Jump to content

College basketball coaching carousel: 2024 edition

Machinator

By Machinator
in Basketball

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sbbruin

Sbbruin 22,082

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Jhawk said:

 

Bruin, can you list all of the coaches that have rejected UCLA between this hire and the Alford hire?

I don't know if there were that many.  If you add Bennett and Beard, who were rumored to be targeted but no formal offers took place as far as I know, I think it was just Cal, Dixon (who didn't reject us, just couldn't get the buyout worked out) and Barnes.  I don't know that anything else progressed to an offer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Crockett
Crockett
SL Xpress
SL Xpress

Russ Springmann is the new coach at Oral Roberts. It's been a winding journey for that guy. He's very straight laced and religious, so Oral Roberts is a good fit for him in that regard. He was my favo

Js1
Js1

Well I feel bad for Drew’s wife bc a woman saying no usually gets ignored in Waco 

Posted Images

Sbbruin

Sbbruin 22,082

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

I'd rather have Cronin than Dixon or Barnes.  

I'm starting to come around to this way of thinking.  I probably would have been fine with it had we just jumped on Cronin out of the gate.  I think I just soured on the circus that was created.

So what is the deal with Mullin at St. John's?  Is he back on the sauce, or what happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sbbruin

Sbbruin 22,082

Posted
Posted

Some interesting analysis from our $9.95ers:

Jim Harrick coached 23 seasons as a head coach. His three best were at UCLA.

Steve Lavin coached 12 seasons as a head coach. His five best were at UCLA.

Ben Howland has coached 23 seasons as a head coach. His best season and four of his best five seasons were at UCLA.

Steve Alford has coached 24 seasons as a head coach. His two best were at UCLA.

 

Basically the point being that a good coach can be elevated at UCLA.  So if Cronin is a good coach at Cincy, he can be a better coach at UCLA with the ease of recruiting and facilities we have.  We shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PittsburghTiger

PittsburghTiger 6,319

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

I'm starting to come around to this way of thinking.  I probably would have been fine with it had we just jumped on Cronin out of the gate.  I think I just soured on the circus that was created.

So what is the deal with Mullin at St. John's?  Is he back on the sauce, or what happened?

I think his brother died in March and it hit him hard. I like Chris Mullin. He got St. John's to look respectable again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTtxfan

LTtxfan 49,909

Posted
Posted (edited)

UCLA formally announced Mick Cronin as its next head men’s basketball coach on Tuesday, which means Jamie Dixon will not be the next UCLA coach.

During the Bruins’ three-and-a-half month search, Dixon was briefly the front-runner and the interest was said to be mutual, but an $8 million buyout that UCLA refused to meet and TCU declined to lower led to an impasse. UCLA moved on, and now Dixon returns to TCU after publicly flirting with another school.

Which begs the question: How do you return to your current school after negotiating with another one?

There is no one-size-fits-all solution, but Dixon on Tuesday offered his.

As I said above, there is no blanket solution because all situations are different. In this case, Dixon was considering leaving a school with eight NCAA tournament appearances for a school with 11 NCAA tournament championships, which also happens to be home for him and his wife.

Most TCU fans will understand Dixon’s interest in the job, but even if the circumstances weren’t so obvious — if Dixon were considering leaving “just” for a bigger conference and/or more money — most fans would understand because they, too, have considered leaving their current gigs for bigger and better ones at some point, too.

Again, that speaks for most fans, not all. There will be some angry with Dixon for reminding them that TCU means more to them than it does to him, and that’s okay, too.

But here’s the thing: Dixon was honest. Even if his honest explanation will still leave some (or half, or most) TCU fans with hurt feelings, avoiding the truth or insulting the fans’ intelligence would have left everyone feeling bitter.

By being upfront about his interest, Dixon allows everyone to acknowledge it and move on, turning an issue that would have lingered over the rest of his TCU tenure like a black cloud into a temporary one. When next season starts, either Dixon will win and TCU fans will forgive him, or he’ll lose and they’ll be angry with him — but they’ll be angry with him for losing, not for losing and insulting their intelligence.

In other words, he’ll be treated like a regular coach.

