Official 2009-10 College Basketball Thread

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Samdari

That makes less sense than most things you post.

The fans, who don't make the decision to fire Kent, are being sold a bill of goods by the people that do, so that the people that do, get to fire Kent? They may have been deluding themselves, but I don't think deluding anyone else really benefits them.

Why do you keep referencing Kent? I haven't said anything about him or his firing. I'm strictly talking about the hiring process.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I didn't set the bar, you did.

Understood. Was just noting the actual numbers and circumstances. Not as good a tourney record as Anderson, but the big run one year brings him close.

Hewitt is defintely a great example of how a good gig can go south in a hurry.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Why do you keep referencing Kent? I haven't said anything about him or his firing. I'm strictly talking about the hiring process.

I don't understand why you think the Oregon athletic power structure is "selling a bill of goods" to the fans. They may be deluding themselves by thinking that, but I don't know why you think they're working so hard to get fans to think they can get Izzo for a few days. There's just no benefit.

I reference Kent because thinking you can do better than the current guy is a part of every decision to fire someone. Why else would they bother to try to sell a bill of goods to the fans. That statement just makes no sense whatsoever.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I don't understand why you think the Oregon athletic power structure is "selling a bill of goods" to the fans. They may be deluding themselves by thinking that, but I don't know why you think they're working so hard to get fans to think they can get Izzo for a few days. There's just no benefit.

I reference Kent because thinking you can do better than the current guy is a part of every decision to fire someone. Why else would they bother to try to sell a bill of goods to the fans. That statement just makes no sense whatsoever.

I'd agree with the bold-faced comment. There's no benefit and it's been mentioned several times by people in this thread in addition to the articles posted. Oregon doesn't have a clue what they're doing at this point.

And let's be honest here, this is not a very good program right now. Mr. Bug would lead you to believe that Mizzou is an average program and that Mike Anderson is an underwhelming coach. If that's the case, the following speaks volumes about where the Oregon program stands.

Missouri Cruises Past Oregon, 106-69 - MISSOURI OFFICIAL ATHLETIC SITE

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

The fact that this rule, which was unbendable in Kilicli's situation just earlier this year, but is likely to be changed for Kentucky and Calipari is pure B.S. and sets a very bad and unfair precedent.

The rule isn´t bend for one case, the rule is getting changed for good. Kind of a huge difference, don´t you think?
You did read further than the headline, right ?

FYI : Kilicli would have gone up and played for Fenerbahce had they asked him to, just like Kanter did. And i know for a fact that both trained with professionals on a semi-regular basis.

The NCAA amateurism-claim as a whole is absurd

With the rule change, in theory a high school player could very well do all the things you describe. Heck, i´m no expert but the big AAU teams seem a hell of a lot removed from what you´d expect a HS player to experience as preperation.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by whomario

The rule isn´t bend for one case, the rule is getting changed for good. Kind of a huge difference, don´t you think?
You did read further than the headline, right ?

FYI : Kilicli would have gone up and played for Fenerbahce had they asked him to, just like Kanter did. And i know for a fact that both trained with professionals on a semi-regular basis.

The NCAA amateurism-claim as a whole is absurd

With the rule change, in theory a high school player could very well do all the things you describe. Heck, i´m no expert but the big AAU teams seem a hell of a lot removed from what you´d expect a HS player to experience as preperation.

This change is long overdue. Mizzou had a couple of foreign players ruled ineligible in the past for playing with pros for no pay. It was silly.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd agree with the bold-faced comment. There's no benefit and it's been mentioned several times by people in this thread in addition to the articles posted. Oregon doesn't have a clue what they're doing at this point.

And let's be honest here, this is not a very good program right now. Mr. Bug would lead you to believe that Mizzou is an average program and that Mike Anderson is an underwhelming coach. If that's the case, the following speaks volumes about where the Oregon program stands.

Agreed that they would be deluding themselves by thinking that money alone can lure anyone from anywhere.

Just did not see where the "selling the fans a bill of goods" came in. I don't think they are doing it, nor would there be any benefit to doing so.

I also don't think they are necesarily proving to be clueless by calling Izzo. Why not? Doing that does not indicate that he was your only plan in firing Kent. You should be going after the best available option, and part of that process is finding out what your options are. What do you lose in the interim? A chance at Steve Lavin? And honestly, given the little control anyone has over coach movement, would anyone be stunned if he went to Oregon a month from now if they made him the highest paid coach in college hoops?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's already been discussed above, but I'll repeat it. The fans are being sold a bill of goods by the admins/lead boosters that they can land a coach like Izzo. It's ludicrous as has been noted.

