(03-12-2018 11:59 PM)ShockerFever Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:46 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:29 PM)Downtown Shocker Brown Wrote:  I typically rank jobs that I am looking at by the amount they pay, job security, and can I be successful and happy.

I count 19 coaches making $3+million dollars a year. UCONN will be one of those who will pay at least $3million+ (probably more) on next coach.

I don't care what success they had in 2005 anymore than I do what they did in 1965.

Money makes the world go round. If you pay top dollar, you can lure a good coach. That coach can make you a good program. All AAC teams are one hire away from being the best job in the conference.

Best I can tell, the jobs rate like this:

1. UCONN -- $3.5 Mil (Expected)
2. WSU -- $3.5 Mil
3. Memphis -- $3.25 Mil
4. UC -- $2.8 Mil
5. Temple -- $2.3 Mil
6. UH -- $1.75 Mil
7. Tulane -- $1.45 Mil
8. Tulsa -- $1.4 Mil
9. SMU -- $1.3 Mil
10. UCF -- $1.1 Mil
11. USF -- $1.1 Mil
12. ECU -- $900k (Expected)

you have to add success ...aka raises...marshall has been there 300 million years and probably got a million raises along the way

smu and uconn are willing to pay more than anyone if it guarantees success..they offered larry brown 2mil to start and then gave jank 1mill to be his understudy

houston offered the highest salary ever offered to a non power 5 for any sport in football when our old coach had us as a top 10 team (by over 2million)..ultimately texas still outbought him...

current salary doesn't tell the whole story... i guarantee wichita isn't even doing 2mil if they hired a new coach..theyd start moderate and work his way up

So WSU is penalized for keeping a coach longer and offering them more (Top 10) money? Ok...

Why are you talking about football with Houston when the subject is basketball?

Because the fact that Major Applewhite makes less than some p5 coaches doesn’t mean Houston is a worse job. He’s saying money is a case by case thing we were fixing to pay Tom Herman 5M if he would stay we would have matched a p5 offer but we Weren’t as good of a job as UT was to him.

UH will pay Sampson competitively with the top programs by this time next year.

(03-12-2018 11:02 PM)Wheatshock Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 10:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 09:27 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 09:21 PM)TripleA Wrote:  If we are talking right this minute, and not the program over some period in history, I would say:

1. Cincy. Cronin has the program in great shape. If he retired or took Calipari's job (lol), whoever walked in next would have a gem of a program. Not sure about facilities, but I know the renovated arena will reopen nest season.

2. Memphis. Brand new on campus state of the art basketball facility. Great NBA arena on Beale Street. Pays what the market will bear, or more. Great history and tradition. Lots of coaches have had successful runs here. Crazy but passionate fan base. You win big, and you are a legend, playing before huge packed houses.

3. UConn. Best recent history in the AAC, with those 4 Nattys. But that makes the bar high, and only one coach has been successful so far. Highest revenue in league, but not sure how sustainable that is. Not the easiest place to get to.

4. Temple. Great tradition. Great city. Great recruiting area. Always a threat to be really good.

5. Wichita State. Great job right now. But just moved up from MVC, and much of team doesn't return. If Marshall left for Louisville (lol), you could get a good replacement, but Marshall is your only successful coach, and it took him a long time. Not a super location for attracting recruits or coaches.

6. SMU. Up and coming, Brown did well, but maybe set it back a bit with penalties. But fan base is now into it.

7. UCF. Another up and coming program. Nice place to live and recruit. Program on the rise. But fan support needs work.

8. Houston. Great tradition a long time ago. Then a long dry spell. Finally coming back. Great city. Arena renovated. Attendance not much.

9. Tulsa. I know this will irritate Tulsa fans, but you guys need to renovate that gazebo. And Frank Haith is irritating, too. lol

10. Tulane. They don't irritate anybody.

11. ECU. They only irritate Memphis these days.

12. USF. See ECU.

LoL!

Too tired to correct. Just gonna laugh.


T


...

Try using facts to back up your smack.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sch...ita-state/

Show me all the brilliantly successful coaches on that list. By successful, I mean to Gregg Marshall standards, and to the measurement you claim is important: Post-season play ("when the REAL Wichita season starts")

Turgeon? 128-90 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT, S16. 3 NITs. 2-3 record.

Smithson? 55-62 in 4 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

S. Thompson? 40-70 in 4 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

Cohen? 32-56 in 3 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

Fogler? 61-32 with 2 NCAATs in 3 seasons, but lost both 1st round games. 0-2 NCAAT. One NIT. 1-1.

Smithson? 155-81 in 8 seasons. Only 2 NCAAT appearances in 8 years, one was a loss in 1st round. Other was E8. 3-2 overall NCAAT. Two NITs. 0-2.

H. Miller? 97-90 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT. Lost in 1st round. No NIT.

G. Thompson? 93-94 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT. Lost in F4 semis. First season. Downhill from there. One NIT. 0-1.

R. Miller? 220-133 in 13 seasons. One NCAAT. E8 in last season. 3 NITs. 0-3.

That takes us back to 1951. Nothing special past that, either. NCAAT really wasn't much any farther back, anyway.

Now, compare all those guys to Marshall:

Marshall? 286-97 in 11 seasons. 7 straight NCAATs. One S16. One F4. This year TBD with a 4 seed. Two NITs. 5-1 record. Won NITC in 2011.

Okay, Mr CB. Which one of these coaches above is not like all the rest?