 

Edited by LTtxfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ClubWhatever

ClubWhatever 12,277

Posted
Posted

That statement doesn’t seem all that honest.  It reads like he is trying to make the speculation out to be an imposition on him and his family, as if there were no discussions between him or his agent and UCLA and that people made things up.  Yeah so if you don’t want speculation then don’t negotiate with other schools.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9,083

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LTtxfan said:

UCLA formally announced Mick Cronin as its next head men’s basketball coach on Tuesday, which means Jamie Dixon will not be the next UCLA coach.

During the Bruins’ three-and-a-half month search, Dixon was briefly the front-runner and the interest was said to be mutual, but an $8 million buyout that UCLA refused to meet and TCU declined to lower led to an impasse. UCLA moved on, and now Dixon returns to TCU after publicly flirting with another school.

Which begs the question: How do you return to your current school after negotiating with another one?

There is no one-size-fits-all solution, but Dixon on Tuesday offered his.

As I said above, there is no blanket solution because all situations are different. In this case, Dixon was considering leaving a school with eight NCAA tournament appearances for a school with 11 NCAA tournament championships, which also happens to be home for him and his wife.

Most TCU fans will understand Dixon’s interest in the job, but even if the circumstances weren’t so obvious — if Dixon were considering leaving “just” for a bigger conference and/or more money — most fans would understand because they, too, have considered leaving their current gigs for bigger and better ones at some point, too.

Again, that speaks for most fans, not all. There will be some angry with Dixon for reminding them that TCU means more to them than it does to him, and that’s okay, too.

But here’s the thing: Dixon was honest. Even if his honest explanation will still leave some (or half, or most) TCU fans with hurt feelings, avoiding the truth or insulting the fans’ intelligence would have left everyone feeling bitter.

By being upfront about his interest, Dixon allows everyone to acknowledge it and move on, turning an issue that would have lingered over the rest of his TCU tenure like a black cloud into a temporary one. When next season starts, either Dixon will win and TCU fans will forgive him, or he’ll lose and they’ll be angry with him — but they’ll be angry with him for losing, not for losing and insulting their intelligence.

In other words, he’ll be treated like a regular coach.

 

They all negotiate with their schools to stay and not run away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTtxfan

LTtxfan 49,909

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

I'm starting to come around to this way of thinking.  I probably would have been fine with it had we just jumped on Cronin out of the gate.  I think I just soured on the circus that was created.

38 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Reminds me of the Pierce hire for us in baseball.

 

Agree with Macklin...... Getting Cronin might end up as a better outcome for UCLA as compared to some of their other candidates....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sbbruin

Sbbruin 22,082

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, LTtxfan said:

He had some good results at Iowa, New Mexico, and UCLA (3 Sweet 16's).  Just fell of his last two seasons at UCLA..... not sure why??

Two of his sweet 16's were lucky breaks in who they faced after underacheiving seasons.  He had one really good year when Lonzo was a freshman.  Other than that, the team underachieved with a ton of talent. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jhawk

Jhawk 1,075

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

He had some good results at Iowa, New Mexico, and UCLA (3 Sweet 16's).  Just fell off his last two seasons at UCLA..... not sure why??

Probably had something to do with his recruiting and letting the balls into the program. I know that was a good year but just having that family around is basically like yelling to your players “look at my tiny nuts. I don’t run this program, lavar does.”

Edited by Jhawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sbbruin

Sbbruin 22,082

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Didnt they lose a lot of players to suspension and injury the year after Lonzo left?

Yes, and he had a lot of players leave early under the delusion of being an NBA start (Leaf, Onibogu to name a few).  He recruited too many "me first" guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catdaddyhorn

Catdaddyhorn 3,462

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Yes, and he had a lot of players leave early under the delusion of being an NBA start (Leaf, Onibogu to name a few).  He recruited too many "me first" guys.

That's a general criticism of a lot players who hail from California. 

TJ Leaf is another kid who more than likely would've significantly increased his draft stock had he stayed a year. 

Edited by Catdaddyhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PittsburghTiger

PittsburghTiger 6,319

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, ClubWhatever said:

That statement doesn’t seem all that honest.  It reads like he is trying to make the speculation out to be an imposition on him and his family, as if there were no discussions between him or his agent and UCLA and that people made things up.  Yeah so if you don’t want speculation then don’t negotiate with other schools.  