Izzo is/was a longshot. But why not? DePaul asked to speak with Howland. What does it hurt to ask?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by whomario

The rule isn´t bend for one case, the rule is getting changed for good. Kind of a huge difference, don´t you think?
You did read further than the headline, right ?

FYI : Kilicli would have gone up and played for Fenerbahce had they asked him to, just like Kanter did. And i know for a fact that both trained with professionals on a semi-regular basis.

The NCAA amateurism-claim as a whole is absurd

With the rule change, in theory a high school player could very well do all the things you describe. Heck, i´m no expert but the big AAU teams seem a hell of a lot removed from what you´d expect a HS player to experience as preperation.

No -- I don't think it is a change for good. I think it gives European players and unfair advantage over American high school kids. If you think the amateurism claim is absurd, we will just have to agree to disagree.

The big AAU teams are completely comprised of amateur, high school players (ie: peers). A 17- or 18-year old playing AAU tournaments versus other 17- and 18-year olds is a hell of a lot different than a 17- or 18-year old being allowed to practice and play with and against professional athletes in their 20s.

FYI: The "what ifs" don't mean a whole lot to me. Kilicli did not play in a professional league and Kanter did -- in the case of determining whether a player is an amateur or not, that is pretty much all that should matter. If either had plans of playing American college basketball, they should not have done it.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

No, because they shouldn't let Europeans knowingly play with professionals and then enroll, as amateurs, in college basketball. That gives them an unfair advantage. Why not allow elite American high school players join the NBA Development League or form practice squads that can practice against NBA teams and then enroll, as amateurs, in school, if that is essentially what they are going to allow Europeans to do?

Hmmm good point. Why not indeed.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Hmmm good point. Why not indeed.

Yeah, I hadn't given much thought to the debate, but the way Swaggs had that, that makes a lot of sense to me on why this is not fair.

[whomario]

the amateurism claim being bs goes more toward the fact that the big schools make millions off of theese "amateurs" ...

I´m not even saying Kanter should be eligible ... But it´s simply not a change made for Kanter but for dozens of players that are in Kilicli´s ballpark, playing games where from the 24 registered players on both side 1 or 2 are getting paid.

And if that means paving the way for 1 or 2 players each year like Kanter, so be it. But it also will clear the way for a ton of guys like Kilicli or Standhardinger who play in games where 22 of the 24 on the court are students or having normal jobs.

You were the one making it about Kanter when he is clearly the exception and not the rule here and neither the rule nor the article are about him really ...
Just because a journalist made a catchy title to capture readers due to Kanter (by a wide margin the most talented and spoken-of european prospect this year) just having commited to college doesn´t mean the rule is about him or players like him.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by whomario

the amateurism claim being bs goes more toward the fact that the big schools make millions off of theese "amateurs" ...

So, for that matter, do the AAU teams. They make big bucks from the sneaker companies for steering their players towards schools who wear the right stuff.

[Chief Rum]

Thing is, no players at either the university or on the AAU teams are making the money (well, except at Kentucky). Call the amateurism a joke (and I agree, it's hypocritical of the system to make so much $$ off of these kids), but the players are still essentially amateurs and they play with amateurs. In Europe, it's not like that.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Thing is, no players at either the university or on the AAU teams are making the money (well, except at Kentucky). Call the amateurism a joke (and I agree, it's hypocritical of the system to make so much $$ off of these kids), but the players are still essentially amateurs and they play with amateurs. In Europe, it's not like that.

I think that's a big part of why the rest of the world is (slowly) closing the gap on the US too.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I think that's a big part of why the rest of the world is (slowly) closing the gap on the US too.

Because they let 13 years olds play with pros? Probably.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Because they let 13 years olds play with pros? Probably.

Well, yeah.

Plus the fact that they don't have to pretend to be balancing academics with athletics is a major advantage to player development.

It's doubtful that Europe will be able to produce the same quality of athletes as the US any time soon, but in terms of basketball skills I think they're ahead of the game already.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Izzo is/was a longshot. But why not? DePaul asked to speak with Howland. What does it hurt to ask?

So you're using DePaul as an example of why Oregon should try a tactic? DePaul's AD is the laughingstock of NCAA D-I right now. Poor choice of examples.

