Would you rather pay Manning $2M or pay a top assistant $900K to coach at Wake?

[Azdeac]

Has the WI or MI assistant been an assistant on a NC team? Have they taken a team to win a conference championship? Or taken a team to the NCAAT?

Saving a few bucks doesn't make our team better. Saving money is why we're in this mess today. If RW hadn't been trying to save money, Brad Stevens would have been our coach.

Pick your gamble. Spending a few bucks on Manning doesn't necessarily make our team better either. If Manning hasn't said "yes" yet, then I'm not happy with if we hire him. Wake needs someone who is passionate about being here. Bzdickhead never was - you could see it in everything he did. Clawson is - you see it. Skip was - you saw it. If some top assistant has the balls to go up to Wellman and say "I want this job. We are going to create an energetic, positive winning environment" then at this point, maybe it makes sense.

He has been with Ryan 20 years - the results of making Wisconsin one of the best jobs in the conference that can't count is unquestionable. Every year in the NCAA.

2001–02 Wisconsin 19–13 11–5 T–1st NCAA Second Round
2002–03 Wisconsin 24–8 12–4 1st NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2003–04 Wisconsin 25–7 12–4 T–2nd NCAA Second Round
2004–05 Wisconsin 25–9 11–5 3rd NCAA Elite Eight
2005–06 Wisconsin 19–12 9–7 T–4th NCAA First Round
2006–07 Wisconsin 30–6 13–3 2nd NCAA Second Round
2007–08 Wisconsin 31–5 16–2 1st NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2008–09 Wisconsin 20–13 10–8 T–4th NCAA Second Round
2009–10 Wisconsin 24–9 13–5 4th NCAA Second Round
2010–11 Wisconsin 25–9 13–5 3rd NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2011–12 Wisconsin 26–10 12–6 4th NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2012–13 Wisconsin 23–12 12–6 T–4th NCAA Second Round
2013–14 Wisconsin 30–7 12–6 T–2nd TBD

 

[WFU Lurker]

Whether we spend $1.8M or $500K or $2.3M on a coach, we have all the money we need to recruit. It's total BS to think otherwise.

I'd much rather take my chances with Danny Manning coming into a recruits house than some no name assistant. If you don't see how much better this is for our program, you are blinded by ignorant hate.

I normally let your hyperbolic shit slide right by, but this is just out of line.

The class of 2016 recruits are ~16 years old right now. The last time Danny Manning started played more than half a NBA season, these players were 3 years old. The last time Danny manning average more than 20 minutes a game, these players were not born. Recruits are more likely to know him because he was a Kansas assistant than because he played in the NBA.

I'm not "blinded by ignorant hate". Rather, I don't chose to latch onto whoever the AD decides is right for the job like you are doing now, like you did with [name redacted]. Back then the story was that [name redacted]'s NBA connections would be a huge boon to recruiting. How did that work out for you?

If I'm looking for someone to recruit NBA players, then I'll count on the guy who has recruited NBA players (eg Jeff Boals from Ohio State or LaVall Jordan from Michigan) over the guy who played in the NBA 10 years ago every damn time.

Manning could do a good job. He's great at developing big men. Probably the best in the country. But, part of the appeal of a risky guy like Manning, and Manning is certainly a very risky guy (2 years of head coaching experience in a shitty conference), is that it allows the program to invest in other things.

 

[deacs1995]

hire the assistant. fire him after next season. have the new AD bring in a long term coach next year

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I normally let your hyperbolic shit slide right by, but this is just out of line.

The class of 2016 recruits are ~16 years old right now. The last time Danny Manning started played more than half a NBA season, these players were 3 years old. The last time Danny manning average more than 20 minutes a game, these players were not born. Recruits are more likely to know him because he was a Kansas assistant than because he played in the NBA.

I'm not "blinded by ignorant hate". Rather, I don't chose to latch onto whoever the AD decides is right for the job like you are doing now, like you did with [name redacted]. Back then the story was that [name redacted]'s NBA connections would be a huge boon to recruiting. How did that work out for you?