WSU NIT history = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_St...IT_results

I think of Ralph Miller, Gene Smithson, and Mark Turgeon as successful coaches at WSU. None had the level of success that Marshall has had but coaches that can claim his level of success are hard to come by.

Miller basically built the program and is the foundation for all of our later successes. He was the one that got Koch Arena built and launched himself on a hall of fame career at WSU. Hard not to call what he did a success. One thing to take into consideration is that the tournament was a lot smaller then and harder to get into than today so only making it once isn't the black mark it would be today, Miller actually had a 27-4 team that was ranked in the top 20 much of the year that didn't get a bid. makes me glad that the tournament has expanded.

Smithson rebuilt the program after a couple of less than successful coaches. He took us to the tournament twice including an elite eight trip and had two other NCAA caliber teams that didn't get a chance to participate due to sanctions caused by the previous coaching staff.

After a few unsuccessful coaches Turgeon built the program back up from rock bottom and took us to our 1st tournament in almost two decades. He left shortly after that for a P5 job so we never got a chance to find out if he could have sustained it or not.

After that we hit the jackpot in Gregg Marshall.

I'll buy all that, but as you now see, that's not what I was talking about. Marshall is your only successful coach in having a superior win percentage (I didn't calculate it but it's obvious the difference), and frequent trips to the post season, where you yourself said yesterday that's the only thing that really counts. Maybe I could have made that a bit more clear, but the contrast is quite sharp.

Ask any non-Wichita non-MVC fan for any past coaches there. The great majority, including me, can't name anybody but Marshall. We don't know all that inside stuff about sanctions and somebody left before whatever.

I had the impression nobody had Marshall's success, so I looked it up and saw a few others had good winning percentages, but not like Marshall, and scant few postseason trips, to the point it was a stark contrast.

P.S. You're a better poster when you drop the troll act. Who knew? lol

Whoever offers the most hookers and blow:

1. Tulane
2. UCF
3. USF
4. Cincinnati
5. Houston
6. Tulsa
7. Temple
8. Memphis
9. Wichita State
10. SMU
11. UCONN
12. ECU

2018 Most Sinful Cities:

6. New Orleans
10. Orlando
15. Tampa
21. Cincinnati
32. Houston
39. Tulsa
45. Philly
66. Memphis
67. Wichita
83. Dallas
112. New Haven
147. Raleigh

https://wallethub.com/edu/most-sinful-ci...ica/29846/

(03-13-2018 07:02 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Whoever offers the most hookers and blow:

1. Tulane
2. UCF
3. USF
4. Cincinnati
5. Houston
6. Tulsa
7. Temple
8. Memphis
9. Wichita State
10. SMU
11. UCONN
12. ECU

2018 Most Sinful Cities:

6. New Orleans
10. Orlando
15. Tampa
21. Cincinnati
32. Houston
39. Tulsa
45. Philly
66. Memphis
67. Wichita
83. Dallas
112. New Haven
147. Raleigh

https://wallethub.com/edu/most-sinful-ci...ica/29846/

(03-13-2018 07:02 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Whoever offers the most hookers and blow:

1. Tulane
2. UCF
3. USF
4. Cincinnati
5. Houston
6. Tulsa
7. Temple
8. Memphis
9. Wichita State
10. SMU
11. UCONN
12. ECU

2018 Most Sinful Cities:

6. New Orleans
10. Orlando
15. Tampa
21. Cincinnati
32. Houston
39. Tulsa
45. Philly
66. Memphis
67. Wichita
83. Dallas
112. New Haven
147. Raleigh

https://wallethub.com/edu/most-sinful-ci...ica/29846/

Philly is 35 spots behind Orlando and 30 spots behind Tampa on the most sinful city list?

Memphis is one spot ahead of Wichita (should be more like 50)?

Nah, man, somebody spiked the punch on that survey.

(03-13-2018 06:17 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:02 PM)Wheatshock Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 10:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 09:27 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 09:21 PM)TripleA Wrote:  If we are talking right this minute, and not the program over some period in history, I would say:

1. Cincy. Cronin has the program in great shape. If he retired or took Calipari's job (lol), whoever walked in next would have a gem of a program. Not sure about facilities, but I know the renovated arena will reopen nest season.

2. Memphis. Brand new on campus state of the art basketball facility. Great NBA arena on Beale Street. Pays what the market will bear, or more. Great history and tradition. Lots of coaches have had successful runs here. Crazy but passionate fan base. You win big, and you are a legend, playing before huge packed houses.

3. UConn. Best recent history in the AAC, with those 4 Nattys. But that makes the bar high, and only one coach has been successful so far. Highest revenue in league, but not sure how sustainable that is. Not the easiest place to get to.

4. Temple. Great tradition. Great city. Great recruiting area. Always a threat to be really good.

5. Wichita State. Great job right now. But just moved up from MVC, and much of team doesn't return. If Marshall left for Louisville (lol), you could get a good replacement, but Marshall is your only successful coach, and it took him a long time. Not a super location for attracting recruits or coaches.

6. SMU. Up and coming, Brown did well, but maybe set it back a bit with penalties. But fan base is now into it.

7. UCF. Another up and coming program. Nice place to live and recruit. Program on the rise. But fan support needs work.

8. Houston. Great tradition a long time ago. Then a long dry spell. Finally coming back. Great city. Arena renovated. Attendance not much.

9. Tulsa. I know this will irritate Tulsa fans, but you guys need to renovate that gazebo. And Frank Haith is irritating, too. lol

10. Tulane. They don't irritate anybody.

11. ECU. They only irritate Memphis these days.

12. USF. See ECU.

LoL!

