence and which doesn't have ideal resources or institutional commitment to the program, at a moment when his value in the marketplace is probably peaking, and he can produce a bidding war between the two major programs closest to his home town.
All of that said, I still don't think it's as open-and-shut as its being treated by some people. If Cal offers him a nice raise and extension, I still think he might take it. But there are a ton of factors here that aren't just message board "herp derp Illinois is a better job".
It would be no small thing if we poach a successful sitting Power Five coach. That isn't an option that's usually on the board for a school like ours.
At a certain point, this ceases to be coaching carousel discussion and is basically an unsubstantiated jeremiad about state politics. And a false one at that.
Whitman will hire the best coach he can land, whatever his skin color. Period. Just like Mike Thomas did. Just like Ron Guenther did.
Both the idea that Webster is some shady operator that we should be avoiding and that he is some insider recruiting svengali who will open all the doors for us are significantly blunted by the fact that he spent three years here under Weber.
He's a fairly well regarded assistant coach who is a veteran of Chicago recruiting circles. No more, no less.
- Status