If I'm looking for someone to recruit NBA players, then I'll count on the guy who has recruited NBA players (eg Jeff Boals from Ohio State or LaVall Jordan from Michigan) over the guy who played in the NBA 10 years ago every damn time.

Manning could do a good job. He's great at developing big men. Probably the best in the country. But, part of the appeal of a risky guy like Manning, and Manning is certainly a very risky guy (2 years of head coaching experience in a shitty conference), is that it allows the program to invest in other things.

To say that a player had to have personally watched Manning play, for his professional career to be relevant in recruiting, is simply wrong. These kids don't live in a vacuum where they are completely ignorant of things that happened before they were born. Danny Manning's NBA career is fully accessible to anyone that googles his name or looks him up on youtube. Not only that, but recruits have planty of adults involved in their recruiting process that are familiar with Danny Manning's NBA career.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I normally let your hyperbolic shit slide right by, but this is just out of line.

The class of 2016 recruits are ~16 years old right now. The last time Danny Manning started played more than half a NBA season, these players were 3 years old. The last time Danny manning average more than 20 minutes a game, these players were not born. Recruits are more likely to know him because he was a Kansas assistant than because he played in the NBA.

I'm not "blinded by ignorant hate". Rather, I don't chose to latch onto whoever the AD decides is right for the job like you are doing now, like you did with [name redacted]. Back then the story was that [name redacted]'s NBA connections would be a huge boon to recruiting. How did that work out for you?

If I'm looking for someone to recruit NBA players, then I'll count on the guy who has recruited NBA players (eg Jeff Boals from Ohio State or LaVall Jordan from Michigan) over the guy who played in the NBA 10 years ago every damn time.

Manning could do a good job. He's great at developing big men. Probably the best in the country. But, part of the appeal of a risky guy like Manning, and Manning is certainly a very risky guy (2 years of head coaching experience in a shitty conference), is that it allows the program to invest in other things.

To say that a player had to have personally watched Manning play, for his professional career to be relevant in recruiting, is simply wrong. These kids don't live in a vacuum where they are completely ignorant of things that happened before they were born. Danny Manning's NBA career is fully accessible to anyone that googles his name or looks him up on youtube. Not only that, but recruits have planty of adults involved in their recruiting process that are familiar with Danny Manning's NBA career. You don't think Harry Giles AAU coach or father is familiar with Danny Manning?

 

[WFU Lurker]

To say that a player had to have personally watched Manning play, for his professional career to be relevant in recruiting, is simply wrong. These kids don't live in a vacuum where they are completely ignorant of things that happened before they were born. Danny Manning's NBA career is fully accessible to anyone that googles his name or looks him up on youtube. Not only that, but recruits have planty of adults involved in their recruiting process that are familiar with Danny Manning's NBA career.

I didn't say that it isn't relevant. Rather I implied that it isn't as relevant as RJ thinks. I think my conclusion on the topic was quite logically sound.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I didn't say that it isn't relevant. Rather I implied that it isn't as relevant as RJ thinks. I think my conclusion on the topic was quite logically sound.

If your conclusion is that Kobe Bryant or Kevin Durant would be better recruiters, yeah it's logical. Danny Manning lived the dream of nearly all young basketball players, so if he has the personality to use that tool, he should have a great advantage over most other big time college basketball coaches.

 

[RJKarl]

I didn't say that it isn't relevant. Rather I implied that it isn't as relevant as RJ thinks. I think my conclusion on the topic was quite logically sound.

It's his ENTIRE story...not that he played in the NBA.....

 

[WFU Lurker]

If your conclusion is that Kobe Bryant or Kevin Durant would be better recruiters, yeah it's logical. Danny Manning lived the dream of nearly all young basketball players, so if he has the personality to use that tool, he should have a great advantage over most other big time college basketball coaches.

