Jump to content

Fire Shaka Smart

smokebomb

By smokebomb
in Basketball

 Share

Recommended Posts

Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Machinator said:

Who would you define as a "big name" at a basketball school?

I think we would all agree that the traditional blue bloods (UNC, Duke, UCLA, Indiana, Kentucky) are out of bounds. What else?

Would Tom Izzo or Jim beilein go to Texas ?  MSU isn't a blue blood, Michigan is a blue blood football program based on longevity 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 9.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Red Five
Red Five

That is tough to accomplish in four years, but I wouldn't put it past Shaka.

immamac
immamac
Camelback80
Camelback80

Shaka should definitely get at least one more year. Many of his recruits will finally be upperclassmen by then, and he'll have his best shot of any year he's been here. Fans need to realize 2 maj

Posted Images

SwanderedTalent

SwanderedTalent 5761

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Would Tom Izzo or Jim beilein go to Texas ?  MSU isn't a blue blood, Michigan is a blue blood football program based on longevity 

Do you want to talk specifics, as in who we could get to replace Shaka Smart, or do you want to talk hypotheticals? Beilein and Izzo are pointless to consider. They're both in their mid-60s and near the end of their careers. Coaches like that are hard to pry out of any job, whether they're at a "basketball school" or not. North Carolina couldn't get either of them at this point.

Could we hire a basketball coach away from Michigan State or Michigan, hypothetically? Sure, but there are so many variables in that question that it's hard to discuss it meaningfully. How old is the hypothetical coach? What part of the country is he from? What's his success level at MSU/Michigan? How popular is he, how much effort and money will MSU/Michigan spend to keep him? 

I guess my point in the last two posts is, we can absolutely hire a basketball coach away from a "basketball school", under the right circumstances. Saying we can't, as a blanket statement, is a waste of time. We have to be specific about the circumstances because that's all that matters. A hypothetical about whether we could hire Georgetown's basketball coach or UCLA's coach kind of depends on whether you're talking about John Thompson in 1986 or Craig Esherick in 2003, or Jim Harrick in 1996 versus Steve Alford last spring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GreenspointTexas

GreenspointTexas 9556

Posted
Posted

Not firing shaka this year just because he makes the tourney is the same as not firing strong in year 3 just because he made a bowl game

 

the dude sucks. Even if we dont have a replacement lined up (which is laughably unlikely), Jai Lucas or Derka would be an upgrade from Shaka. 

 

We arent keeping him... some of yall are delusional

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, texasstrong12 said:

There is no chance Texas basketball is a top 10 job. 

 

It's definitely a well heeled school, and the position seems attractive (see: Shaka grabbing the brass ring), but top 10 ?  nah.  It should be with the talent pool they have in state which begs the question why isn't it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
texasstrong12

texasstrong12 4668

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's definitely a well heeled school, and the position seems attractive (see: Shaka grabbing the brass ring), but top 10 ?  nah.  It should be with the talent pool they have in state which begs the question why isn't it ?

1) Little to no history compared to other blue bloods.

2) A fanbase that doesn't really care about basketball. Hell, baseball might be the 2nd biggest sport at Texas. 

3) Crazy expectations much like UCLA but they at least have history to justify those expectations. UCLA also eats, breathes and sleeps basketball so it at least makes a little more sense they have those type expectations. That's football for Texas. 

4) We aren't paying coaches an insane amount of money that makes it an attractive job over other schools. I believe Shaka is the 12th highest paid coach in the country. Coaches like Greg Marshall (Wichita State) are making about the same amount of money on a per year basis as Shaka. Bottom line is other schools are throwing as much money as we are at college basketball coaches. Maybe CDC would change that. 

 

Edited by texasstrong12
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, texasstrong12 said:

1) Little to no history compared to other blue bloods,

2) A fanbase that doesn't really care about basketball. Hell, baseball might be the 2nd biggest sport at Texas. 

3) Crazy expectations much like UCLA but they at least have history to justify those expectations. 

4) We aren't paying coaches an insane amount of money that makes it an attractive job over other schools. I believe Shaka is the 12th highest paid coach in the country. Coaches like Greg Marshall (Wichita State) are making about the same amount of money on a per year basis as Shaka. Bottom line, is other schools are throwing as much money as we are at college basketball coaches. Maybe CDC would change that. 

 

All fair points.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SwanderedTalent

SwanderedTalent 5761

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, texasstrong12 said:

1) Little to no history compared to other blue bloods.

2) A fanbase that doesn't really care about basketball. Hell, baseball might be the 2nd biggest sport at Texas. 

3) Crazy expectations much like UCLA but they at least have history to justify those expectations. UCLA also eats, breathes and sleeps basketball so it at least makes a little more sense they have those type expectations. That's football for Texas. 