And it came about because TCU didn’t give in on the buyout 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sbbruin

Sbbruin 22,082

Posted
Posted

Pretty interesting read on what happened with Dixon.  Our main $9.95'er doesn't post shit like this without it being pretty credible, and he held off on posting it until after everything went down so as to not screw things up.  Just came down to Dixon being WAY too expensive for what could be argued is a tier 2 coach.  

Spoiler

First things first: Jamie Dixon wanted the UCLA job throughout this entire process. It’s why you never heard a definitive statement from him that he was staying at TCU until UCLA hired Mick Cronin. He was trying to get it worked out even as late as Monday.

Overall, the bottom line is that Jamie Dixon’s nearly $10 million buyout created too many problems, mostly for Dixon.

UCLA did just about everything it could.

This is basically how it went.

UCLA reached out to Dixon’s representatives early in its search process, but it couldn’t get a definitive figure for the buyout from anyone involved in the negotiation. People in Dixon’s camp reassured UCLA that the buyout number didn’t matter since they’d be able to negotiate down the buyout to a small sum, maybe $1-2 million, like it had done when Dixon left Pittsburgh. What they might not have considered is that TCU was going to be different than Pittsburgh, since Pitt agreed to a lesser buyout because it was fine with Dixon moving on, which was a serious miscalculation.

UCLA then went directly to TCU and asked them for the buyout figure and terms, and TCU, being a private school, wasn’t completely forthcoming initially.

Without being able to get the exact number of the buyout, UCLA put in on the backburner and focused on other candidates. You just can’t get serious about a candidate if you don’t have the terms of his contract, buyout etc. UCLA kept talking to the Dixon camp, however, because Dixon was so motivated to come to UCLA. But they couldn’t get good information on the buyout; at one point they were told the buyout was about $6 million, then $8 million, then $10 million, but couldn’t get a definitive number.

UCLA then contacted TCU officials again and did eventually get a number for the buyout at about $10 million.

As I’ve reported before, UCLA is dependent on its donors for chunks of cash for firings and hirings, including buyouts. The one donor who was willing to put up a big amount toward hiring John Calipari wouldn’t do so for Dixon. It also was a pretty sizable amount to come up with for Dixon – around $5 million per year and a $10 million buyout. Because of this, it would be close to the deal UCLA had come up with for Calipari. No matter what you might feel about UCLA not getting Dixon, you have to consider whether Dixon was worth close to Calipari-level money.

So, it appeared unlikely to happen.

Dixon’s representatives were still reassuring UCLA that it could negotiate down the buyout. UCLA then contacted TCU, and TCU said they were steadfast at $10 million for the buyout and wouldn’t agree to a lesser amount.

UCLA, at this point, was actively pursuing other candidates, and really focused its effort there, since the Dixon buyout looked tough to overcome and UCLA didn’t have donor money to offset it. And, again, it couldn’t get reliable information on exact terms of the buyout from anyone in Dixon’s camp or TCU.

But when UCLA was pursuing other candidates, Dixon continued to express interest in the job. UCLA then met with Dixon within the last few weeks, and he told them he still wanted to come. Even as late as that meeting a few weeks ago, Dixon told UCLA he would be able to get the buyout reduced, and get it cut up into payments spaced out over a period of years.

While it thought it was still a longshot, UCLA had been working on coming up with Dixon’s buyout money from other donor sources. It got enough commitments that it would be able to pay off the buyout in payments over several years.

UCLA went back to TCU, and they still indicated they wouldn’t reduce the buyout – and here’s another roadblock – they wanted it all in one lump sum.

At this point, in my opinion UCLA pretty much thought it was over – that they just couldn’t operate this way, without the details of the buyout.

This was about at the time UCLA really started to show interest in Rick Barnes. Pretty incredibly, UCLA kept working on Dixon, however, and eventually put together a package that included money to cover the buyout, with Dixon receiving about as much salary-wise as he was getting at TCU. Without the Calipari donor, this was a pretty big feat, getting almost $10 million in one lump sum to pay off Dixon’s buyout.

So, when it fell through with Barnes (another story that will be coming shortly), UCLA went back to TCU.

But more obstacles. UCLA discovered that the buyout was complicated; it somehow was tied to his buyout from Pittsburgh (I’m not clear on these details, but it complicated matters) and, most importantly, the wording made it so Dixon would be liable for taxes that needed to be paid for the buyout. TCU was pretty smart in how it structured the buyout – not only because of the large money figure, but also in what Dixon would have to personally do to get out from under it.