Too tired to correct. Just gonna laugh.


T


...

Try using facts to back up your smack.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sch...ita-state/

Show me all the brilliantly successful coaches on that list. By successful, I mean to Gregg Marshall standards, and to the measurement you claim is important: Post-season play ("when the REAL Wichita season starts")

Turgeon? 128-90 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT, S16. 3 NITs. 2-3 record.

Smithson? 55-62 in 4 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

S. Thompson? 40-70 in 4 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

Cohen? 32-56 in 3 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

Fogler? 61-32 with 2 NCAATs in 3 seasons, but lost both 1st round games. 0-2 NCAAT. One NIT. 1-1.

Smithson? 155-81 in 8 seasons. Only 2 NCAAT appearances in 8 years, one was a loss in 1st round. Other was E8. 3-2 overall NCAAT. Two NITs. 0-2.

H. Miller? 97-90 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT. Lost in 1st round. No NIT.

G. Thompson? 93-94 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT. Lost in F4 semis. First season. Downhill from there. One NIT. 0-1.

R. Miller? 220-133 in 13 seasons. One NCAAT. E8 in last season. 3 NITs. 0-3.

That takes us back to 1951. Nothing special past that, either. NCAAT really wasn't much any farther back, anyway.

Now, compare all those guys to Marshall:

Marshall? 286-97 in 11 seasons. 7 straight NCAATs. One S16. One F4. This year TBD with a 4 seed. Two NITs. 5-1 record. Won NITC in 2011.

Okay, Mr CB. Which one of these coaches above is not like all the rest?


WSU NIT history = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_St...IT_results

I think of Ralph Miller, Gene Smithson, and Mark Turgeon as successful coaches at WSU. None had the level of success that Marshall has had but coaches that can claim his level of success are hard to come by.

Miller basically built the program and is the foundation for all of our later successes. He was the one that got Koch Arena built and launched himself on a hall of fame career at WSU. Hard not to call what he did a success. One thing to take into consideration is that the tournament was a lot smaller then and harder to get into than today so only making it once isn't the black mark it would be today, Miller actually had a 27-4 team that was ranked in the top 20 much of the year that didn't get a bid. makes me glad that the tournament has expanded.

Smithson rebuilt the program after a couple of less than successful coaches. He took us to the tournament twice including an elite eight trip and had two other NCAA caliber teams that didn't get a chance to participate due to sanctions caused by the previous coaching staff.

After a few unsuccessful coaches Turgeon built the program back up from rock bottom and took us to our 1st tournament in almost two decades. He left shortly after that for a P5 job so we never got a chance to find out if he could have sustained it or not.

After that we hit the jackpot in Gregg Marshall.

I'll buy all that, but as you now see, that's not what I was talking about. Marshall is your only successful coach in having a superior win percentage (I didn't calculate it but it's obvious the difference), and frequent trips to the post season, where you yourself said yesterday that's the only thing that really counts. Maybe I could have made that a bit more clear, but the contrast is quite sharp.

Ask any non-Wichita non-MVC fan for any past coaches there. The great majority, including me, can't name anybody but Marshall. We don't know all that inside stuff about sanctions and somebody left before whatever.

I had the impression nobody had Marshall's success, so I looked it up and saw a few others had good winning percentages, but not like Marshall, and scant few postseason trips, to the point it was a stark contrast.

P.S. You're a better poster when you drop the troll act. Who knew? lol

Please don't confuse me with Cold. lol

I know that your 2nd post was directed at CB but I felt the need to respond as I felt you were setting the bar artificially high by calling Marshall our only successful coach. My point is that if what Marshall has done is the bar for success then there are very few programs around the country that can be thought of as successful.

(03-13-2018 06:17 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:02 PM)Wheatshock Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 10:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 09:27 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 09:21 PM)TripleA Wrote:  If we are talking right this minute, and not the program over some period in history, I would say:

1. Cincy. Cronin has the program in great shape. If he retired or took Calipari's job (lol), whoever walked in next would have a gem of a program. Not sure about facilities, but I know the renovated arena will reopen nest season.

2. Memphis. Brand new on campus state of the art basketball facility. Great NBA arena on Beale Street. Pays what the market will bear, or more. Great history and tradition. Lots of coaches have had successful runs here. Crazy but passionate fan base. You win big, and you are a legend, playing before huge packed houses.

3. UConn. Best recent history in the AAC, with those 4 Nattys. But that makes the bar high, and only one coach has been successful so far. Highest revenue in league, but not sure how sustainable that is. Not the easiest place to get to.

4. Temple. Great tradition. Great city. Great recruiting area. Always a threat to be really good.

5. Wichita State. Great job right now. But just moved up from MVC, and much of team doesn't return. If Marshall left for Louisville (lol), you could get a good replacement, but Marshall is your only successful coach, and it took him a long time. Not a super location for attracting recruits or coaches.

6. SMU. Up and coming, Brown did well, but maybe set it back a bit with penalties. But fan base is now into it.

7. UCF. Another up and coming program. Nice place to live and recruit. Program on the rise. But fan support needs work.

8. Houston. Great tradition a long time ago. Then a long dry spell. Finally coming back. Great city. Arena renovated. Attendance not much.

9. Tulsa. I know this will irritate Tulsa fans, but you guys need to renovate that gazebo. And Frank Haith is irritating, too. lol

10. Tulane. They don't irritate anybody.

11. ECU. They only irritate Memphis these days.

12. USF. See ECU.

LoL!