4) We aren't paying coaches an insane amount of money that makes it an attractive job over other schools. I believe Shaka is the 12th highest paid coach in the country. Coaches like Greg Marshall (Wichita State) are making about the same amount of money on a per year basis as Shaka. Bottom line is other schools are throwing as much money as we are at college basketball coaches. Maybe CDC would change that. 

 

1) I don't think this is relevant. We're talking about where a coach wants to work, not where championships have been won in the distant past. 

2) Even if I were to grant the fan base "doesn't really" care about basketball, in what way has this hampered us as a program? Is that why Rick Barnes' 1- and 2-seeded teams didn't win the national title? Has it hurt our recruiting in some tangible way? Does this hurt us more or less than not having as many banners as Indiana? We've signed better recruits than them for most of the last 20 years.

3) I don't have any idea where you get this from. There aren't crazy expectations here. There are crazy expectations at Kentucky. Our fans want winning, entertaining basketball. The fans are not going to get bored with/tune out a program that wins 20-25 games and makes the Sweet 16. 

4) Shaka is in the fourth year of his contract. He's done nothing to get a raise in his time here and his contract was signed under Steve Patterson, so you're looking at a stale number in terms of what we are willing to offer on the market. We are not going to set the market, but we will be competitive enough that CDC will be able to get who he wants, within reason.

The fact that we don't pay a premium for our coach-- that we were able to hire Smart where (among others) UCLA failed-- actually makes my point, not yours. We don't have to throw A&M football money at a coach in a competitive hiring situation, despite not having won a national championship or being a basketball-first school or playing in Cameron or Allen Field House. This program has so many attractive qualities, qualities that far outweigh its negative ones, that simply paying the going rate for (what was perceived as) a top tier talent is sufficient to get him to jump when he wouldn't before.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SwanderedTalent

SwanderedTalent 5761

Posted
Posted

I should probably add, saying we are a "top ten program" in college basketball was an off-hand remark. Not a hill I want to die on. We are not at the level of Carolina or Duke or Kentucky, and you may or may not be able to find seven more schools to round out that list without including us, but we are one of the destination jobs in the sport. And that is a hill I am willing to die on-- the idea that some coaches are off-limits specifically because we are not a 'basketball school". 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skipper

Skipper 6088

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Not firing shaka this year just because he makes the tourney is the same as not firing strong in year 3 just because he made a bowl game

 

the dude sucks. Even if we dont have a replacement lined up (which is laughably unlikely), Jai Lucas or Derka would be an upgrade from Shaka. 

 

We arent keeping him... some of yall are delusional

I'll take that bet for $100 Alex.  If we make tourney, I say CDC doesn't fire Shaka.    To be clear, I definitely think he should all things being equal.  But in a sport where I'm speculating revenue is relatively flat year to year (and won't go + or - $3MM based on whether we retain Shaka), I think he will come to the conclusion it makes more fiscal sense to give him 1 more and reduce the buyout.  I think that's what will happen unless CDC has 'his guy' on the line and thinks it's now or never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
texasstrong12

texasstrong12 4668

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

1) I don't think this is relevant. We're talking about where a coach wants to work, not where championships have been won in the distant past. 

2) Even if I were to grant the fan base "doesn't really" care about basketball, in what way has this hampered us as a program? Is that why Rick Barnes' 1- and 2-seeded teams didn't win the national title? Has it hurt our recruiting in some tangible way? Does this hurt us more or less than not having as many banners as Indiana? We've signed better recruits than them for most of the last 20 years.

3) I don't have any idea where you get this from. There aren't crazy expectations here. There are crazy expectations at Kentucky. Our fans want winning, entertaining basketball. The fans are not going to get bored with/tune out a program that wins 20-25 games and makes the Sweet 16. 

4) Shaka is in the fourth year of his contract. He's done nothing to get a raise in his time here and his contract was signed under Steve Patterson, so you're looking at a stale number in terms of what we are willing to offer on the market. We are not going to set the market, but we will be competitive enough that CDC will be able to get who he wants, within reason.

The fact that we don't pay a premium for our coach-- that we were able to hire Smart where (among others) UCLA failed-- actually makes my point, not yours. We don't have to throw A&M football money at a coach in a competitive hiring situation, despite not having won a national championship or being a basketball-first school or playing in Cameron or Allen Field House. This program has so many attractive qualities, qualities that far outweigh its negative ones, that simply paying the going rate for (what was perceived as) a top tier talent is sufficient to get him to jump when he wouldn't before.

1) You don't think history matters? I'm not saying it's the end all be all but having a history of winning certainly helps make a school attractive. We make the same argument in baseball and football for why those sports are attractive destination schools for coaches (i.e our blue blood history). 

