CSNbbs

Surprised to see several ACC schools listed. I figure those Acc jobs cant be all that bad considering the other Acc schools that they get to play.

ESPN Link

(05-28-2014 08:19 AM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]Surprised to see several ACC schools listed. I figure those Acc jobs cant be all that bad considering the other Acc schools that they get to play.

ESPN Link

Curious list and not sure of his "facts" in some cases. For instance he says Marquette does not have the media income it had in the old BE. Is that true? I thought the BE basketball media deal was an improvement over the old one.

(05-28-2014 08:48 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-28-2014 08:19 AM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]Surprised to see several ACC schools listed. I figure those Acc jobs cant be all that bad considering the other Acc schools that they get to play.

ESPN Link

Curious list and not sure of his "facts" in some cases. For instance he says Marquette does not have the media income it had in the old BE. Is that true? I thought the BE basketball media deal was an improvement over the old one.

Yeah, IIRC the "new" Big East/c7 get around 4mm now vs 1.2mm in tv money on the old deal.

where is USF?

(05-28-2014 09:07 AM)S11 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-28-2014 08:48 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-28-2014 08:19 AM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]Surprised to see several ACC schools listed. I figure those Acc jobs cant be all that bad considering the other Acc schools that they get to play.

ESPN Link

Curious list and not sure of his "facts" in some cases. For instance he says Marquette does not have the media income it had in the old BE. Is that true? I thought the BE basketball media deal was an improvement over the old one.

Yeah, IIRC the "new" Big East/c7 get around 4mm now vs 1.2mm in tv money on the old deal.

More money but far less visibility. It's also not the same conference in regards to having yearly National Title contenders.

yeah, I think he's referring to the visibility rather than the actual money.

I'm typically not one to whine about "ESPN bias" (I think that gets tossed around waaaay too frequently by fans), but it's quite interesting that Clemson and FSU were considered to be "bad basketball jobs" because they're "football schools"... yet not a *single* SEC school was listed here.

I'd agree with you Frank- maybe could have seen Alabama on the list. I think if Auburn takes off with Pearl, next year you would see them there. I think that's part of the reason why Clemson and FSU are on there(their in-state competition). Maybe LSU should be on here.

There are a number of "cursed" jobs in CBB. The following schools below all have potential - however all of them are like eating a poisoned apple:

- Seton Hall (Big East)
- Southern California (PAC-12)
- Tulane (AAC)
- DePaul (Big East)
- Penn State (B1G)
- South Carolina (SEC)
- Arizona State (PAC-12)
- Rice (C-USA)

These are not bad jobs - but they're dicey ones.

Yes, Julie Hermann is our problem, not the numerous bad hires, the neglect of the entire program for decades, or the terrible facilities that make the team practice on the court they play games on, nearly unheard of at the BCS level.

Yep, it's the AD who, underneath all the fuss about her, is doing her job pretty darn well.

Maybe I'm not understanding what the ESPN writer was trying to do with the article, but the "honorable mentions" are all tougher jobs than the ones listed above those (maybe Northwestern is as tough). This guy can't seriously be arguing that Marquette is a tougher job than DePaul.

(05-28-2014 09:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]I'm typically not one to whine about "ESPN bias" (I think that gets tossed around waaaay too frequently by fans), but it's quite interesting that Clemson and FSU were considered to be "bad basketball jobs" because they're "football schools"... yet not a *single* SEC school was listed here.

Perhaps that's also due to context - the SEC as a whole is a largely football-centric conference, whereas the ACC is mostly basketball-centric. The converse of that would be that Kentucky, for example, could be considered as a "bad football job" in the realm of the SEC.

Of course, while that means you'd face tough competition at those schools, you may also have a little more rope to work with, since your alumni would be more focused on performance in the dominant sport, and may be less restless if you struggle in the "secondary" sport. The same would apply for Kansas in football, for example - we had a string of decent seasons with some minor bowl success combined with one big year with an Orange Bowl win, and Mark Mangino was golden with fans before he was run off. But even with the right coaching, it's unlikely that we'd regularly be competing for conference titles in football like we do in basketball.