There's a BIG difference between asking a coach if he's interested behind closed doors and leaking a rumor to the media that they're going to offer a contract that has no chance of being accepted. The first option is common business practice in NCAA circles. The second option is something only the DePaul (and apparantly Oregon) AD would think made any sense.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So you're using DePaul as an example of why Oregon should try a tactic? DePaul's AD is the laughingstock of NCAA D-I right now. Poor choice of examples.

There's a BIG difference between asking a coach if he's interested behind closed doors and leaking a rumor to the media that they're going to offer a contract that has no chance of being accepted. The first option is common business practice in NCAA circles. The second option is something only the DePaul (and apparantly Oregon) AD would think made any sense.

St. John's is guilty of the second as well.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I also don't think they are necesarily proving to be clueless by calling Izzo. Why not? Doing that does not indicate that he was your only plan in firing Kent. You should be going after the best available option, and part of that process is finding out what your options are. What do you lose in the interim?

The DePaul example sited in Parrish's article was a prime example of what you can lose. They missed out on a great candidate by wasting their time offering to Howland. There's quite a few really good mid-major candidates that could make a big impact at Oregon. There's also plenty of other schools looking at those candidates. Every day wasted on a coach that you have no chance of landing is a step down the ladder of options available.

I'd agree that they're not 'clueless'. They're just allowing their emotions and over-inflated view of their school's current prestige level to get in the way of good management decisions. Oregon is nearly a mirror image of what Mizzou was four years ago when we hired Anderson. Oregon is in a position with newer facilities coming to give an up and coming coach a great chance at building a program. Go out and get the best of that crop while you can because Izzo (or any other Hall of Fame coach you can toss out) isn't coming to Oregon.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So you're using DePaul as an example of why Oregon should try a tactic? DePaul's AD is the laughingstock of NCAA D-I right now. Poor choice of examples.

You keep asking for examples and when you receive them, you dismiss them. It's not fault you can't think of relevant examples.

There's a BIG difference between asking a coach if he's interested behind closed doors and leaking a rumor to the media that they're going to offer a contract that has no chance of being accepted. The first option is common business practice in NCAA circles. The second option is something only the DePaul (and apparantly Oregon) AD would think made any sense.

Um, as far as I know, nothing has been leaked. No more then missouri using nolan to leak the Anderson to stay at Missouri rumor.

And Howland confirmed that DePaul was interested, not the otherway around

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The DePaul example sited in Parrish's article was a prime example of what you can lose. They missed out on a great candidate by wasting their time offering to Howland. There's quite a few really good mid-major candidates that could make a big impact at Oregon. There's also plenty of other schools looking at those candidates. Every day wasted on a coach that you have no chance of landing is a step down the ladder of options available.

I'd agree that they're not 'clueless'. They're just allowing their emotions and over-inflated view of their school's current prestige level to get in the way of good management decisions. Oregon is nearly a mirror image of what Mizzou was four years ago when we hired Anderson. Oregon is in a position with newer facilities coming to give an up and coming coach a great chance at building a program. Go out and get the best of that crop while you can because Izzo (or any other Hall of Fame coach you can toss out) isn't coming to Oregon.

Your trying to fit a solid argument to an end result that hasn't happened. If they go out and land Lon Kruger, then you can build a case. But they won't get far past Anderson or another coach from a small major (Turg?) No one wanted the Arizona job last year either and they ended up with a good coach aas well

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Your trying to fit a solid argument to an end result that hasn't happened. If they go out and land Lon Kruger, then you can build a case. But they won't get far past Anderson or another coach from a small major (Turg?) No one wanted the Arizona job last year either and they ended up with a good coach aas well

Lon Kruger would be a great hire for Oregon. He's a solid guy and an excellent X's and O's coach. Oregon couldn't land Anderson if they tried, so I'm not sure why you continue to bring him into the conversation. He'd be a great hire and a huge upgrade, but it ain't happening.

Arizona made a good hire. They also didn't make any insinuations that they were going to hire a coach they had no chance of hiring.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Um, as far as I know, nothing has been leaked. No more then missouri using nolan to leak the Anderson to stay at Missouri rumor.

And Howland confirmed that DePaul was interested, not the otherway around

When ESPN publishes an 'anonymous source' article, where exactly do you think that comes from? It's a AD source and it has to be very high up the food chain before ESPN even considers publishing it as a rumor.

You're exactly right on Howland. He confirmed that they were interested and he made it clear once it became public knowledge that he had no interest. But in the meanwhile, they missed out on hiring a coach that would have been a great hire for that program.