2) I think having a rabid fanbase matters. Kansas wins the Big 12 almost every year because they have a huge home court advantage. There are other examples similar to Kansas. Bottom line is our students are not engaged when it comes to basketball. We have one of the most disengaged student groups in college basketball I've seen. Go watch crowds at schools like Duke, Kansas, Kentucky. It's night and day the type environment they have in comparison with Texas. 

3) There is a large group of people that thought Rick Barnes sucked. The best coach in Texas history. That's called crazy expectations. Should Barnes have been fired? Probably so but there were a lot of Texas fans that thought he was a bad coach because of crazy expectations.

I see the argument all the time that "Texas basketball should be a 2nd weekend tournament team on yearly basis" when reality is we've only made it past the 2nd round of the tournament a few times in 40 to 50 years. 

4) Let's see if Texas is willing to pay $7 to $8 million a year for a top 10 type coach. I bet we aren't. Maybe CDC will prove me wrong. If Texas is a top 10 basketball school like you say it is Texas needs to spend money on one of the truly elite coaches. 

5) The UCLA and Shaka example is an anomaly. UCLA's treatment of Ben Howland is why nobody wanted to coach there. 

 

 

 

Edited by texasstrong12
Link to comment
Share on other sites
deter

deter 313

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Not firing shaka this year just because he makes the tourney is the same as not firing strong in year 3 just because he made a bowl game

 

the dude sucks. Even if we dont have a replacement lined up (which is laughably unlikely), Jai Lucas or Derka would be an upgrade from Shaka. 

 

We arent keeping him... some of yall are delusional

That's the ticket. Goo for corch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85056

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, deter said:

That's the ticket. Goo for corch.

His halftime speech would be so long-winded that we wouldn't come back out on the floor until 12 minutes are left in the 2nd half. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skipper

Skipper 6088

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, texasstrong12 said:

 

4) Let's see if Texas is willing to pay $7 to $8 million a year for a top 10 type coach. I bet we aren't. Maybe CDC will prove me wrong. If Texas is a top 10 basketball school like you say it is Texas needs to spend money on one of the truly elite coaches. 

 

 

 

I can answer that for you.  No fucking way.  Nor should we.   Christ, the only 2 coaches in CBB sniffing that are Coach K and Calipari.   That isn't a realistic threshold as to whether Texas is serious about basketball.  It's about half that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
texasstrong12

texasstrong12 4668

Posted
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Skipper said:

I can answer that for you.  No fucking way.  Nor should we.   Christ, the only 2 coaches in CBB sniffing that are Coach K and Calipari.   That isn't a realistic threshold as to whether Texas is serious about basketball.  It's about half that.

7 to 8 million might be a little high but it's going to take in the 5 to 6 million range to even have a shot with a coach like Tony Bennett. I consider Bennett the only coach out there that we might have a shot with in the "elite" group of coaches. He's already making $3 million and you know Virginia would go higher if other teams came calling that were threats. 

Texas can maybe land other coaches like Buzz, Prohm or Beard for cheaper but they aren't tier 1 coaches. 

All the other elite coaches Coack K ($9.8 million), Coach Cal ($7.99 million), Self ($4.95 million), and Izzo ($4.36 million) are making bank and will probably see salary bumps in the future. Not to mention those schools have advantages over Texas. Texas has to overspend if they want an elite coach because they aren't a blue blood like those type schools. Really the only "elite" coach out there that isn't making bank is Jay Wright but I bet that changes in the future. You can probably throw Few in that group too. 

The blue blood schools, that most consider top 5ish jobs, are going to be paying their coaches over $5 million in these next few years. The Kentucky, Kansas, Michigan State, and Duke types are all throwing bank at these coaches. If we're a "top 10 job" we should join them and target one of the truly elite coaches. 

Targeting tier 2/tier 2 coaches at value doesn't scream "top 10 job". If you're a top 10 job use your advantages like salary to go and get one of the elite coaches. 

 

Edited by texasstrong12
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
Just now, texasstrong12 said:

And if you want to see what a "top 10 program" does in terms of salary see what Texas did in softball this offseason.  

They targeted one of the elite coaches in White and doubled his salary from Oregon. 

Salary doesn't make you top 10, just sayin'.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SwanderedTalent

SwanderedTalent 5761

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, texasstrong12 said:

And if you want to see what a "top 10 program" does in terms of salary see what Texas did in softball this offseason.  

They targeted one of the elite coaches in White and doubled his salary from Oregon. 

I want to get to a response to you, I appreciate the discussion, but I think you're a little hung up on the "top ten program" thing when I said specifically that was an off-hand reference. You might be using it similarly, I guess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
texasstrong12

texasstrong12 4668

Posted
Posted
Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Salary doesn't make you top 10, just sayin'.  

Salary doesn't. Pulling the top coaches does. 

Texas showed they were a "top 10 job" in softball because they leveraged their advantages (i.e. a shitload of money for a softball coach). Even White said "financial security for his family" was a big reason he came to Texas. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85056

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, texasstrong12 said:

Salary doesn't. Pulling the top coaches does. 