Too tired to correct. Just gonna laugh.


T


...

Try using facts to back up your smack.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sch...ita-state/

Show me all the brilliantly successful coaches on that list. By successful, I mean to Gregg Marshall standards, and to the measurement you claim is important: Post-season play ("when the REAL Wichita season starts")

Turgeon? 128-90 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT, S16. 3 NITs. 2-3 record.

Smithson? 55-62 in 4 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

S. Thompson? 40-70 in 4 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

Cohen? 32-56 in 3 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

Fogler? 61-32 with 2 NCAATs in 3 seasons, but lost both 1st round games. 0-2 NCAAT. One NIT. 1-1.

Smithson? 155-81 in 8 seasons. Only 2 NCAAT appearances in 8 years, one was a loss in 1st round. Other was E8. 3-2 overall NCAAT. Two NITs. 0-2.

H. Miller? 97-90 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT. Lost in 1st round. No NIT.

G. Thompson? 93-94 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT. Lost in F4 semis. First season. Downhill from there. One NIT. 0-1.

R. Miller? 220-133 in 13 seasons. One NCAAT. E8 in last season. 3 NITs. 0-3.

That takes us back to 1951. Nothing special past that, either. NCAAT really wasn't much any farther back, anyway.

Now, compare all those guys to Marshall:

Marshall? 286-97 in 11 seasons. 7 straight NCAATs. One S16. One F4. This year TBD with a 4 seed. Two NITs. 5-1 record. Won NITC in 2011.

Okay, Mr CB. Which one of these coaches above is not like all the rest?


WSU NIT history = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_St...IT_results

I think of Ralph Miller, Gene Smithson, and Mark Turgeon as successful coaches at WSU. None had the level of success that Marshall has had but coaches that can claim his level of success are hard to come by.

Miller basically built the program and is the foundation for all of our later successes. He was the one that got Koch Arena built and launched himself on a hall of fame career at WSU. Hard not to call what he did a success. One thing to take into consideration is that the tournament was a lot smaller then and harder to get into than today so only making it once isn't the black mark it would be today, Miller actually had a 27-4 team that was ranked in the top 20 much of the year that didn't get a bid. makes me glad that the tournament has expanded.

Smithson rebuilt the program after a couple of less than successful coaches. He took us to the tournament twice including an elite eight trip and had two other NCAA caliber teams that didn't get a chance to participate due to sanctions caused by the previous coaching staff.

After a few unsuccessful coaches Turgeon built the program back up from rock bottom and took us to our 1st tournament in almost two decades. He left shortly after that for a P5 job so we never got a chance to find out if he could have sustained it or not.

After that we hit the jackpot in Gregg Marshall.

I'll buy all that, but as you now see, that's not what I was talking about. Marshall is your only successful coach in having a superior win percentage (I didn't calculate it but it's obvious the difference), and frequent trips to the post season, where you yourself said yesterday that's the only thing that really counts. Maybe I could have made that a bit more clear, but the contrast is quite sharp.

Ask any non-Wichita non-MVC fan for any past coaches there. The great majority, including me, can't name anybody but Marshall. We don't know all that inside stuff about sanctions and somebody left before whatever.

I had the impression nobody had Marshall's success, so I looked it up and saw a few others had good winning percentages, but not like Marshall, and scant few postseason trips, to the point it was a stark contrast.

P.S. You're a better poster when you drop the troll act. Who knew? lol

So is a school not a good job if only one coach has had success? Can anyone name who coached Duke before Coach K?

(03-13-2018 08:40 AM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 06:17 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:02 PM)Wheatshock Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 10:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 09:27 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  LoL!

Too tired to correct. Just gonna laugh.


T


...

Try using facts to back up your smack.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sch...ita-state/

Show me all the brilliantly successful coaches on that list. By successful, I mean to Gregg Marshall standards, and to the measurement you claim is important: Post-season play ("when the REAL Wichita season starts")

Turgeon? 128-90 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT, S16. 3 NITs. 2-3 record.

Smithson? 55-62 in 4 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

S. Thompson? 40-70 in 4 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

Cohen? 32-56 in 3 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

Fogler? 61-32 with 2 NCAATs in 3 seasons, but lost both 1st round games. 0-2 NCAAT. One NIT. 1-1.

Smithson? 155-81 in 8 seasons. Only 2 NCAAT appearances in 8 years, one was a loss in 1st round. Other was E8. 3-2 overall NCAAT. Two NITs. 0-2.

H. Miller? 97-90 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT. Lost in 1st round. No NIT.

G. Thompson? 93-94 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT. Lost in F4 semis. First season. Downhill from there. One NIT. 0-1.

R. Miller? 220-133 in 13 seasons. One NCAAT. E8 in last season. 3 NITs. 0-3.

That takes us back to 1951. Nothing special past that, either. NCAAT really wasn't much any farther back, anyway.

Now, compare all those guys to Marshall:

Marshall? 286-97 in 11 seasons. 7 straight NCAATs. One S16. One F4. This year TBD with a 4 seed. Two NITs. 5-1 record. Won NITC in 2011.

Okay, Mr CB. Which one of these coaches above is not like all the rest?


WSU NIT history = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_St...IT_results

I think of Ralph Miller, Gene Smithson, and Mark Turgeon as successful coaches at WSU. None had the level of success that Marshall has had but coaches that can claim his level of success are hard to come by.