My conclusion is that guys who have recruited multiple NBA players in the past are more likely to recruit NBA players than a guy who has never recruited a NBA player. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[bigdoublezero]

If your conclusion is that Kobe Bryant or Kevin Durant would be better recruiters, yeah it's logical. Danny Manning lived the dream of nearly all young basketball players, so if he has the personality to use that tool, he should have a great advantage over most other big time college basketball coaches.

Interesting theory. How many top college coaches have extensive experience as an NBA player? You'd think universities would be throwing big salaries left and right at former players so they could crush on the recruiting trail.

 

[WFU Lurker]

It's his ENTIRE story...not that he played in the NBA.....

Oh, so it's that he was NPOY over 25 years ago that's going to influence recruits? Self must have disagreed since other assistants did the heavy lifting.

 

[RJKarl]

I normally let your hyperbolic shit slide right by, but this is just out of line.

The class of 2016 recruits are ~16 years old right now. The last time Danny Manning started played more than half a NBA season, these players were 3 years old. The last time Danny manning average more than 20 minutes a game, these players were not born. Recruits are more likely to know him because he was a Kansas assistant than because he played in the NBA.

I'm not "blinded by ignorant hate". Rather, I don't chose to latch onto whoever the AD decides is right for the job like you are doing now, like you did with [name redacted]. Back then the story was that [name redacted]'s NBA connections would be a huge boon to recruiting. How did that work out for you?

If I'm looking for someone to recruit NBA players, then I'll count on the guy who has recruited NBA players (eg Jeff Boals from Ohio State or LaVall Jordan from Michigan) over the guy who played in the NBA 10 years ago every damn time.

Manning could do a good job. He's great at developing big men. Probably the best in the country. But, part of the appeal of a risky guy like Manning, and Manning is certainly a very risky guy (2 years of head coaching experience in a shitty conference), is that it allows the program to invest in other things.

He's recruited multiple NBA players at Kansas. As importantly he has coached up several players at KU into becoming lottery picks.

the COMBINATION is much better than some ace recruiter.

 

[WFU Lurker]

He's recruited multiple NBA players at Kansas. As importantly he has coached up several players at KU into becoming lottery picks.

the COMBINATION is much better than some ace recruiter.

Manning was secondary recruiter for one NBA player. Agree that his player development track record is huge, but other guys have that too.

 

[RJKarl]

My conclusion is that guys who have recruited multiple NBA players in the past are more likely to recruit NBA players than a guy who has never recruited a NBA player. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

There's nothing I can possibly say that will change your mind.

But think about this, you are putting two guys who have never been a HC, never been a top player, never been a high end position coach over someone who has done all of that.

If anything paying a recruiter only $500K is a much worse deal than paying someone who has done all of the above $2M.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

If you're paying the doofi .02 to coach they get my vote. Otherwise it's top assistant.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

So far Top Assistant of Doofus/Numbers has over 75% of the vote.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

My conclusion is that guys who have recruited multiple NBA players in the past are more likely to recruit NBA players than a guy who has never recruited a NBA player. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

What head coaches are currently available to us that have recruited multiple NBA guys in the past? Ben Howland? He's not coming.

 

[TopHat]

Give me the Michigan assistant dude for 500K.

YES. Bacari Alexander is a GREAT coach, turned down the Butler job last year. Love Alexander.

 

[WFU Lurker]

There's nothing I can possibly say that will change your mind.

But think about this, you are putting two guys who have never been a HC, never been a top player, never been a high end position coach over someone who has done all of that.

If anything paying a recruiter only $500K is a much worse deal than paying someone who has done all of the above $2M.

That's because I believe in my subjective opinion. You, however, believe your subjective opinion is objective, and it isn't.

Both of the names I mentioned would be considered to be high end position coaches as well as ace recruiters. I don't care whether or not someone was a top player, and Danny's head coaching experience, while better than no experience, hardly blows me out of the water.

Danny is a huge risk. You don't spend $2M on huge risks.

Rather, go out and get an elite assistant for $800-1000k.

 

[WFU Lurker]

What head coaches are currently available to us that have recruited multiple NBA guys in the past? Ben Howland? He's not coming.

Revisit the premise of the thread.