Texas showed they were a "top 10 job" in softball because they leveraged their advantages (i.e. a shitload of money for a softball coach). Even White said "financial security for his family" was a big reason he came to Texas. 

 

 

Not just salary.  CDC made promises on facilities too.  Of course a new basketball coach has BRAND NEW ARENA as part of the package, so there's not a lot of "facilities" promises CDC can offer.  But the brand new arena should interest some coaches.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goo Punch

Goo Punch 4275

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Machinator said:

The Mic'd up segments would be entertaining

"Jericho, you have got to hedge harder! I'm sick of watching the same thing happen over and over again. Now- Brock- go get me a derka dog with extra jalapeños and  a side of nacho cheese. I want to be well free for when I freestyle as the halftime show."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gut Wagon

Gut Wagon 8052

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, Rockethorn1978 said:

So I looked over all of our schedules and under Shaka before tonight Texas is 22-28 in games decided by 5 points or less. Shaka is fucking terrible in close games.

22-28. 

Well, when you can't make a late FT or open jumper or keep from turning the ball over or get a rebound, it's kinda hard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goo Punch

Goo Punch 4275

Posted
Posted

What Buzz Williams and Va Tech have done since losing their best player (Justin Robinson, an outstanding college player who's been out for 8 games) is extremely impressive. Buzz is flying towards the top of my list of potential Shaka replacements.

 

Conversely, Musselman needs to be praying that Texas wants to offer him the job if he has any plans to continue coaching in college (which he may very well not). Nevada hasn't played *anybody*, and imo could be THE biggest bracket buster one way or another. Despite having an outstanding record they've been in the low to mid 20's all year according to KenPom, and they are a huge question mark heading into the postseason. They could easily glide to the Elite 8 and just as easily get rompes in the round of 32. It really comes down to how their top-heavy roster is playing that day. And of course that's what made me zero in on EM in the first place- the cupboard is bare next year for UNR- i have to think he'll be somewhere else within two years, one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
texasstrong12

texasstrong12 4668

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Machinator said:

Just because it worked out with Tom Herman doesn't mean we should zero on one person in every coaching search we do.

Spending over $20 million in buyouts to hire the coach that has a .549 winning percentage in the Big 12 would be the most Texas basketball move ever. 

If you're going to spend that type money you better get someone like Tony Bennett. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GreenspointTexas

GreenspointTexas 9556

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, texasstrong12 said:

Spending over $20 million in buyouts to hire the coach that has a .549 winning percentage in the Big 12 would be the most Texas basketball move ever. 

If you're going to spend that type money you better get someone like Tony Bennett. 

Tech has gotten better every year under Beard, is a top 10 team, made the elite 8 last year, and is the best team in the big 12

 

 

Tech. 

Texas.Tech.

 

we wont be the only suitors, for good reason. But id argue hes def. the favorite to land the job at his alma mater

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTtxfan

LTtxfan 48928

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, texasstrong12 said:

Spending over $20 million in buyouts to hire the coach that has a .549 winning percentage in the Big 12 would be the most Texas basketball move ever. 

If you're going to spend that type money you better get someone like Tony Bennett. 

TB not my preference..... Prefer next coach to be better on offense.  Hoiberg would be a candidate to consider.  Or maybe the Nevada coach -- Eric Musselman.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gut Wagon

Gut Wagon 8052

Posted
Posted

We could try just buying out this clown and then going without a coach for a few years. Wouldn’t cost any more, and we might have a better record. 

Yeah, Tech is solid. But some of our play is on us. We can’t even make FTs or layups, much less jumpers. Coleman drives like he’s playing on bacon grease. We leave someone open on every defensive “stand.” We’re doing utterly nothing conducive to winning. It’s a really bad joke that just won’t end. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MonkeyDoughnut

MonkeyDoughnut 10134

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Gut Wagon said:

We could try just buying out this clown and then going without a coach for a few years. Wouldn’t cost any more, and we might have a better record. 

Yeah, Tech is solid. But some of our play is on us. We can’t even make FTs or layups, much less jumpers. Coleman drives like he’s playing on bacon grease. We leave someone open on every defensive “stand.” We’re doing utterly nothing conducive to winning. It’s a really bad joke that just won’t end. 

Genuine question.. can Shaka get a job coaching DI basketball after his job at Texas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14023

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Tech has gotten better every year under Beard, is a top 10 team, made the elite 8 last year, and is the best team in the big 12

 

 

Tech. 

Texas.Tech.

 

we wont be the only suitors, for good reason. But id argue hes def. the favorite to land the job at his alma mater

Beard is looking good. showing much competence. but focusing on him just because Smart is a total disaster is a bit shortsighted IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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...