Ranking The Coaching Jobs

[pafan]

If it wasn't obvious from my profile picture, I would put the three Illinois schools near the bottom, mostly because of recent turnover and recent poor results.

1) CU
2) WSU
3) UNI
4) MSU
5) DU
6) InSU
7) BU
8) UE
9) IlSU
10) SIU

Evansville is near the bottom because I do think if Marty doesn't work out, the job will be hard to fill.

[Aargh]

If MSU is 4th with their record of firing fairly successful coaches, hiring assistants who leave the moment they're successful, and then hiring more assistants, then the Valley has some problems.

If MSU is 4th with their apparent salary in the $300K - $400K range and their apparent recruiting budget that gives their coach gas money to drive to Tulsa, then the MVC has some problems.

[MSUDuo]

If MSU is 4th with their record of firing fairly successful coaches, hiring assistants who leave the moment they're successful, and then hiring more assistants, then the Valley has some problems.

If MSU is 4th with their apparent salary in the $300K - $400K range and their apparent recruiting budget that gives their coach gas money to drive to Tulsa, then the MVC has some problems.

Who is 4th then? Don't go throwing jabs and then not offer an opinion.


Besides Barry, who else have we fired that was fairly successful?

FWIW, 'Zo didn't leave because he wasn't going to get paid. He left when he realized that the MVC champ could be left out of the Dance. He was set to make 700k this past year if he took the raise. Tennessee came calling and that was that.

[BirdmanBB]

If it wasn't obvious from my profile picture, I would put the three Illinois schools near the bottom, mostly because of recent turnover and recent poor results.

1) CU
2) WSU
3) UNI
4) MSU
5) DU
6) InSU
7) BU
8) UE
9) IlSU
10) SIU

Evansville is near the bottom because I do think if Marty doesn't work out, the job will be hard to fill.

The 3 schools you have at the top are the next most recent schools to turnover coaches. BU and SIU had recent coaching turnover due to poor performance, not ISU. Usually it's a good thing when your coach leaves a full cupboard because he left for a BCS program. What are you smoking?

[Ali]

I'd say the least desirable are the ones who haven't been successful. I'd go with Evansville as a resume killer.

[havoc]

If it wasn't obvious from my profile picture, I would put the three Illinois schools near the bottom, mostly because of recent turnover and recent poor results.

1) CU
2) WSU
3) UNI
4) MSU
5) DU
6) InSU
7) BU
8) UE
9) IlSU
10) SIU

Evansville is near the bottom because I do think if Marty doesn't work out, the job will be hard to fill.

The 3 schools you have at the top are the next most recent schools to turnover coaches. BU and SIU had recent coaching turnover due to poor performance, not ISU. Usually it's a good thing when your coach leaves a full cupboard because he left for a BCS program. What are you smoking?

I think you are getting a little liberal with word usage there.

You really think it's a good thing when your head coach leaves to be an assistant coach at a program that is currently not in a BCS conference, but will join one soon where it will most likely struggle mightily for the foreseeable future?

[unipanther99]

If you look at it from a coach agent's perspective, the MVC is looked at as a launching point for BCS jobs.

Based on that, I would start my list with WSU. Turgeon jumping from WSU to A&M and on to Maryland is a pretty sweet career path for a college coach. Next, I would go with Creighton. Altman's offers from Arkansas and then going to Oregon are pretty impressive. The reason I would pick them second is because hiring McDermott made them look like more of a soft landing point for a coach who failed at the BCS level.

MSU, UNI, and Drake have had recent coaches go on to take BCS jobs, to varying degrees of success. Alford isn't always well respeced, but he held a BCS job for several years before taking a soft landing at New Mexico. Martin has yet to prove himself at Tennessee. McDermott's stint at Iowa State wasn't good, but he's doing alright these days, and Keno has found another head coaching job after his run at Providence. You could also give Illinois State credit for Stallings --- but what Jank did makes it a bit of a mixed bag.

Most of the other recent coaches haven't gotten it done and wound up as assistants (sometimes even deciding to leave to become an assistant) or in the case of Les have taken lower profile head coaching jobs.

