SO...

[UOducksTK1]

I actually think Gregg Marshall could be a nice pick up. He was awesome at Winthrop. But I really hope we can get a bigger name coach, otherwise I just don't see a big improvement to this team.

Names don't make players better, coaching makes players better.

Helps recruiting, and when you have better players, your team is usually better.

Tubby please.

[UOducksTK1]

Here's a name that's been quietly flying under the radar, but is a hot commodity...

Steve Alford at New Mexico. He's 26-3 this season and 12-2 in the Mountain West.

That guy is a student of the Bobby Knight school of basketball and has been on a roll the past couple seasons.

I'd hope that Mike Bellotti has him on his list.

His tenure at Iowa wasn't all that impressive:
14-16
23-12
19-16
17-14
16-13
21-12
25-9
17-14

3 NCAA tournaments, and he was a first round exit in two of them. Hard to get excited about a coach who didn't amount to much in a BCS conference. Kent's resume is better.

[bellsduck]

I actually think Gregg Marshall could be a nice pick up. He was awesome at Winthrop. But I really hope we can get a bigger name coach, otherwise I just don't see a big improvement to this team.

Names don't make players better, coaching makes players better.

Helps recruiting, and when you have better players, your team is usually better.

Tubby please.

So the first step is to get the max out of the current players and create wins. Wins plus arena build the coaches name.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind getting Tubby as our next coach because I think he can actually coach. I just get tired of people saying our next hire will only be a success if he has a big name. I think that's wrong thinking. A lot of the time if you can find the right guy that's young and works hard and is still trying to build a name, that can be just as good or better than getting a retread with a name.

[duckgrad99]

I actually think Gregg Marshall could be a nice pick up. He was awesome at Winthrop. But I really hope we can get a bigger name coach, otherwise I just don't see a big improvement to this team.

Names don't make players better, coaching makes players better.

Helps recruiting, and when you have better players, your team is usually better.

Tubby please.

So the first step is to get the max out of the current players and create wins. Wins plus arena build the coaches name.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind getting Tubby as our next coach because I think he can actually coach. I just get tired of people saying our next hire will only be a success if he has a big name. I think that's wrong thinking. A lot of the time if you can find the right guy that's young and works hard and is still trying to build a name, that can be just as good or better than getting a retread with a name.

Yup, kind of like Chip Kelly, right?

[dthomas=ddixon]

Yeah bellsduck is right on. I would love Tubby Smith but because I think he's a great coach, not because of his name. The guys name recognition should be way towards the bottom of the list as far as qualifications for a new head coach go. Get in a guy who can win. And to do that I think we need a guy who can max out our talent & develop more talent. I don't care whether he's going to be able to bring in the 5*s from all over the country right away. Win games & they will start to come. We need to follow the plan they used in football. You build from the ground up, not the other way around.

[UOducksTK1]

I actually think Gregg Marshall could be a nice pick up. He was awesome at Winthrop. But I really hope we can get a bigger name coach, otherwise I just don't see a big improvement to this team.

Names don't make players better, coaching makes players better.

Helps recruiting, and when you have better players, your team is usually better.

Tubby please.

So the first step is to get the max out of the current players and create wins. Wins plus arena build the coaches name.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind getting Tubby as our next coach because I think he can actually coach. I just get tired of people saying our next hire will only be a success if he has a big name. I think that's wrong thinking. A lot of the time if you can find the right guy that's young and works hard and is still trying to build a name, that can be just as good or better than getting a retread with a name.

Obviously he has a name because of his success on the court. Hence whenever I say I want a big name guy, it's because I know he's a great coach and can get this program back on track. I just have a hard time seeing any of those coaches on that list that was posted to ever get this a Pac-10 championship. We have a new arena. We are basically offering someone a restart position. I'm sure some of the bigger name coaches with a winning history would at least consider that.

[SuperDuck]

Here's a name that's been quietly flying under the radar, but is a hot commodity...

Steve Alford at New Mexico. He's 26-3 this season and 12-2 in the Mountain West.

That guy is a student of the Bobby Knight school of basketball and has been on a roll the past couple seasons.

I'd hope that Mike Bellotti has him on his list.

His tenure at Iowa wasn't all that impressive:
14-16
23-12
19-16
17-14
16-13
21-12
25-9
17-14

3 NCAA tournaments, and he was a first round exit in two of them. Hard to get excited about a coach who didn't amount to much in a BCS conference. Kent's resume is better.