Now, you have to wonder if the Dixon camp knew about all of these details and that was the reason they were keeping it so close to the vest throughout the process, or if they just discovered it themselves when they looked closely at the wording of the buyout. It, though, became pretty clear that Dixon and his people made some considerable mistakes in agreeing to the terms of the buyout originally and in how it characterized it at various stages to UCLA.

Dixon wanted to still work it out, and it was still a possibility it could happen as recently as Monday.

If UCLA wanted to pay off Dixon’s tax liability, too, in the first year it would have cost them the $10 million buyout, close to $4 million in taxes and then Dixon’s approximate $4 million salary. It came out to between $17 and $18 million in Dixon’s first year.

Again, no matter what you think about how good of a coach Dixon is, you have to agree that’s a huge figure for him. So UCLA decided it just couldn't do that.

But there was still one solution that might have worked that UCLA pitched to Dixon: he could accept UCLA’s last proposal, and he himself pay off the tax responsibility, which essentially was his first-year salary. So, if he came to UCLA, he essentially wouldn’t have made any money in his first year, but he would have made $4 to $5 million per year over the course of the next five years. Given that the Dixon camp really screwed up on the buyout, and how much Dixon wanted the job, you’d think he might have agreed to take a hit for one year, but Dixon’s financial people ultimately advised against taking such a financial and tax risk. You can possibly see why, when he has the pot of gold at TCU.

Dixon and UCLA, then, on Monday both came to the joint conclusion this just wasn’t going to happen.

I received information on this as it was happening from various perspectives, mostly from those outside of UCLA, so the information is pretty objective and reliable.

So, that’s essentially the story.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jhawk

Jhawk 1,075

Posted
Posted

Dixon kinda comes off as a fool there.  His people are definitely ass clowns.  He better start winning more at TCU or he might be without a job soon and if his people were as careless with his side of the buyout as they were with the TCU side of it then he might walk away with very little and not many open possibilities after next season.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Underdog

Underdog 29,101

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

I just received a call personally from Mick Cronin!  He sounded a little scripted, and didn't respond to my questions, but he did invite me to Pauley Pavillion next season and even told me where I can buy tickets!  What a great guy!

Did he invite you over for some chili?  

 

Cronin’s a good coach, UCLA will be a hardnosed team under him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Machinator

Machinator 32,102

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

Pretty interesting read on what happened with Dixon.  Our main $9.95'er doesn't post shit like this without it being pretty credible, and he held off on posting it until after everything went down so as to not screw things up.  Just came down to Dixon being WAY too expensive for what could be argued is a tier 2 coach.  

  Hide contents

First things first: Jamie Dixon wanted the UCLA job throughout this entire process. It’s why you never heard a definitive statement from him that he was staying at TCU until UCLA hired Mick Cronin. He was trying to get it worked out even as late as Monday.

Overall, the bottom line is that Jamie Dixon’s nearly $10 million buyout created too many problems, mostly for Dixon.

UCLA did just about everything it could.

This is basically how it went.

UCLA reached out to Dixon’s representatives early in its search process, but it couldn’t get a definitive figure for the buyout from anyone involved in the negotiation. People in Dixon’s camp reassured UCLA that the buyout number didn’t matter since they’d be able to negotiate down the buyout to a small sum, maybe $1-2 million, like it had done when Dixon left Pittsburgh. What they might not have considered is that TCU was going to be different than Pittsburgh, since Pitt agreed to a lesser buyout because it was fine with Dixon moving on, which was a serious miscalculation.

UCLA then went directly to TCU and asked them for the buyout figure and terms, and TCU, being a private school, wasn’t completely forthcoming initially.

Without being able to get the exact number of the buyout, UCLA put in on the backburner and focused on other candidates. You just can’t get serious about a candidate if you don’t have the terms of his contract, buyout etc. UCLA kept talking to the Dixon camp, however, because Dixon was so motivated to come to UCLA. But they couldn’t get good information on the buyout; at one point they were told the buyout was about $6 million, then $8 million, then $10 million, but couldn’t get a definitive number.

UCLA then contacted TCU officials again and did eventually get a number for the buyout at about $10 million.

