• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Our Next BB Coach or #MannUp + other coach talk

KidA23 said:
I would be happy with Howland given my assumptions that (i) neither Smart nor Marshall will accept the HC position, even if we offered it to them, and (ii) Wellman will not even pursue White, Masiello, Miller, or any of the "hot" up-and-coming mid-major coaches mentioned on this thread. Stated differently, I would take Howland because I expect the decision will be between Howland and someone like Russell Turner or Dave Paulsen, as opposed to between Howland and Marshall or Smart.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Great post. For me, Shaka/Marshall >>>>>White/Miller/Masiello tier >>> Howland >>>>>>Reed, Paulsen, Mooney tier
 
I agree with FckVwls on a lot of things, but I respectfully disagree about this. To me, Howland is in his own tier behind Shaka and Marshall. While his "best days" may be behind him, I still think he has a lot of goods ones left and needed a new location.
 
Pilchard said:
Ben Howland is 56, and had completely lost touch with his team when he left UCLA (please read the SI article about his demise). At best, Howland is a short term solution and clearly has seen his best days as a coach.
Click to expand...
So the guy is socially awkward, is more worried about X and Os than building a team, doesn't relate to players, and once had a problem with Westbrook's socks? Isn't that sort of the profile we're going to replace?
 
Interesting to think about Ron's protege John Currie replacing Frank Martin with Bruce Weber. Hire a veteran coach looking for a new gig. Maybe Rick Barnes wants to return home.
 
FckVwls said:
Completely agree. Great post. For me, Shaka/Marshall >>>>>White/Miller/Masiello tier >>> Howland >>>>>>Reed, Paulsen, Mooney tier
Click to expand...
The thing with choosing White/Miller/Masiello tier over Howland is those kind of guys will always be there. It's a clear swinging for the fences but there's no question that could end up poorly.

I'd put Howland after the Shaka/Marshall tier simply because hiring him shows that as a program, we are ready to get back to winning. We're done with this culture bullshit and not satisfied with LOWF. If it doesn't work out, then that's always a possibility, but if we couldn't get Shaka/Marshall, what did we actually miss out on?

But we can all agree that Howland is clearly better than that final tier that has little to no upside and is just a name that fits the Wellman way.
 
pourdeac said:
So the guy is socially awkward, is more worried about X and Os than building a team, doesn't relate to players, and once had a problem with Westbrook's socks? Isn't that sort of the profile we're going to replace?
Click to expand...

When you have the chance to hire another coach that no one wants to be in an elevator with, you have to take it!
 
FckVwls said:
Completely agree. Great post. For me, Shaka/Marshall >>>>>White/Miller/Masiello tier >>> Howland >>>>>>Reed, Paulsen, Mooney tier
Click to expand...

My thinking as well. But I'd put Krystkowiak (sp?) above the W/M/M tier and add Lonergan to the W/M/M tier. And if Ron hires Reed, Mooney or Paulsen, I'm completely done. If we hire 1 of those last 3 guys, then we're resigned to a bunch of 18-13 with 8-10 in conference seasons with some NIT bids. And hiring Howland would just be further evidence that all the culture crap was just crap.

Really, the only way I'm really excited is if we get Shaka, Marshall or maybe Krystkowiak. If we hire from the W/M/M/L tier, at best I'm mildly optimistic we could be decent again 3 years down the road, but I don't expect I'd be emotionally invested for a while.

And the BOT thread has resigned me to believing that, even if Shaka or Marshall would be interested at $2-3mil per, Ron is going to do this on the cheap because of our financial position. Which prolly means Howland or R/M/P. And we would have missed out on a major opportunity.
 
Last edited:
Good discussion. I think agree with cville's post the most.
 
Jamie Dixon made very few changes to the program Howland established at Pitt. If Shaka and Marshall don't want the job, I would take a Pitt level program for the next 5 or 6 years than the pig in the poke we would be getting with Lonergan, Turner, et al.
 
If there is any truth to the SI article on the issues at UCLA, there is no way Ron Wellman even considers Ben Howland.
 
cville deac said:
My thinking as well. But I'd put Krystkowiak (sp?) above the W/M/M tier and add Lonergan to the W/M/M tier. And if Ron hires Reed, Mooney or Paulsen, I'm completely done. If we hire 1 of those last 3 guys, then we're resigned to a bunch of 18-13 with 8-10 in conference seasons with some NIT bids. And hiring Howland would just be further evidence that all the culture crap was just crap.

Really, the only way I'm really excited is if we get Shaka, Marshall or maybe Krystkowiak. If we hire from the W/M/M/L tier, at best I'm mildly optimistic we could be decent again 3 years down the road, but I don't expect I'd be emotionally invested for a while.

And the BOT thread has resigned me to believing that, even if Shaka or Marshall would be interested at $2-3mil per, Ron is going to do this on the cheap because of our financial position. Which prolly means Howland or R/M/P. And we would have missed out on a major opportunity.
Click to expand...

Generally agree, except I would not put Krystkowiak in the same tier as Shaka or Marshall. For me, it's:

Tier 1 - Shaka or Marshall - I go out and buy a calendar, then gleefully mark off the days until basketball season begins again.

Tier 2 - White, Miller, Masiello, or Krystkowiak - all four have varying degrees of risk reward. I would be excited about any of them, as each has the potential to be a great hire that stays at Wake for years and years to come.

Tier 3 - ??? - I assume the worst and prepare for another [Redacted]. That preparation involves alcohol and then indifference.
 
I don't think Krystkowiak will be considered due to georgraphy but his Utah turnaround is pretty jaw dropping. Compare this to the Bz rebuild:

Year one in 2012 they were worst BCS college basketball team ever assembled (298 Kenpom, walk-ons all over the court). Year two in 2013 11 new players and up to #108. Year 3 up to #35 (with a team that is #280 in experience and plays basically no seniors).
 
Bz has been Stack level bad. You have to really suck to be on that level. I have little doubt that Paulsen and Reed would put better teams on the floor than Bz. Recruiting at this level would be the big question mark for them though.
 
We need a lot better than "better teams on the floor than Bz." It's going to take a lot of work simply to get to post-Duncan or post-Paul levels.
 
FckVwls said:
Completely agree. Great post. For me, Shaka/Marshall >>>>>White/Miller/Masiello tier >>> Howland >>>>>>Reed, Paulsen, Mooney tier
Click to expand...

Bump Miller for Kyrstkowiak, and I'm on board with this. It's hard to imagine a less-inspiring candidate with Howland's resume, but he's still miles ahead of Mooney and co.
 
PhDeac said:
We need a lot better than "better teams on the floor than Bz." It's going to take a lot of work simply to get to post-Duncan or post-Paul levels.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that wasn't my point. I was responding to the post that said prepare for another Bz with those coaches comment. Coaches the level of Bz are actually a pretty rare thing in the ACC. All of those candidates would put better teams on the floor than Bz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top