Off Topic: Mike Anderson out at Arkansas
- Thread starter TU4ever2
- Start date
Why? He has just been a mediocre coach at Arkansas. Has only 1 tournament win in 8 years at a program with more resources , I would much rather hire an up and coming coach with a much higher upside.
Last edited:
If he can make us better. Go for it
Somtimes it not a good fit at one place, but it works at another.
Somtimes it not a good fit at one place, but it works at another.
Yes he had an unlimited budget at Arkansas and still couldn't produce consistent NCAA teams. His best coaching was when he was 30-40 years old. Our three legacy coaches were very young when they won here.
If we change coaches I agree, look at who has been making the tourney regularly from a lower level conference.
My phrase to remember for the next coaching search: No retreads, no assistants.
Murray State, Liberty, Old Dominion, New Mexico State.
But I would also say Kim English can be that guy. We all talk about Brennan Marion's potential on the football side to be a great HC...English is that guy on the basketball side.
This is a filter that many people use to evaluate small-school coaches and I think it’s misguided. When you play in a one-bid league, the margin for error is razor thin. I’d rather judge a coach on his ability to build good teams than his ability to get hot for 3 games in March.
A recent example is Mike White vs Danny Manning. White built some great teams at LaTech, but never made the tournament. He was passed over multiple times because of that. As soon as Manning made the tournament, he had an ACC team ready to snatch him up.
Heuristics are nice shortcuts, but I’d rather evaluate each coach on their own merits. All types have succeeded. Including the 63-year old retread that has our conference rival in the sweet 16.
I agree with you, but Sampson isn't exactly a retread. He got in trouble with texts, and moved to the NBA temporarily, due to a five year show cause penalty. But yeah, evaluate coaches on their merits, retread or not.
You also have to worry about the Peter Principle - people rise to the level one step above their competence limit. An A coach at a lower conference is going to be a B coach in the AAC. A coach who is good enough to win at a lower level might not be able to win at the harder competition here. It’s like the world class QB at a 2A school who can’t make it at D1. This was the Buzz Peterson issue.
From what I’ve seen from Twitter, all of the former players at TU that played while English was an assistant coach loved him. I feel like he could do a great job recruiting and coaching, I just worry that he’s not quite ready for a head coaching job in a conference as tough as the American.
Yes but for some guys there seems to be remarkable consistency in their record as the jump across leagues. Haith and Anderson are great examples.
That’s a gross oversimplification. That would indicate that the coach at Winthrop who made the NCAAs from a one bid Big South would be a B coach in the AAC. I never said every coach successful at a lower level would do well here (Peterson) but despite what CTT said that’s where I would start looking.
Samson is a bit of an anomaly. He wasn’t a retread in that he wasn’t let go because he was coaching poorly where he was at. He was let go for NCAA violations. He wasn’t coming off of down seasons at Indiana or OU.
That’s what I mean by retread. If you didn’t win consistently when you left your last gig, why should we want you?
As far as English goes, I like him and our players liked him. He had some recruiting flashes, but it’s not like he’s exactly helped Colorado light the world on fire yet. I think he might be more deserving after a stint at a mid major like a UMKC.
So you bring on a retread, like a Mike Anderson, to be a bench coach. Not saying Mike Anderson would take on that role, but someone who's been a head coach before. And, for the record, I do think English is ready to run a team, from recruiting, to glad-handing donors, to team management, and player development, to x's and o's and game plan prep. He is a student of the game.
And if Houston didn't come calling he'd still be in the NBA and possibly ready for his own HC gig there. He's always been a great coach and the violations he got popped for are no longer violations.
Doubtful, one of the reasons he was able to be hired is he and the entire rockets staff had just been fired. His success in the NBA was limited. He's a college coach, he took NBA gigs because he couldn't get a college job.
This Houston team is better than any of the teams Rob Gray was a part of while not having anyone on the team close to Gray's ability to score. Part of that is the team not deferring to any one player. This team is much better balanced on both ends than any of the teams Gray was on while not necessarily being as talented.
It's easy to stand around and let a great scorer get buckets.
A great scorer will fill it up no matter what.
Gray definitely could rack up points and the team learned to just let him do his thing. With out him, everyone was looking to step up and help fill that points void. Everyone put in work, the new guys saw that, then emulated it, and that has produced a lot of success.
A great scorer will fill it up no matter what.
Gray definitely could rack up points and the team learned to just let him do his thing. With out him, everyone was looking to step up and help fill that points void. Everyone put in work, the new guys saw that, then emulated it, and that has produced a lot of success.
Haith’s and Anderson’s moves have all been basically lateral moves. They haven’t really moved significantly down. I’m of the theory that coaches who flame out rarely recover - they’re like milk that has spoiled... so go up, down or sideways, it doesn’t matter.
Lots of coaches move up and fail and some succeed. That’s because it’s a zero sum game. To be a top 20 coach means you have to drag someone out of the top 20. Displacing the 50th best coach is vastly easier than displacing the 20th best coach. So you can be the 70th best coach and look great but when you get to a place where you have to be the 30th best, it’s a lot harder and less likely. Some do it - Bill’s a top 10 coach who was able to drag other guys out of the way. But top 10 coaches don’t grow on trees (definitionally there can only be 10). You’re much more likely to end up with the 60th best coach than the 20th best. It would be interesting to see in data which is more likely to succeed - the promoted assistant (Tubby, Doug, Steve, Wake Forest guy) or the promoted lower level coach (Bill, Buzz, JD). We have more of the former but I’m not sure the latter are really better. I suspect our problem is as much that we’re not good at hiring assistants as it is that assistants do worse.
Good post.
There is so much organizational skill to being the HC. You have to be able to identify other great coaches that want to work for you.
I think most good or even great coaches probably have a weakness or two. The difference between a great coach and someone who moves around in the 60-100 range alot like Haith is I think twofold:
a) Being able to identify your weakness. Such as, "I'm not a good recruiter because I'm not super charasmatic and/or I'm not great at identifying talent in 15 year olds." Or, "My defensive schemes aren't that great, and I am unsure of what to do." Wojcik aside, I think most decent D-I coaches can at least get this part. But that brings us to point 2:
b) Being able to identify talent in an area that you are weak in. If you aren't great at coming up with defensive schemes, then it might be hard when you interview someone for an assistant position to know if their defensive philosophy/recruiting eye is actually any better than yours or not. In my mind, this is what makes the difference between a Haith and a Bill Self.
I agree with this 110%. The great ones are better than the others and also are willing to sacrifice comfort for success by bringing in people who are better than them at something and letting those people roll.
Similar threads