Edit--- I forgot to include SIU in the middle category. Painter and Weber proved it could be done, Lowery tarnished that somewhat.

[Red]

Illinois State was a great job when it opened and is definitely top 5. It's a chance for a young coach to come in and make a name for himself right away like Keno and Cuonzo did. If that means he moves on after a successful year, I can live with that.

[PantherSigEp]

Illinois State was a great job when it opened and is definitely top 5. It's a chance for a young coach to come in and make a name for himself right away like Keno and Cuonzo did. If that means he moves on after a successful year, I can live with that.

But is that because of the program they would be coming into or because of the team they would be inheriting? There is a big difference between the two and I think a few people within this thread have been incorrectly using one or the other for this discussion. Some seem to think a program is what makes a coaching job attractive while others seem to think it's the current team so I think we need some clarification.

IMO my idea of team is very temporary and therefore questionable as the appropriate criteria. A program has much more longevity to it. How much is up to you but just to give you an idea of my own thinking on this I'll give you an example of the Panthers. When I think team I think of what we currently have with Tuttle, James, Deon, etc...but that leaves out the past and the future. When I think of program I think of Ali's shot, conference championships, Gary Rima and "Down goes Kansas!", both the Dome and McLeod and greats like Eric Coleman, Brooks McKowen, Kwadzo (yes, Kwadzo), Ben Jacobson, Jason Reese and (are some of you Panthers ready for a blast from the past?) Randy Kraayenbrink.

So it extends even past our time in the MVC but that's what I think of when someone says Panther basketball. Now I question if anyone would take UNI's head coach position based on Randy Kraayenbrink's career in the 80's but if you are taking a job based on a few guys who may not be around in a few years or possibly in a few weeks (see Nic Moore) then I see a red flag.

After getting this far I think I've managed to realize some flaws in my own logic and premise. And in lieu of simply starting over or backtracking let's just try to establish what makes a coaching job attractive (not really in a specific order, except maybe the first one):
1) Money $$$ (it's true for all jobs, this one is no different. The more you can make, the more you want to make it)
2) Opportunity for success (this is where the idea of team does have sway. Although those guys will not be around forever, if you have a strong core of players that is a big advantage in future recruiting if you can step in and be successful right away and sustain that success. I think Ben Jacobson and McDermott at Creighton exemplify this)
3) Current program state (similar to #2 but with a focus on facilities, fan base, overall "prestige", although I would say that particular factor is relatively dulled in the MVC. I'm thinking more along the lines of being offered $1M to be head coach at UNI as opposed to being offered $1 M to be head coach at Duke. That's the "prestige" factor and that is where past success, "program history", etc.. comes into play. Overall I believe this has the greatest impact on how marketable you can make your program to recruits and therefor is HUGE)
4) The Administration (I originally had this in #3 but I feel like it needs its own. Both the University and Athletic Dept administration play a role due to how they have treated coaches in the past, the job security you are given and the amount of flexibility they allow a coach in regards to athletic/recruiting budgeting)

At this point I'm just rambling so I'll wrap it up. Hopefully no one thinks I was attacking them directly or tearing down their ideas. I certainly had no intention of anything but to continue a productive discussion and hopefully it will remain that way. Also I realize my thoughts and opinions are not perfect so please be gentle

[CaseyGarrisonforPrez]

Rankings are always good to spark conversation. I agree with a lot of what SigEp was saying; the criterion layed out was spot on.

What I find notable is the overall balance. Nearly every program in this league can point to something of pride in the last 7-8 years whether that be an MVC title, Sweet Sixteen, MVC tournament title, multiple NCAA appearances, and so forth. In most mid-majors that is not the case. Compare us to the WCC for example. That place is so stratified. The difference between the programs of Gonzaga and U San Francisco is immense. In the Valley there is not nearly as big of a gap between Wichita State and Evansville for example. And that is very healthy. I am a firm believer of the maxim that you are only as strong as your weakest link. Using that measure we are as strong as anybody because we have no non-achieving, conference deadbeats. Good job Evansville, good effort Bradley.