He wasn't that bad. Besides, if you take away the first three years until he got all of his own players there he went 96-62 overall, an average of 19-12 each year. That's not a bad overall record for a BCS school.

I'm not saying that he's definitely the answer, of course, just not to count the guy out yet. I'll be watching how they do in the tournament closely.

[Duck Dogers]

I wonder if Jaime Dixon wants to come back to the west coast.

[greenyellow]

I wonder if Jaime Dixon wants to come back to the west coast.

I highly doubt he'll ever leave Pitt since it's a top program in the Big East. The only job I could ever see him maybe going after is the UCLA job if Howland ever left.

[duckgrad99]

Bob Rickert wrote about his starting lineup for next season, and put in Steve Lavin as the head coach.

[DarronThomas5]

Bob Rickert wrote about his starting lineup for next season, and put in Steve Lavin as the head coach.

uhhhhhhhhh, no thank you.

[soduck]

One thing important about a bigger name coach is hype and excitement for arena seat licenses. We need to generate excitement to help those that are in a position to buy seats to want to get in there and purchase them to lock up the best seats they can afford. Obviously winning games is the most important thing to selling seats in the long term. Selling seats/ or filling the arena is needed to pay it off. And can help our AD remain self sufficient.

So changing the discussion a little bit, money talks, how much can we afford? Can we lure a bigger name coach with our awesome facilities / Nike connection and potential. And Money. Football programs do it all the time. I still think we have a great chance at getting Few and yes he will want a lot of money. Who else might be a big gun for hire? Like Jaime Dixon at Pitt,
[url]http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs ... t.aspx/url], this link from the Gazette was worried last year about losing him.

[duckgrad99]

I doubt it will happen, but personally, I wouldn't mind Lavin. Unless of course something has happened since he has last coached. He had the top recruiting class in the country twice. He was one of two coaches to make the sweet 16 in 5 out of 6 seasons. The team had one bad season out of 7, with 20 wins in all but one season. I just think UCLA has high expecations, championship or bust.

[dthomas=ddixon]

I doubt it will happen, but personally, I wouldn't mind Lavin. Unless of course something has happened since he has last coached. He had the top recruiting class in the country twice. He was one of two coaches to make the sweet 16 in 5 out of 6 seasons. The team had one bad season out of 7, with 20 wins in all but one season. I just think UCLA has high expecations, championship or bust.

I'm with you on this one duckgrad. We might be able to do better, Tubby Smith or Mark Few for example, but I think Lavin would be a great hire. Ucla may not have been satisfied with him but we aren't ucla. Can you imagine consistently winning 20 games a year? That'd be incredible. Add in great, consistent recruiting, not once every 4 years bringing in a huge class with some 4 & 5*s. I would be very very happy with Lavin.

A little Lavin info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Lavin

During Lavin’s tenure as head coach, the Bruins qualified for six consecutive NCAA Tournaments (1997-2002). During this period, Lavin became one of two coaches (along Duke’s Mike Krzyzewski) to have led his team to five NCAA Sweet 16s in six seasons. Lavin’s record in the first and second rounds of the NCAA tournament is 10-1. Lavin’s winning percentage (90.9%) in the first two rounds, is second only to Dean Smith in NCAA Tournament history.

As head coach at UCLA, Lavin and his staff recruited and signed the No. 1 rated recruiting class in the country in 1998 and 2001. Lavin signed seven McDonald’s High School All-Americans. Seven of Lavin’s former Bruin recruits are currently roster members of NBA teams: Trevor Ariza (Houston Rockets), Matt Barnes (Orlando Magic), Baron Davis (Los Angeles Clippers), Dan Gadzuric (Milwaukee Bucks), Ryan Hollins (Minnesota Timberwolves), Jason Kapono (Philadelphia 76ers), and Earl Watson (Indiana Pacers). As a result, the Bruins have the longest collegiate streak in the country of consecutive years having a player drafted to the NBA.

1996–97 UCLA 24–8 15–3 1 NCAA Elite Eight
1997–98 UCLA 24–9 12–6 3 NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1998–99 UCLA 22–9 12–6 3 NCAA Round of 64
1999–00 UCLA 21–12 10–8 4 NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2000–01 UCLA 23–9 14–4 3 NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2001–02 UCLA 21–12 11–7 6 NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2002–03 UCLA 10–19 6–12 6

[woundedknees]

I wonder if Lavin could figure out how to make it with 2-3 recruit a season, instead of 8?