Miller basically built the program and is the foundation for all of our later successes. He was the one that got Koch Arena built and launched himself on a hall of fame career at WSU. Hard not to call what he did a success. One thing to take into consideration is that the tournament was a lot smaller then and harder to get into than today so only making it once isn't the black mark it would be today, Miller actually had a 27-4 team that was ranked in the top 20 much of the year that didn't get a bid. makes me glad that the tournament has expanded.

Smithson rebuilt the program after a couple of less than successful coaches. He took us to the tournament twice including an elite eight trip and had two other NCAA caliber teams that didn't get a chance to participate due to sanctions caused by the previous coaching staff.

After a few unsuccessful coaches Turgeon built the program back up from rock bottom and took us to our 1st tournament in almost two decades. He left shortly after that for a P5 job so we never got a chance to find out if he could have sustained it or not.

After that we hit the jackpot in Gregg Marshall.

I'll buy all that, but as you now see, that's not what I was talking about. Marshall is your only successful coach in having a superior win percentage (I didn't calculate it but it's obvious the difference), and frequent trips to the post season, where you yourself said yesterday that's the only thing that really counts. Maybe I could have made that a bit more clear, but the contrast is quite sharp.

Ask any non-Wichita non-MVC fan for any past coaches there. The great majority, including me, can't name anybody but Marshall. We don't know all that inside stuff about sanctions and somebody left before whatever.

I had the impression nobody had Marshall's success, so I looked it up and saw a few others had good winning percentages, but not like Marshall, and scant few postseason trips, to the point it was a stark contrast.

P.S. You're a better poster when you drop the troll act. Who knew? lol

So is a school not a good job if only one coach has had success? Can anyone name who coached Duke before Coach K?

I guess UConn is trash also.

^^^ TBD.

IMO, this is all one big trick question; all AAC jobs are the best...

Outsider perspective
Tier 1 (Most likely to make a F4 under numerous coaches)
UConn
Cincy
Memphis
Wichita (could be tier 3 too... benefit of doubt to recent history)

Tier 2 (Historic Success, great recruiting area, great coach away F4)
Temple
Houston

Tier 3 (Nice fanbase but still developing as a power)
SMU

The Rest (Some can move up with the right coach, some lack really any basketball tradition, a few basket cases)
Tulsa
UCF
USF
Tulane
ECU

(03-13-2018 09:37 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Outsider perspective
Tier 1 (Most likely to make a F4 under numerous coaches)
UConn
Cincy
Memphis
Wichita (could be tier 3 too... benefit of doubt to recent history)

Tier 2 (Historic Success, great recruiting area, great coach away F4)
Temple
Houston

Tier 3 (Nice fanbase but still developing as a power)
SMU

The Rest (Some can move up with the right coach, some lack really any basketball tradition, a few basket cases)
Tulsa
UCF
USF
Tulane
ECU

You have Wichita State too high and Tulsa too low. Everything else is reasonable.

(03-12-2018 11:46 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:29 PM)Downtown Shocker Brown Wrote:  I typically rank jobs that I am looking at by the amount they pay, job security, and can I be successful and happy.

I count 19 coaches making $3+million dollars a year. UCONN will be one of those who will pay at least $3million+ (probably more) on next coach.

I don't care what success they had in 2005 anymore than I do what they did in 1965.

Money makes the world go round. If you pay top dollar, you can lure a good coach. That coach can make you a good program. All AAC teams are one hire away from being the best job in the conference.

Best I can tell, the jobs rate like this:

1. UCONN -- $3.5 Mil (Expected)
2. WSU -- $3.5 Mil
3. Memphis -- $3.25 Mil
4. UC -- $2.8 Mil
5. Temple -- $2.3 Mil
6. UH -- $1.75 Mil
7. Tulane -- $1.45 Mil
8. Tulsa -- $1.4 Mil
9. SMU -- $1.3 Mil
10. UCF -- $1.1 Mil
11. USF -- $1.1 Mil
12. ECU -- $900k (Expected)

you have to add success ...aka raises...marshall has been there 300 million years and probably got a million raises along the way

smu and uconn are willing to pay more than anyone if it guarantees success..they offered larry brown 2mil to start and then gave jank 1mill to be his understudy

houston offered the highest salary ever offered to a non power 5 for any sport in football when our old coach had us as a top 10 team (by over 2million)..ultimately texas still outbought him...

current salary doesn't tell the whole story... i guarantee wichita isn't even doing 2mil if they hired a new coach..theyd start moderate and work his way up

I don't think you can guarantee that.

It depends on who is available and what their qualifications were when that point in time comes.

I can't guarantee you we won't start moderate, but I will guarantee you this: donors will step up for the right guy.

(03-13-2018 08:27 AM)Wheatshock Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 06:17 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:02 PM)Wheatshock Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 10:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 09:27 PM)C0|db|00ded Wrote:  LoL!

Too tired to correct. Just gonna laugh.


T


...

Try using facts to back up your smack.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sch...ita-state/

Show me all the brilliantly successful coaches on that list. By successful, I mean to Gregg Marshall standards, and to the measurement you claim is important: Post-season play ("when the REAL Wichita season starts")

Turgeon? 128-90 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT, S16. 3 NITs. 2-3 record.

Smithson? 55-62 in 4 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

S. Thompson? 40-70 in 4 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

Cohen? 32-56 in 3 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

Fogler? 61-32 with 2 NCAATs in 3 seasons, but lost both 1st round games. 0-2 NCAAT. One NIT. 1-1.