As I’ve reported before, UCLA is dependent on its donors for chunks of cash for firings and hirings, including buyouts. The one donor who was willing to put up a big amount toward hiring John Calipari wouldn’t do so for Dixon. It also was a pretty sizable amount to come up with for Dixon – around $5 million per year and a $10 million buyout. Because of this, it would be close to the deal UCLA had come up with for Calipari. No matter what you might feel about UCLA not getting Dixon, you have to consider whether Dixon was worth close to Calipari-level money.

So, it appeared unlikely to happen.

Dixon’s representatives were still reassuring UCLA that it could negotiate down the buyout. UCLA then contacted TCU, and TCU said they were steadfast at $10 million for the buyout and wouldn’t agree to a lesser amount.

UCLA, at this point, was actively pursuing other candidates, and really focused its effort there, since the Dixon buyout looked tough to overcome and UCLA didn’t have donor money to offset it. And, again, it couldn’t get reliable information on exact terms of the buyout from anyone in Dixon’s camp or TCU.

But when UCLA was pursuing other candidates, Dixon continued to express interest in the job. UCLA then met with Dixon within the last few weeks, and he told them he still wanted to come. Even as late as that meeting a few weeks ago, Dixon told UCLA he would be able to get the buyout reduced, and get it cut up into payments spaced out over a period of years.

While it thought it was still a longshot, UCLA had been working on coming up with Dixon’s buyout money from other donor sources. It got enough commitments that it would be able to pay off the buyout in payments over several years.

UCLA went back to TCU, and they still indicated they wouldn’t reduce the buyout – and here’s another roadblock – they wanted it all in one lump sum.

At this point, in my opinion UCLA pretty much thought it was over – that they just couldn’t operate this way, without the details of the buyout.

This was about at the time UCLA really started to show interest in Rick Barnes. Pretty incredibly, UCLA kept working on Dixon, however, and eventually put together a package that included money to cover the buyout, with Dixon receiving about as much salary-wise as he was getting at TCU. Without the Calipari donor, this was a pretty big feat, getting almost $10 million in one lump sum to pay off Dixon’s buyout.

So, when it fell through with Barnes (another story that will be coming shortly), UCLA went back to TCU.

But more obstacles. UCLA discovered that the buyout was complicated; it somehow was tied to his buyout from Pittsburgh (I’m not clear on these details, but it complicated matters) and, most importantly, the wording made it so Dixon would be liable for taxes that needed to be paid for the buyout. TCU was pretty smart in how it structured the buyout – not only because of the large money figure, but also in what Dixon would have to personally do to get out from under it.

Now, you have to wonder if the Dixon camp knew about all of these details and that was the reason they were keeping it so close to the vest throughout the process, or if they just discovered it themselves when they looked closely at the wording of the buyout. It, though, became pretty clear that Dixon and his people made some considerable mistakes in agreeing to the terms of the buyout originally and in how it characterized it at various stages to UCLA.

Dixon wanted to still work it out, and it was still a possibility it could happen as recently as Monday.

If UCLA wanted to pay off Dixon’s tax liability, too, in the first year it would have cost them the $10 million buyout, close to $4 million in taxes and then Dixon’s approximate $4 million salary. It came out to between $17 and $18 million in Dixon’s first year.

Again, no matter what you think about how good of a coach Dixon is, you have to agree that’s a huge figure for him. So UCLA decided it just couldn't do that.

But there was still one solution that might have worked that UCLA pitched to Dixon: he could accept UCLA’s last proposal, and he himself pay off the tax responsibility, which essentially was his first-year salary. So, if he came to UCLA, he essentially wouldn’t have made any money in his first year, but he would have made $4 to $5 million per year over the course of the next five years. Given that the Dixon camp really screwed up on the buyout, and how much Dixon wanted the job, you’d think he might have agreed to take a hit for one year, but Dixon’s financial people ultimately advised against taking such a financial and tax risk. You can possibly see why, when he has the pot of gold at TCU.

Dixon and UCLA, then, on Monday both came to the joint conclusion this just wasn’t going to happen.

I received information on this as it was happening from various perspectives, mostly from those outside of UCLA, so the information is pretty objective and reliable.

So, that’s essentially the story.

 

Sounds like CDC did a hell of a job locking down Dixon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...