(03-25-2014 11:39 AM)john01992 Wrote: (03-25-2014 10:56 AM)S11 Wrote: (03-25-2014 10:37 AM)john01992 Wrote: (03-25-2014 09:38 AM)S11 Wrote: (03-24-2014 08:35 PM)john01992 Wrote: putting texas that high is a complete joke. if you wanna put texas that high because they are a major football school with major resources then Michigan & Ohio State deserve to be top 15 as well.
Minnesota has the 13th highest paid BB coach and one of the most historic arena's in CBB and yet didn't make the list.
nova/pitt did not make the list. and there is no way.....NO WAY zona > florida and putting uconn that low is a total joke.
You underestimate the talent coming out of Texas and the relatively low saturation of college programs here. This state produces a TON of talent in hoops and unlike teams up north there are fewer legit annual contenders to fight off.
UT and BU are the only consistent top 45 RPI programs the last 7 years and the next closest in-state program (A&M) is 77th and has averaged 139th the last 3 years. Honestly these are the schools that over the past 7 years would be qualifying for at-large spots most often in this state... a very low number for the amount of territory covered. UT usually only has one or two legit in-state foes to worry about plus KU, OU, OSU. When you consider the distance it takes to get out of the state lines... that's a huge advantage that most fans don't realize.
Michigan, Illinois, and tOSU face much tougher local recruiting fights against tons of schools in a very similar geographic range such as UC, Dayton, Xavier, ND, Butler, MSU, WVU, Pitt, UL, UK, Mizzou, Marquette, Wisky, St. Louis, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa, ISU, Maryland, PSU, Temple, Syracuse, and others. That is a LOT of competition for hometown kids compared to the state of Texas.
This list isn't just based on school history, UT isn't great on THAT metric but the facilities, recruiting, job perks, high rpi league, salaries, and being the flagship of a talent rich state that isn't saturated with elite hoops programs surely gets them into the discussion above some of those you mentioned. Would I have them #7? Probably not THAT high but up there.
sorry dude but there is no way......NO WAY you can argue that texas is a top 5 job.
Reading comprehension FAIL. I said I wouldn't have them as high as #7 like the list did. How on earth do you get the idea I was arguing them as top 5? I do think it's definitely a top 15 job and possibly top ten depending on how heavily each metric is weighted.
Quote: and are you seriously trying to use RPI as your reasoning to say texas is a good destination?????
Once again, fail on your part. I was using RPI to show how limited the in-state competition was as the only programs that averaged a high enough RPI to consistently challenge for at-large bids were UT and BU.
Quote:texas is nice cuz they are willing to shell out $$$$ but after that there really isn't much else to say. texas has one.......ONE final four since the tourny expanded beyond 8 teams in 1951. that alone should be a huge red flag.
We aren't talking about "most historic programs", we are talking about which jobs give a new coach the best situation to work from. Historical prestige in only a part of that... a point you seem either oblivious to.
Quote:"saturation" is not a valid point at all. for starters you are forgetting about UH/BU and on top of that SMU has larry brown right now. so texas clearly has some in-state competition.
UH isn't an elite hoops school over the last decade or two- Phi Slamma Jamma is reaching retirement age. The average RPI of 152 over the past 7 years bears out UH's relevance in hoops isn't that of a consistent at-large bid team.
SMU is only now having their first good year since the early 90's and even with this year spiking the average their RPI bears out the struggle with a ranking that averaged over 200. Also it's beyond crazy to assume that either is going toe to toe with UT for recruits on a consistent basis. SMU might get one or two name guys but thats it right now.
More often than not this state is a 2, maybe 3 horse race and the competition isn't at all the same as it is up north for regional recruits.
Quote:BB is a talent driven/star centric sport. the BB powers will find the star players wether they are in California Australia or yours truly.......texas. That is one of the biggest differences between CFB & CBB and why we see a much higher rate of international players in CBB than CFB.
texas produced eight 5-stars in the last 2 recruiting classes. only one of them (SMU) chose an in-state school. if there is a 5 star in texas he will have offers from plenty of top BB powers along with UT.
Yes he will have offers but for any kid who wants to stay somewhat close to home it's a much lighter competition for them here than it is in the East and Midwest. Having that much talent close to home and with the edge of being near mom and dad is more of a benefit to UT than it is the midwest and east teams as there are more elite programs to choose from in those regions.
A lot of blue chips will go to the blue blood history programs, happens everywhere. However there are a ton of good recruits who will prefer close to home (4 or 5 star) and being a top preference for them will pay dividends.
1. either way putting texas in the top 15 without accounting for michigan or ohio state is a serious red flag.
Depends on who else is there. The 3 are certainly comparable but I do feel that UT has the edge due to recruiting base and resources. Get over your homerism.
Quote:2. stop using RPI in this argument. It should never be used in an argument like this.