Smithson? 155-81 in 8 seasons. Only 2 NCAAT appearances in 8 years, one was a loss in 1st round. Other was E8. 3-2 overall NCAAT. Two NITs. 0-2.

H. Miller? 97-90 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT. Lost in 1st round. No NIT.

G. Thompson? 93-94 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT. Lost in F4 semis. First season. Downhill from there. One NIT. 0-1.

R. Miller? 220-133 in 13 seasons. One NCAAT. E8 in last season. 3 NITs. 0-3.

That takes us back to 1951. Nothing special past that, either. NCAAT really wasn't much any farther back, anyway.

Now, compare all those guys to Marshall:

Marshall? 286-97 in 11 seasons. 7 straight NCAATs. One S16. One F4. This year TBD with a 4 seed. Two NITs. 5-1 record. Won NITC in 2011.

Okay, Mr CB. Which one of these coaches above is not like all the rest?


WSU NIT history = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_St...IT_results

I think of Ralph Miller, Gene Smithson, and Mark Turgeon as successful coaches at WSU. None had the level of success that Marshall has had but coaches that can claim his level of success are hard to come by.

Miller basically built the program and is the foundation for all of our later successes. He was the one that got Koch Arena built and launched himself on a hall of fame career at WSU. Hard not to call what he did a success. One thing to take into consideration is that the tournament was a lot smaller then and harder to get into than today so only making it once isn't the black mark it would be today, Miller actually had a 27-4 team that was ranked in the top 20 much of the year that didn't get a bid. makes me glad that the tournament has expanded.

Smithson rebuilt the program after a couple of less than successful coaches. He took us to the tournament twice including an elite eight trip and had two other NCAA caliber teams that didn't get a chance to participate due to sanctions caused by the previous coaching staff.

After a few unsuccessful coaches Turgeon built the program back up from rock bottom and took us to our 1st tournament in almost two decades. He left shortly after that for a P5 job so we never got a chance to find out if he could have sustained it or not.

After that we hit the jackpot in Gregg Marshall.

I'll buy all that, but as you now see, that's not what I was talking about. Marshall is your only successful coach in having a superior win percentage (I didn't calculate it but it's obvious the difference), and frequent trips to the post season, where you yourself said yesterday that's the only thing that really counts. Maybe I could have made that a bit more clear, but the contrast is quite sharp.

Ask any non-Wichita non-MVC fan for any past coaches there. The great majority, including me, can't name anybody but Marshall. We don't know all that inside stuff about sanctions and somebody left before whatever.

I had the impression nobody had Marshall's success, so I looked it up and saw a few others had good winning percentages, but not like Marshall, and scant few postseason trips, to the point it was a stark contrast.

P.S. You're a better poster when you drop the troll act. Who knew? lol

Please don't confuse me with Cold. lol

I know that your 2nd post was directed at CB but I felt the need to respond as I felt you were setting the bar artificially high by calling Marshall our only successful coach. My point is that if what Marshall has done is the bar for success then there are very few programs around the country that can be thought of as successful.

Well, I should have originally said "in terms of the NCAAT," b/c that is what CB has been holding up as the standard for WSU basketball. I did state that above in my next post, but maybe it got lost.

Some of those other Shocker coaches had good winning records, BUT it was in lesser conferences AND they did almost nothing in either the NIT or the NCAAT.

So even without comparing them to Marshall, I think it is debatable whether your other coaches were all that ""successful," when compared to any other successful coach you can name off the top of your head.

For example, when asked to name "successful" CBB coaches, most non-Wichita fans would say Roy Williams, Coach K, Bill Self, Jim Boeheim, Calipari, Jim Calhoun, Rick Pitino, etc.

Nobody would name any coach from Wichita except Gregg Marshall.

http://www.espn.com/30for30/film?page=phislamajama. Enough said!

(03-13-2018 11:04 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 08:27 AM)Wheatshock Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 06:17 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:02 PM)Wheatshock Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 10:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Try using facts to back up your smack.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sch...ita-state/

Show me all the brilliantly successful coaches on that list. By successful, I mean to Gregg Marshall standards, and to the measurement you claim is important: Post-season play ("when the REAL Wichita season starts")

Turgeon? 128-90 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT, S16. 3 NITs. 2-3 record.

Smithson? 55-62 in 4 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

S. Thompson? 40-70 in 4 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

Cohen? 32-56 in 3 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

Fogler? 61-32 with 2 NCAATs in 3 seasons, but lost both 1st round games. 0-2 NCAAT. One NIT. 1-1.

Smithson? 155-81 in 8 seasons. Only 2 NCAAT appearances in 8 years, one was a loss in 1st round. Other was E8. 3-2 overall NCAAT. Two NITs. 0-2.

H. Miller? 97-90 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT. Lost in 1st round. No NIT.

G. Thompson? 93-94 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT. Lost in F4 semis. First season. Downhill from there. One NIT. 0-1.

R. Miller? 220-133 in 13 seasons. One NCAAT. E8 in last season. 3 NITs. 0-3.

That takes us back to 1951. Nothing special past that, either. NCAAT really wasn't much any farther back, anyway.

Now, compare all those guys to Marshall:

Marshall? 286-97 in 11 seasons. 7 straight NCAATs. One S16. One F4. This year TBD with a 4 seed. Two NITs. 5-1 record. Won NITC in 2011.

Okay, Mr CB. Which one of these coaches above is not like all the rest?