(05-28-2014 10:45 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-28-2014 09:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]I'm typically not one to whine about "ESPN bias" (I think that gets tossed around waaaay too frequently by fans), but it's quite interesting that Clemson and FSU were considered to be "bad basketball jobs" because they're "football schools"... yet not a *single* SEC school was listed here.

Perhaps that's also due to context - the SEC as a whole is a largely football-centric conference, whereas the ACC is mostly basketball-centric. The converse of that would be that Kentucky, for example, could be considered as a "bad basketball job" in the realm of the SEC.

Of course, while that means you'd face tough competition at those schools, you may also have a little more rope to work with, since your alumni would be more focused on performance in the dominant sport, and may be less restless if you struggle in the "secondary" sport. The same would apply for Kansas in football, for example - we had a string of decent seasons with some minor bowl success combined with one big year with an Orange Bowl win, and Mark Mangino was golden with fans before he was run off. But even with the right coaching, it's unlikely that we'd regularly be competing for conference titles in football like we do in basketball.

I think you meant Kentucky would be considered as a bad football job in the realm of the SEC.

(05-28-2014 10:47 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-28-2014 10:45 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-28-2014 09:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]I'm typically not one to whine about "ESPN bias" (I think that gets tossed around waaaay too frequently by fans), but it's quite interesting that Clemson and FSU were considered to be "bad basketball jobs" because they're "football schools"... yet not a *single* SEC school was listed here.

Perhaps that's also due to context - the SEC as a whole is a largely football-centric conference, whereas the ACC is mostly basketball-centric. The converse of that would be that Kentucky, for example, could be considered as a "bad basketball job" in the realm of the SEC.

Of course, while that means you'd face tough competition at those schools, you may also have a little more rope to work with, since your alumni would be more focused on performance in the dominant sport, and may be less restless if you struggle in the "secondary" sport. The same would apply for Kansas in football, for example - we had a string of decent seasons with some minor bowl success combined with one big year with an Orange Bowl win, and Mark Mangino was golden with fans before he was run off. But even with the right coaching, it's unlikely that we'd regularly be competing for conference titles in football like we do in basketball.

I think you meant Kentucky would be considered as a bad football job in the realm of the SEC.

Right you are. I've fixed the copy & paste error in the original. Thanks for the catch.

one of the stupidest lists I have ever seen.....


1. no penn state ==> really??????

2. unlv, quette, depaul, & Minn do not belong on this list

(05-28-2014 11:18 AM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]one of the stupidest lists I have ever seen.....


1. no penn state ==> really??????

2. unlv, quette, depaul, & Minn do not belong on this list

Depaul does..the other 3 I don't think so either.

(05-28-2014 11:23 AM)HuskyU Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-28-2014 11:18 AM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]one of the stupidest lists I have ever seen.....


1. no penn state ==> really??????

2. unlv, quette, depaul, & Minn do not belong on this list

Depaul does..the other 3 I don't think so either.

they are getting a $200 mill new arena

id say that constitutes a somewhat decent coaching gig if your program has that much city/school support

How can TCU not be listed? We have no history, in a tough conference to turn things around in, in the middle of football country where basketball is basically an afterthought and previously had a dated basketball facility (although the arena is being re-done for 2015-16 and should be very nice). He's probably leaving off the obvious choices.

(05-28-2014 11:32 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ]How can TCU not be listed? We have no history, in a tough conference to turn things around in, in the middle of football country where basketball is basically an afterthought and previously had a dated basketball facility (although the arena is being re-done for 2015-16 and should be very nice). He's probably leaving off the obvious choices.

Can't say I disagree with you Having said that. Without Larry Brown, SMU would have been on that list.

(05-28-2014 11:27 AM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-28-2014 11:23 AM)HuskyU Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-28-2014 11:18 AM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]one of the stupidest lists I have ever seen.....


1. no penn state ==> really??????

2. unlv, quette, depaul, & Minn do not belong on this list

Depaul does..the other 3 I don't think so either.

they are getting a $200 mill new arena

id say that constitutes a somewhat decent coaching gig if your program has that much city/school support

They are not getting a $200 million dollar arena. The City of Chicago is building a new convention center and DePaul will be a tenant; just like DePaul is right now at the Rosemont Horizon in the Village of Rosemont, Illinois. Right now that Chicago convention center is still up in the air.