[sterlingice]

It's not as if the University is completely a monolith. There's always a chance it could be a booster who an overinflated ego trying to put pressure on the AD to get a bigger name, too.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It's not as if the University is completely a monolith. There's always a chance it could be a booster who an overinflated ego trying to put pressure on the AD to get a bigger name, too.

SI

Have a friend that works for ESPN who went through the J-School at Mizzou. From what I know of how they work, a booster wouldn't be used as a source, anonymous or otherwise.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The DePaul example sited in Parrish's article was a prime example of what you can lose. They missed out on a great candidate by wasting their time offering to Howland. There's quite a few really good mid-major candidates that could make a big impact at Oregon. There's also plenty of other schools looking at those candidates. Every day wasted on a coach that you have no chance of landing is a step down the ladder of options available.

I'd agree that they're not 'clueless'. They're just allowing their emotions and over-inflated view of their school's current prestige level to get in the way of good management decisions. Oregon is nearly a mirror image of what Mizzou was four years ago when we hired Anderson. Oregon is in a position with newer facilities coming to give an up and coming coach a great chance at building a program. Go out and get the best of that crop while you can because Izzo (or any other Hall of Fame coach you can toss out) isn't coming to Oregon.

I can't see how you're faulting DePaul for trying to get the best candidate available. Did they miss out on a quality candidate? Sure. But that could have happened regardless. The AD owes it to the university to find the best available coach. If they even had a 20% chance of getting Howland then they should definitely do it.

As for Oregon, it doesn't hurt them to check Izzo's interest. Izzo is a great coach and tying his name to the Oregon opening helps increase fan and coach interest. And I'd suggest that Oregon is in a better position than Missouri was four years ago. MU would have likely hired Huggins if not for the Quin Snyder debacle.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

I can't see how you're faulting DePaul for trying to get the best candidate available. Did they miss out on a quality candidate? Sure. But that could have happened regardless. The AD owes it to the university to find the best available coach. If they even had a 20% chance of getting Howland then they should definitely do it.

As for Oregon, it doesn't hurt them to check Izzo's interest. Izzo is a great coach and tying his name to the Oregon opening helps increase fan and coach interest. And I'd suggest that Oregon is in a better position than Missouri was four years ago. MU would have likely hired Huggins if not for the Quin Snyder debacle.

1. They had a 0% chance of hiring Howland, just like Oregon has a 0% chance of hiring Izzo. As noted before, it's delusional to think otherwise and poor AD management to do so. Equally as delusional is the assumption that any coaches are swayed by that offer. Everyone is fully aware that Oregon is ready to throw around money. They didn't need to spread a rumor that had no chance at happening to prove that.

2. MU decided early on to not hire Huggins. Boosters didn't want him and Alden didn't want trouble. We got a great coach and Huggins went to his alma matter. Worked out best for both.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

1. They had a 0% chance of hiring Howland, just like Oregon has a 0% chance of hiring Izzo. As noted before, it's delusional to think otherwise and poor AD management to do so. Equally as delusional is the assumption that any coaches are swayed by that offer. Everyone is fully aware that Oregon is ready to throw around money. They didn't need to spread a rumor that had no chance at happening to prove that.

2. MU decided early on to not hire Huggins. Boosters didn't want him and Alden didn't want trouble. We got a great coach and Huggins went to his alma matter. Worked out best for both.

The fact is you don't know that Izzo isn't unhappy at MSU or that Oregon might be a better situation for him. None of us knows what Izzo is thinking so to assume there is a 0% chance is incorrect unless you're Tom Izzo. The other advantage to courting Izzo is that you get people like us talking about Oregon basketball.

That's my point. MU was pretty much forced to pass on Huggins because of their problems with Quin. Oregon isn't in that position. So the Oregon and Missouri situations are not "mirror images" as you suggested. Oregon is in a better position to hire any coach no matter their background.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

The fact is you don't know that Izzo isn't unhappy at MSU or that Oregon might be a better situation for him. None of us knows what Izzo is thinking so to assume there is a 0% chance is incorrect unless you're Tom Izzo. The other advantage to courting Izzo is that you get people like us talking about Oregon basketball.

That's my point. MU was pretty much forced to pass on Huggins because of their problems with Quin. Oregon isn't in that position. So the Oregon and Missouri situations are not "mirror images" as you suggested. Oregon is in a better position to hire any coach no matter their background.

We're talking about Oregon basketball, but it's a mixture of positive and negative. I suppose any talk is better than no talk.