WSU NIT history = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_St...IT_results

I think of Ralph Miller, Gene Smithson, and Mark Turgeon as successful coaches at WSU. None had the level of success that Marshall has had but coaches that can claim his level of success are hard to come by.

Miller basically built the program and is the foundation for all of our later successes. He was the one that got Koch Arena built and launched himself on a hall of fame career at WSU. Hard not to call what he did a success. One thing to take into consideration is that the tournament was a lot smaller then and harder to get into than today so only making it once isn't the black mark it would be today, Miller actually had a 27-4 team that was ranked in the top 20 much of the year that didn't get a bid. makes me glad that the tournament has expanded.

Smithson rebuilt the program after a couple of less than successful coaches. He took us to the tournament twice including an elite eight trip and had two other NCAA caliber teams that didn't get a chance to participate due to sanctions caused by the previous coaching staff.

After a few unsuccessful coaches Turgeon built the program back up from rock bottom and took us to our 1st tournament in almost two decades. He left shortly after that for a P5 job so we never got a chance to find out if he could have sustained it or not.

After that we hit the jackpot in Gregg Marshall.

I'll buy all that, but as you now see, that's not what I was talking about. Marshall is your only successful coach in having a superior win percentage (I didn't calculate it but it's obvious the difference), and frequent trips to the post season, where you yourself said yesterday that's the only thing that really counts. Maybe I could have made that a bit more clear, but the contrast is quite sharp.

Ask any non-Wichita non-MVC fan for any past coaches there. The great majority, including me, can't name anybody but Marshall. We don't know all that inside stuff about sanctions and somebody left before whatever.

I had the impression nobody had Marshall's success, so I looked it up and saw a few others had good winning percentages, but not like Marshall, and scant few postseason trips, to the point it was a stark contrast.

P.S. You're a better poster when you drop the troll act. Who knew? lol

Please don't confuse me with Cold. lol

I know that your 2nd post was directed at CB but I felt the need to respond as I felt you were setting the bar artificially high by calling Marshall our only successful coach. My point is that if what Marshall has done is the bar for success then there are very few programs around the country that can be thought of as successful.

Well, I should have originally said "in terms of the NCAAT," b/c that is what CB has been holding up as the standard for WSU basketball. I did state that above in my next post, but maybe it got lost.

Some of those other Shocker coaches had good winning records, BUT it was in lesser conferences AND they did almost nothing in either the NIT or the NCAAT.

So even without comparing them to Marshall, I think it is debatable whether your other coaches were all that ""successful," when compared to any other successful coach you can name off the top of your head.

For example, when asked to name "successful" CBB coaches, most non-Wichita fans would say Roy Williams, Coach K, Bill Self, Jim Boeheim, Calipari, Jim Calhoun, Rick Pitino, etc.

Nobody would name any coach from Wichita except Gregg Marshall.

Successful coaches from our past are routinely mentioned in the national press.

Gene Smithson's career would likely have been extended had we not suffered a fatal wound due to an attack from the north. Translated: The ChicKUn ***** called the PoPo down on us for beating their asses and taunting them from every corner in Wichita by wearing various t-shirts commemorating said ass beatings (football and bball). Both our programs were cheating; ours very little, while reports coming out of Lowrents indicated they were just handing stacks of cash to recruits. We paid for a few parent's meals/plane tickets and gave a brutha from Cali a coat. We got the Death Penalty. K|Uck-City got the last laugh and continued to cheat for the next 3 decades.


T


...

(03-13-2018 11:04 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 08:27 AM)Wheatshock Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 06:17 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:02 PM)Wheatshock Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 10:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Try using facts to back up your smack.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sch...ita-state/

Show me all the brilliantly successful coaches on that list. By successful, I mean to Gregg Marshall standards, and to the measurement you claim is important: Post-season play ("when the REAL Wichita season starts")

Turgeon? 128-90 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT, S16. 3 NITs. 2-3 record.

Smithson? 55-62 in 4 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

S. Thompson? 40-70 in 4 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

Cohen? 32-56 in 3 seasons. No NCAAT. No NIT.

Fogler? 61-32 with 2 NCAATs in 3 seasons, but lost both 1st round games. 0-2 NCAAT. One NIT. 1-1.

Smithson? 155-81 in 8 seasons. Only 2 NCAAT appearances in 8 years, one was a loss in 1st round. Other was E8. 3-2 overall NCAAT. Two NITs. 0-2.

H. Miller? 97-90 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT. Lost in 1st round. No NIT.

G. Thompson? 93-94 in 7 seasons. One NCAAT. Lost in F4 semis. First season. Downhill from there. One NIT. 0-1.

R. Miller? 220-133 in 13 seasons. One NCAAT. E8 in last season. 3 NITs. 0-3.

That takes us back to 1951. Nothing special past that, either. NCAAT really wasn't much any farther back, anyway.

Now, compare all those guys to Marshall:

Marshall? 286-97 in 11 seasons. 7 straight NCAATs. One S16. One F4. This year TBD with a 4 seed. Two NITs. 5-1 record. Won NITC in 2011.

Okay, Mr CB. Which one of these coaches above is not like all the rest?


WSU NIT history = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_St...IT_results

I think of Ralph Miller, Gene Smithson, and Mark Turgeon as successful coaches at WSU. None had the level of success that Marshall has had but coaches that can claim his level of success are hard to come by.

Miller basically built the program and is the foundation for all of our later successes. He was the one that got Koch Arena built and launched himself on a hall of fame career at WSU. Hard not to call what he did a success. One thing to take into consideration is that the tournament was a lot smaller then and harder to get into than today so only making it once isn't the black mark it would be today, Miller actually had a 27-4 team that was ranked in the top 20 much of the year that didn't get a bid. makes me glad that the tournament has expanded.