An RPI that averages around the top 40 or better will usually be in the hunt for at-large bids. It's a good indicator and if a program is nowhere near that they will struggle to make it unless they luck into an autobid with a conf tourney run.
It's a good indicator of where the program stacks up competitively and I will certainly use it as I see fit.
My point is that regional recruiting competition is more heavily concentrated for tOSU/Michigan than it is for UT. The number of consistent tourney teams within a 5-7 hour radius is very different for UT than for those schools and it helps UT's coach fill out it's roster.
Quote:3. wanna talk about a point you are oblivious to: the fact that UT has just one legit FF. that should be a huge red flag that texas is not as advantageous as you give it credit for. if UT did in fact have some sort of advantage they would surely have a lot more to show for it than that.
1- Texas is a football school and historically hoops was an afterthought by comparison. They did ok but really the Big 12 era is when UT really took things seriously in hoops and they have been consistently strong. 15 NCAA appearances, 5 sweet 16's, 3 elite 8's, and a Final 4. For a school that isn't a traditional power in hoops it's very strong.
2- Historical titles and prestige keeps UT from being top 7 IMO. Everything else is there though from recruiting, budget, media attention, consistently playing in the dance, putting guys in the NBA, etc.
Quote:4. in FB texas recruits have that incentive to stay home because there are great programs with great coaches/facilities in-state. in BB that is the complete opposite hence the reason the majority of texas recruits leave the state
And UT is one of the few programs here with enough clout to keep some legit kids home. TJ Ford, LaMarcus Aldridge, Chris Mihm, and others come to mind. They also got DJ Augustine out from under LSU's home turf and pulled Durant out of DC.
Quote:5. texas had 8 guys in the espn top 100 this year but florida had 7 & cali had 9. texas is by no means this ultra recruiting hotbed that no other state can match.
I never said Texas had more or less, I just said it had a LOT and that there were fewer regional foes in a position to land those kids. Florida has most of the traditional SEC & ACC competing for their kids and Cali has the PAC12 and Gonzaga/BYU splitting their pool. There is more local competition there in addition to the national raids.
Quote:on top of that you seem oblivious to the point that for every 5* & 4* in the state they will have no shortage of offers from other schools.
No I even conceded that national offers are a fact of life with the elite recruits. What you are oblivious to is that have a natural draw helping land kids not only at the 5 star level but also having a deeper local pool to draw on (due to lighter competition) helps fill out the depth of the roster easier.
Quote:in BB it is all about having access to multiple recruiting grounds not domination over a single ground. that is why I believe that it is penn state that has the best location recruiting wise. they have both geographical, cultural, & alumni proximity to philly, NYC, & chicago ==> having that is 10x better than having texas. and yet you don't see me going on and on how PSU is one of the top jobs out there. but if this is how its gonna be than PSU > texas.
That territory has how many more high performing hoops programs? It's not just being close, it's being close AND having few regional options that can offer similarly to you. PSU has a great location but recruiting against Pitt, Temple, WVU, Maryland, UVA, VCU, UK, UL, tOSU, Cincy, Xavier, Dayton, Syracuse, UConn, UMass, Providence, St Johns, Seton Hall, and others is a far more difficult than having to outrecruit TCU, SMU, Houston, A&M, Rice, and Tech in Hoops.
Quote:6. heres the espn breakdown:
uncommitted/in state/out of state for texas.
5 stars: 1/1/8
4 stars: 0/1/4
3 stars: 7/3/9
when you have the vast majority of players opting to play out of state it is further proof that "the recruits will opt to stay home" statement is BS.
Since when did I say it was some absolute rule? All I said is it helps and the NBA guys they have from TX is evidence that it does.
Quote:obviously that hasn't been the case. a 5 star knows he will be in college for 1 maybe two years. he knows the media exposure, coaching, & surrounding talent will make or break his career. hometown proximity matters a lot less for a CBB player than a CFB player.
Less for a one and done? yes. Not at all? No. Baylor landed Perry Jones, Isaiah Austin, Ekpe Udoh, and Quincy Acy due to regional location among other factors. It won't assure you of a kid but it definitely helps.
Compare how many big name kids schools like UT and BU get (and now SMU under brown).... compare that to schools with similar budget/history/facilities in more "competitive" regions recruiting wise. Location and regional options is one of several factors that help BU outpunch schools like Northwestern, BC, Wake, and others with similar profiles. Compare UT to PSU or UGA.
Local recruits with few regional competition is a factor that helps with a decent % of kids. It isn't the only factor but it's one that shouldn't be ignored.
Calling UT a top 15 job isn't crazy as everything other than titles and hoops prestige is there to be successful. Top 5 probably would be crazy though.
It's no different than me calling South Carolina a top 30 job in football. Historical success isn't really elite but the facilities, budget, recruiting base, and recent trends all point to it. Their history simply prevents them from being higher.
/
Best Jobs in Basketball