I don't think that Mizzou avoiding questionable hires put them in a worse position. My comparison was simply that both programs were entering new arenas/training facilities and were in a conference where they can put themselves on the national stage again. Mizzou was able to do that with their hire and Oregon has some great young mid-major coaches to choose from this year that could make a similarly big splash for them.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

We're talking about Oregon basketball, but it's a mixture of positive and negative. I suppose any talk is better than no talk.

I don't think that Mizzou avoiding questionable hires put them in a worse position. My comparison was simply that both programs were entering new arenas/training facilities and were in a conference where they can put themselves on the national stage again. Mizzou was able to do that with their hire and Oregon has some great young mid-major coaches to choose from this year that could make a similarly big splash for them.

Like it or not, Tom Izzo being tied no matter how remotely the possibilities are will only get positive reaction from recruits, fans, etc.

Let's be honest though. Bob Huggins is a better coach than Mike Anderson at this point. So MU wasn't able to land the top available coach due to their previous issues with Quin. That's not to say it hasn't worked out well for Missouri, but it's a different situation for Oregon. They can afford to hire their top coach no matter his background.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

Let's be honest though. Bob Huggins is a better coach than Mike Anderson at this point. So MU wasn't able to land the top available coach due to their previous issues with Quin. That's not to say it hasn't worked out well for Missouri, but it's a different situation for Oregon. They can afford to hire their top coach no matter his background.

But your making a false assumption in that comparison which destroys your argument. You're assuming that Bob Huggins would still be at MU today if they had hired him four years ago. He would have left MU just the same way that he left KSU for his alma matter. Maybe that would have meant that we would have now had Frank Martin (or someone else) as our coach, but that's an assumption that can't be made. The uncertainty doesn't allow us to make the Huggins to Anderson comparison because Mizzou would have been hiring during that time had they hired Huggins.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Lon Kruger would be a great hire for Oregon. He's a solid guy and an excellent X's and O's coach. Oregon couldn't land Anderson if they tried, so I'm not sure why you continue to bring him into the conversation. He'd be a great hire and a huge upgrade, but it ain't happening.

Arizona made a good hire. They also didn't make any insinuations that they were going to hire a coach they had no chance of hiring.

Pitino and Calipari

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Pitino and Calipari

Those are two coaches who have shown a willingness to move around. Had Oregon taken a shot at Pitino or Calipari, we'd be having a much different conversation as I could see those two guys jumping for the cash. Izzo hasn't shown a willingness to be anywhere other than Michigan State.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

They didn't need to spread a rumor that had no chance at happening to prove that.

You're assuming that it was Oregon who did that. Why?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Those are two coaches who have shown a willingness to move around. Had Oregon taken a shot at Pitino or Calipari, we'd be having a much different conversation as I could see those two guys jumping for the cash. Izzo hasn't shown a willingness to be anywhere other than Michigan State.

Oh geez. I thought this was about schools contacting coaches better then their program?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Oh geez. I thought this was about schools contacting coaches better then their program?

It's about whether they have a prayer of landing a given coach. There's no way they're getting Izzo to come to Oregon. Simply won't happen. But no one would be surprised if Calipari or Pitino would go there if they offered $10M/season or something ridiculous. Those guys are all about the gravy train.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Samdari

You're assuming that it was Oregon who did that. Why?

Given the players involved at Oregon, I'd be shocked that it came from anywhere else. MSU would be the only other possible source that ESPN would use and there's no way that they'd be leaking those kinds of things while their team was still alive in the tourney. It had to be an Oregon Ath. Dept. source.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Those are two coaches who have shown a willingness to move around. Had Oregon taken a shot at Pitino or Calipari, we'd be having a much different conversation as I could see those two guys jumping for the cash. Izzo hasn't shown a willingness to be anywhere other than Michigan State.

Fail.

Bug is pointing out that when Arizona's job was opened, those two were prominently mentioned for the position/rumored to be in negotiations to go there. And that doesn't mention Few or Pastner and even Dixon, who were also all "rumored".

The Arizona coaching search was full of the "insinuations" you say it didn't have.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Fail.

Does this surprise anyone?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Fail.

Bug is pointing out that when Arizona's job was opened, those two were prominently mentioned for the position/rumored to be in negotiations to go there. And that doesn't mention Few or Pastner and even Dixon, who were also all "rumored".

The Arizona coaching search was full of the "insinuations" you say it didn't have.

Are we seriously implying that the Oregon job is on the same level as Arizona, even in an off year? Uh, no.

And Few, Pastner, Dixon, Pitino, and Calipari were all legitimate targets that would take the job. It's simply not even close to comparable.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Are we seriously implying that the Oregon job is on the same level as Arizona, even in an off year? Uh, no.