Smithson rebuilt the program after a couple of less than successful coaches. He took us to the tournament twice including an elite eight trip and had two other NCAA caliber teams that didn't get a chance to participate due to sanctions caused by the previous coaching staff.

After a few unsuccessful coaches Turgeon built the program back up from rock bottom and took us to our 1st tournament in almost two decades. He left shortly after that for a P5 job so we never got a chance to find out if he could have sustained it or not.

After that we hit the jackpot in Gregg Marshall.

I'll buy all that, but as you now see, that's not what I was talking about. Marshall is your only successful coach in having a superior win percentage (I didn't calculate it but it's obvious the difference), and frequent trips to the post season, where you yourself said yesterday that's the only thing that really counts. Maybe I could have made that a bit more clear, but the contrast is quite sharp.

Ask any non-Wichita non-MVC fan for any past coaches there. The great majority, including me, can't name anybody but Marshall. We don't know all that inside stuff about sanctions and somebody left before whatever.

I had the impression nobody had Marshall's success, so I looked it up and saw a few others had good winning percentages, but not like Marshall, and scant few postseason trips, to the point it was a stark contrast.

P.S. You're a better poster when you drop the troll act. Who knew? lol

Please don't confuse me with Cold. lol

I know that your 2nd post was directed at CB but I felt the need to respond as I felt you were setting the bar artificially high by calling Marshall our only successful coach. My point is that if what Marshall has done is the bar for success then there are very few programs around the country that can be thought of as successful.

Well, I should have originally said "in terms of the NCAAT," b/c that is what CB has been holding up as the standard for WSU basketball. I did state that above in my next post, but maybe it got lost.

Some of those other Shocker coaches had good winning records, BUT it was in lesser conferences AND they did almost nothing in either the NIT or the NCAAT.

So even without comparing them to Marshall, I think it is debatable whether your other coaches were all that ""successful," when compared to any other successful coach you can name off the top of your head.

For example, when asked to name "successful" CBB coaches, most non-Wichita fans would say Roy Williams, Coach K, Bill Self, Jim Boeheim, Calipari, Jim Calhoun, Rick Pitino, etc.

Nobody would name any coach from Wichita except Gregg Marshall.

So we’re being compared to blue bloods?

Cool.

(03-13-2018 11:26 AM)ShockerFever Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 11:04 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 08:27 AM)Wheatshock Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 06:17 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:02 PM)Wheatshock Wrote:  I think of Ralph Miller, Gene Smithson, and Mark Turgeon as successful coaches at WSU. None had the level of success that Marshall has had but coaches that can claim his level of success are hard to come by.

Miller basically built the program and is the foundation for all of our later successes. He was the one that got Koch Arena built and launched himself on a hall of fame career at WSU. Hard not to call what he did a success. One thing to take into consideration is that the tournament was a lot smaller then and harder to get into than today so only making it once isn't the black mark it would be today, Miller actually had a 27-4 team that was ranked in the top 20 much of the year that didn't get a bid. makes me glad that the tournament has expanded.

Smithson rebuilt the program after a couple of less than successful coaches. He took us to the tournament twice including an elite eight trip and had two other NCAA caliber teams that didn't get a chance to participate due to sanctions caused by the previous coaching staff.

After a few unsuccessful coaches Turgeon built the program back up from rock bottom and took us to our 1st tournament in almost two decades. He left shortly after that for a P5 job so we never got a chance to find out if he could have sustained it or not.

After that we hit the jackpot in Gregg Marshall.

I'll buy all that, but as you now see, that's not what I was talking about. Marshall is your only successful coach in having a superior win percentage (I didn't calculate it but it's obvious the difference), and frequent trips to the post season, where you yourself said yesterday that's the only thing that really counts. Maybe I could have made that a bit more clear, but the contrast is quite sharp.

Ask any non-Wichita non-MVC fan for any past coaches there. The great majority, including me, can't name anybody but Marshall. We don't know all that inside stuff about sanctions and somebody left before whatever.

I had the impression nobody had Marshall's success, so I looked it up and saw a few others had good winning percentages, but not like Marshall, and scant few postseason trips, to the point it was a stark contrast.

P.S. You're a better poster when you drop the troll act. Who knew? lol

Please don't confuse me with Cold. lol

I know that your 2nd post was directed at CB but I felt the need to respond as I felt you were setting the bar artificially high by calling Marshall our only successful coach. My point is that if what Marshall has done is the bar for success then there are very few programs around the country that can be thought of as successful.

Well, I should have originally said "in terms of the NCAAT," b/c that is what CB has been holding up as the standard for WSU basketball. I did state that above in my next post, but maybe it got lost.

Some of those other Shocker coaches had good winning records, BUT it was in lesser conferences AND they did almost nothing in either the NIT or the NCAAT.

So even without comparing them to Marshall, I think it is debatable whether your other coaches were all that ""successful," when compared to any other successful coach you can name off the top of your head.

For example, when asked to name "successful" CBB coaches, most non-Wichita fans would say Roy Williams, Coach K, Bill Self, Jim Boeheim, Calipari, Jim Calhoun, Rick Pitino, etc.

Nobody would name any coach from Wichita except Gregg Marshall.

So we’re being compared to blue bloods?

Cool.

If you name "successful college coaches," you would leave them out?