Norm Stewart was 32 when he got the Mizzou job, as was Quin Snyder.
Yes I've got a good feeling about 2047.
This program is a long way from winning 20 games a year with a .500 record in league play. But if that becomes the norm year after year, then what eventually happens is unless you've won a national championship or make multiple Final Fours, then just winning 20 games every year doesn't satisfy the base any more. Seems like fans are getting restless at Ohio State where Holtmann has a ranked team every year, wins 20 games and makes the NCAA tourney. But eventually that's no longer good enough.
Nothing too exotic: Gonzaga, Purdue, Arizona, Providence. Arizona beating the Zags to win it all.
I was somewhat surprised. I had some private conversations with parties involved late Thursday night - after the loss to LSU - and I left those believing it was still very much in the air.
I'm not sure he was comfortable with his staff. Over the years there was some frustration with the staff salary pool - not that his coaches were underpaid but that there wasn't more money available to upgrade. But if he truly believed he needed different assistants, even if he couldn't pay ideal options to add, he could have made some changes.
He's 63, which is right in the middle of the four coaches at the best programs in the SEC: Mussleman (57), Pearl (61), Calipari (63) and Barnes (67). If Dana Altman wants to coach at Mizzou and you don't have to pay him more than $4M, you end the search. But I don't know that he's realistic by any means or if he's intent on leaving Oregon.
As someone who has been contacted by one of these search firms for a job in the past - no further comment from me - there is some value in having a firm reach out to candidates especially early in the process because it provides a buffer so ADs can deny they contacted certain coaches and coaches can deny they've been contacted by other schools. Also, the firm helps with background searches. They study contracts so they can understand buyouts and initiate the structure of an offer. They schedule the interviews, arrange the travel, etc. The AD could handle some of these tasks, but not very efficiently when she also has an athletics department to manage on a daily basis. Search firms are a bit of a racket, but they do serve a real purpose.
That search was unique. It was documented exhaustively: AD Mike Alden was allowed to pursue Gregg Marshall, but if he couldn't close the deal, university administration wanted him to hire Kim Anderson. Other coaches weren't given strong consideration. Ben Howland wanted the job but MU never got serious with him. Mike White could have been in the mix. I was later told Buzz Williams would have listened. Frank Martin would have listened. Heck, had he not just taken the Cal job, Cuonzo would have listened.
I don't think all those factors are as guaranteed as you describe them.
I didn't study George Mason games this year to be able to answer that question accurately. I watched when they lost to SLU and that's about it.
By systemic I mean, why so much turnover and instability? How can you grow when you're constantly working under a new boss who's bringing in new people? There's not much institutional knowledge in the department right now. New blood can be healthy, but not if you're not learning from the past. Who's in charge of athletics? Is it the president/chancellor or the AD? Why four different ADs over eight years? Coaches continually getting fired by ADs who didn't hire them. It almost becomes self-fulfilling. New AD inherits coaches, lets go of coaches they didn't hire; new AD comes around, and the cycle continues.
In 12 years at Ole Miss, he made one NCAA Tournament. Martin made two in five years. I don't understand firing Martin for Kennedy - in an SEC that's much more competitive now and will get more competitive when Texas and Oklahoma join. I like Kennedy. I just don't see how you sell that hire if you're serious about winning championships My first question for the AD would be, "How is making fewer NCAAs in more than twice as many years an upgrade from Martin?"
There's no sense in making a coaching change without giving the new guy some better resources. Otherwise, you're just giving the same house a new paint job but not actually addressing the leaky foundation or the busted pipes.
OK, folks. I'm out of time. We'll do this again next week. Maybe there'll be a new coach to discuss.