Bitterwhiteguy

No that pretty much covers it

For clarification, I should distinguish between my personal feelings on the hire and the quality of the hire. While I'm not a fan of the hire for a variety of personal reasons - I'd prefer a coach that plays at a faster tempo, runs an above-average offensive system, crashes the offensive boards, doesn't have "taking charges" as a primary feature of their defense - I understand why Texas went after him and it's entirely possible he will win a lot of games at Texas. I don't think Beard is a bad coach by any stretch - there's an argument for another time about how much more Texas is paying per win, but it's probably not worth having - he's just some form of the same thing Texas has been doing for forever. A lot of my reaction today is about a desire to watch a different kind of Texas team; I've been watching Texas play good defense and wildly variable offense for the better part of 21 years, it wouldn't hurt to try mixing it up this time. Maybe Beard takes Texas to the Final Four, maybe not. I'm just less invested in watching this than what I think a NBA coach like Ivey might have brought.

I'm not saying he can't, but I can see why he wouldn't want to deal with it if there's another path available.

A couple of logistical reasons why Beard doesn't seem likely to me, neither of which have anything to do with what happens on the court: Hocutt is in some trouble right now; his football hire is failing and the boosters have been starting to talk of rebellion (remember the talk about hiring Briles a few months back) and he needs a W. If he loses Beard - especially to Texas - he might as well log into LinkedIn today. So Hocutt is motivated to keep Beard, and that's probably where (if true) the tenure-type offers are coming from. Texas paying their basketball coach more than their football coach could backfire for CDC because then Sark & Beard could play off each other every year about why they should be getting paid more than the other guy. If Sark wins 9+ games, he can go to CDC and say he's the big-money earner and deserves 6m+; if Beard follows with a S16 or E8 season, he can say he's winning more than Sark in his field and should leapfrog him again. It gets messy quickly for CDC, and a different basketball hire likely avoids all of this. Everything about the math for Beard doesn't make sense to me, the smarter play from CDC's POV is likely Ivey where he can sell an alumni returning home for way less cash and less fundraising requirements from boosters. I don't pretend to know what CDC will do but to me the choice is pretty clear, to the point I can see Beard and his April 1 buyout date being a helpful smokescreen that gives CDC time to vet/interview other candidates.

Recruiting isn't his issue, he's been landing top-50 guys; it's retaining guys. His roster churn every year is impressive; some of it is his focus on the transfer portal and some of it is running guys off. He has 2 leaving this year, 3 the year before, 4 the year before that. Tech's Verbal Commits page is large and full of grayed out names.

Has Gerry Hamilton googled Dana Altman's name even once https://www.si.com/college/2017/12/07/dana-altman-oregon-kavell-bigby-williams-investigation

Speaking solely for myself, I hope he continues this thread for years as Shaka coaches Marquette. He's all in, might as well throw in the car keys at this point.

He was interested in the Marquette gig; not sure if he said no then they went to Shaka or if they went to Shaka instead of him, but they were talking.

So now we're getting a report of a reporter's tweet, echo chamber is in full effect.

Painter is in my eyes a lesser Barnes; he puts together good teams and makes the tourney most years, but doesn't usually make it as far as you expect. Texas could do worse, but it's not exactly swinging for the fences.

There's a thread on this board about firing Shaka that was started in 2018 and is nearly 190 pages long.

It's not that he's below the Texas standard, it's that he's thoroughly not interested in leaving Nova and there's nothing Texas can offer that Nova can't match or beat. Maybe in 2015 it was possible (I doubt it, he was happy there back then too) but it's even less likely now.

There were plenty of mistakes made, but I don't think Texas would have been helped by sending out the guy with the highest turnover rate on the team for more minutes against a team that loves taking charges.

It was the biggest gut punch since I've been watching college basketball, replacing the 2011 Arizona '3 seconds' game. I don't know if it's the worst in program history - the season with the Chaminade loss also had the time Texas paid to play in the CBI so they could lose to Houston in the first round which was pretty embarassing, plus there's a laundry list of Bob Weltlich games to pick from - but the fact that it's in the conversation at all says plenty.

The only way an extension makes sense is if CDC reworked the guaranteed money to be more friendly to Texas; for example, hand him 2 extra years but sliced the guaranteed money in half so they could part ways next year and owe him $0 instead of $3m. I don't know why Shaka would agree to that - particularly with Sexton as his agent - but it would answer the "I need this for recruiting purposes" piece without being a bad deal for Texas. With 2 years left on the deal, Shaka is now at the point where he's starting to recruit players who would show up after his current deal expires, so something needs to happen one way or the other.

Anecdotally, it seems like the expert picks from various places breaks down something like this: 60% Bama 25% Texas 15% Michigan or FSU

Texas won its first conference tournament title since 1995. Whatever your feelings are about Shaka, celebrate the moment for what it is because it might be another 26 years before it happens again. Tonight is the time to party.

Any team that gets positive tests after tomorrow is DQed from March Madness, so let's not hope for this.

CALLED IT

That wouldn't happen because of their guidelines about teams who have played each other 2+ times in the season not meeting before the S16 if they can help it, so that would put WVU at risk of being dropped to a 5 seed to avoid it. This (and geography in non-COVID years) is one of the primary reasons the teams don't get seeded exactly by the S-curve.

He had a number of lingering effects from COVID that derailed him last season when the NBA bubbled up, I'm not sure if he's fully recovered or not.

The number of Big 12 teams that will be in the running for top 4 seeds means it's possible one or more team gets bumped down a line to comply with the NCAA Tournament's rule that conference opponents who have played each other 2+ times don't see each other before the Sweet 16. Given that they start building the bracket from the top down, Baylor & WVU are unlikely to deal with this but the glut of Big 12 teams in 3-5 range (Kansas, OSU, Texas, maybe Tech or OU) it's possible one or more gets dropped a line to accomodate. The rule isn't always followed, but it's something they try to do as they can. With the number of Big 10 & Big 12 teams in the tourney, somebody's likely to get knocked down a line for reasons other than their resume.

nm

It's probably the risk-averse side of me speaking, but I'd kinda rather Texas get the 3/4 in the conference tourney and get bounced early so they can go bubble up than making a run in the conference tourney and put their March Madness bid in jeopardy by being around other teams and catching a positive test. Texas is probably a low-3/high-4 seed regardless of their conference tourney outcome (barring making the finals or winning) and a single positive test by a coach or player in the week before the NCAA tourney invokes a ton of contact tracing & potential exclusions. If Texas was on the bubble I would feel differently, but they're safely in and the bigger prize is on the horizon.

I have literally watched him do this myself.