And Few, Pastner, Dixon, Pitino, and Calipari were all legitimate targets that would take the job. It's simply not even close to comparable.

Bug's point was that there was a time when it seemed like Arizona's job was unwanted, similar to how Oregon appears to be now. But Arizona ended up with a good coach.

To which you suggested that the Arizona job was never unwanted, just that the school didn't make public "insinuations."

To which Bug pointed out, wrong, Pitino and Calipari (and he didn't even mention the others).

And you missed that return point completely.

Yes, Arizona's job is on another level from Oregon, in basketball at least. But that doesn't mean Oregon won't end up with a good coach, or that they're wrong to aim high. Oregon is a school with a strong athletic tradition, new facilities, is well-supported and is a member of a basketball conference that, when it's not having a down year, is regular mentioned for quality on a level similar to the ACC, behind the Big East. That's a good job (and especially if their willing to throw tons of cash at coaches, too).

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Given the players involved at Oregon, I'd be shocked that it came from anywhere else. MSU would be the only other possible source that ESPN would use and there's no way that they'd be leaking those kinds of things while their team was still alive in the tourney. It had to be an Oregon Ath. Dept. source.

Izzo's agent would be the most likely candidate.

Agents are the #1 source of leaks about possible interest in their clients. No matter what the client actually wants, it benefits said client to have the perception of strong interest in their services. They float lots and lots of rumors, many of them untrue (IMO), to create this perception of interest. Oftentimes, it leads to a raise, almost always to increased job security.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Yes, Arizona's job is on another level from Oregon, in basketball at least. But that doesn't mean Oregon won't end up with a good coach, or that they're wrong to aim high. Oregon is a school with a strong athletic tradition, new facilities, is well-supported and is a member of a basketball conference that, when it's not having a down year, is regular mentioned for quality on a level similar to the ACC, behind the Big East. That's a good job (and especially if their willing to throw tons of cash at coaches, too).

Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree on where that conference regularly ranks in basketball. I still believe my initial assertion about this job to be correct (that they will land a quality mid-major coach) and that any offers above that are little more than a waste of time.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Izzo's agent would be the most likely candidate.

Agents are the #1 source of leaks about possible interest in their clients. No matter what the client actually wants, it benefits said client to have the perception of strong interest in their services. They float lots and lots of rumors, many of them untrue (IMO), to create this perception of interest. Oftentimes, it leads to a raise, almost always to increased job security.

Fair point. I might buy that.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's about whether they have a prayer of landing a given coach. There's no way they're getting Izzo to come to Oregon. Simply won't happen. But no one would be surprised if Calipari or Pitino would go there if they offered $10M/season or something ridiculous. Those guys are all about the gravy train.

Coach k and roy williams would both leave for 10 million per season. That would make him the second highest paid coach in sports in America (might be wrong on the actual ranking but still significant)

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But your making a false assumption in that comparison which destroys your argument. You're assuming that Bob Huggins would still be at MU today if they had hired him four years ago. He would have left MU just the same way that he left KSU for his alma matter. Maybe that would have meant that we would have now had Frank Martin (or someone else) as our coach, but that's an assumption that can't be made. The uncertainty doesn't allow us to make the Huggins to Anderson comparison because Mizzou would have been hiring during that time had they hired Huggins.

Whether or not Huggins leaves for WVU has zero to do with the fact that MU stayed away from him because of background at Cincy. That is the point. The hiring situations at Missouri and Oregon are completely different which is the original argument. MU couldn't hire Huggins because of the issues with Quin. Oregon does not have those issues and thus can hire the best available coach. Whether or not the best coach available leaves a year or two down the line is of no consequence in this argument. The argument is whether or not Oregon is in a better hiring situation than Missouri and they are. That doesn't mean they'll get a better coach out of it though.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree on where that conference regularly ranks in basketball. I still believe my initial assertion about this job to be correct (that they will land a quality mid-major coach) and that any offers above that are little more than a waste of time.

The Pac 10 is well thought of especially when it comes to putting players in the NBA. This year was a down year due to the number of defections to the NBA in recent years, but it's a very good conference normally. Why exactly do you question the Pac 10's strength?

[MrBug708]

Can you imagine how good the prestige of the PAC would be with a school with the reputation of a Baylor or a Texas or an Oklahoma?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Can you imagine howgood the prestige of the PAC would be with a school with the prestige of a Baylor or a Texas or an Oklahoma?

Sorry, Bug, not sure I understand you here. Could you clarify?