[winflop]

This site which tracks D1 coaching openings has a new name for consideration - Archie Miller of Dayton (Sean's brother).  I find that to be an intriguing option. 

http://collegesportsinfo.com/2016/01/17/...g-changes/

I don't think Archie Miller is a new name - at least for me.  Been on my radar since Dayton took us out in the Sweet 16.

Amaker troubles me because he hasn't been successful - plus Dookies who have been successful HCs is a very mixed bag at best.  There are still several successful mid-major coaches out there.

[winflop]

This site which tracks D1 coaching openings has a new name for consideration - Archie Miller of Dayton (Sean's brother).  I find that to be an intriguing option. 

http://collegesportsinfo.com/2016/01/17/...g-changes/

I don't think Archie Miller is a new name - at least for me.  Been on my radar since Dayton took us out in the Sweet 16.

Amaker troubles me because he hasn't been successful - plus Dookies who have been successful HCs is a very mixed bag at best.  There are still several successful mid-major coaches out there.

[winflop]

This site which tracks D1 coaching openings has a new name for consideration - Archie Miller of Dayton (Sean's brother).  I find that to be an intriguing option. 

http://collegesportsinfo.com/2016/01/17/...g-changes/

I don't think Archie Miller is a new name - at least for me.  Been on my radar since Dayton took us out in the Sweet 16.

Amaker troubles me because he hasn't been successful - plus Dookies who have been successful HCs is a very mixed bag at best.  There are still several successful mid-major coaches out there.

[winflop]

This site which tracks D1 coaching openings has a new name for consideration - Archie Miller of Dayton (Sean's brother).  I find that to be an intriguing option. 

http://collegesportsinfo.com/2016/01/17/...g-changes/

I don't think Archie Miller is a new name - at least for me.  Been on my radar since Dayton took us out in the Sweet 16.

Amaker troubles me because he hasn't been successful - plus Dookies who have been successful HCs is a very mixed bag at best.  There are still several successful mid-major coaches out there.

[winflop]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14748.msg158865#msg158865 date=1458326295]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14748.msg158864#msg158864 date=1458326214]
Please... not Steve Lavin

Sendek is almost as bad.
[/quote]

If we hire either one of these guys, I'm confident it won't be long before winflop and garvin will be writing posts pining for the good old days ... and meaning the Dawkins' era!  ;D
[/quote]

I will *NEVER* pine for the Dawkins Era.  Could it get worse?  Of course, but that won't make me long for mediocrity & inconsistency.  It will make me hopeful that if it gets worse that Muir won't be as patient.

[winflop]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14748.msg158865#msg158865 date=1458326295]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14748.msg158864#msg158864 date=1458326214]
Please... not Steve Lavin

Sendek is almost as bad.
[/quote]

If we hire either one of these guys, I'm confident it won't be long before winflop and garvin will be writing posts pining for the good old days ... and meaning the Dawkins' era!  ;D
[/quote]

I will *NEVER* pine for the Dawkins Era.  Could it get worse?  Of course, but that won't make me long for mediocrity & inconsistency.  It will make me hopeful that if it gets worse that Muir won't be as patient.

[winflop]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14748.msg158865#msg158865 date=1458326295]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14748.msg158864#msg158864 date=1458326214]
Please... not Steve Lavin

Sendek is almost as bad.
[/quote]

If we hire either one of these guys, I'm confident it won't be long before winflop and garvin will be writing posts pining for the good old days ... and meaning the Dawkins' era!  ;D
[/quote]

I will *NEVER* pine for the Dawkins Era.  Could it get worse?  Of course, but that won't make me long for mediocrity & inconsistency.  It will make me hopeful that if it gets worse that Muir won't be as patient.

[winflop]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14748.msg158865#msg158865 date=1458326295]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14748.msg158864#msg158864 date=1458326214]
Please... not Steve Lavin

Sendek is almost as bad.
[/quote]

If we hire either one of these guys, I'm confident it won't be long before winflop and garvin will be writing posts pining for the good old days ... and meaning the Dawkins' era!  ;D
[/quote]

I will *NEVER* pine for the Dawkins Era.  Could it get worse?  Of course, but that won't make me long for mediocrity & inconsistency.  It will make me hopeful that if it gets worse that Muir won't be as patient.

[Roberton3]

Amaker troubles me because he hasn't been successful...

I don't think that's fair.  As with the discussion of JD vs. Monty, you have to look at where a team started.  At Harvard, Amaker took over a team that hadn't qualified for the NCAA tournament in 60 years.  From that starting point, getting that team into the tournament four times seems pretty successful.

I still don't think Stanford should hire him.  But saying he hasn't been successful is unfair.

[Roberton3]

Amaker troubles me because he hasn't been successful...

I don't think that's fair.  As with the discussion of JD vs. Monty, you have to look at where a team started.  At Harvard, Amaker took over a team that hadn't qualified for the NCAA tournament in 60 years.  From that starting point, getting that team into the tournament four times seems pretty successful.

I still don't think Stanford should hire him.  But saying he hasn't been successful is unfair.

[Roberton3]

Amaker troubles me because he hasn't been successful...

I don't think that's fair.  As with the discussion of JD vs. Monty, you have to look at where a team started.  At Harvard, Amaker took over a team that hadn't qualified for the NCAA tournament in 60 years.  From that starting point, getting that team into the tournament four times seems pretty successful.

I still don't think Stanford should hire him.  But saying he hasn't been successful is unfair.

[Roberton3]

Amaker troubles me because he hasn't been successful...

I don't think that's fair.  As with the discussion of JD vs. Monty, you have to look at where a team started.  At Harvard, Amaker took over a team that hadn't qualified for the NCAA tournament in 60 years.  From that starting point, getting that team into the tournament four times seems pretty successful.

I still don't think Stanford should hire him.  But saying he hasn't been successful is unfair.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=14748.msg159104#msg159104 date=1458666064]
Amaker troubles me because he hasn't been successful...

I don't think that's fair.  As with the discussion of JD vs. Monty, you have to look at where a team started.  At Harvard, Amaker took over a team that hadn't qualified for the NCAA tournament in 60 years.  From that starting point, getting that team into the tournament four times seems pretty successful.

I still don't think Stanford should hire him.  But saying he hasn't been successful is unfair.
[/quote]

I think it's deceptive to compare Harvard's past to Amaker's tenure. Around the same time they hired Amaker, they sunk a bunch more resources into the program to make it more competitive -- which makes it hard to say how much credit belongs to Amaker and how much belongs to the increased institutional support he got at the school.

Amaker's success has been driven by recruiting really, really well at Harvard -- he's got (according to a Harvard friend of mine) the #15 class coming in as well.

That makes for a uniquely bad fit for Stanford at the moment: he'd offer a marginal at best improvement over Dawkins recruiting-wise; and, given his so-so record at Seton Hall (where he also recruited superlatively) and Michigan, not much better than Dawkins at the scheming/development/etc. aspects of the job.

While there might be far worse choices than Amaker, I'd hope we could do a lot better than he. Turner still looks like a superior choice.

Here are some NYT articles on Amaker's early tenure:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/sports...rvard.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/sports...rvard.html

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=14748.msg159104#msg159104 date=1458666064]
Amaker troubles me because he hasn't been successful...

I don't think that's fair.  As with the discussion of JD vs. Monty, you have to look at where a team started.  At Harvard, Amaker took over a team that hadn't qualified for the NCAA tournament in 60 years.  From that starting point, getting that team into the tournament four times seems pretty successful.

I still don't think Stanford should hire him.  But saying he hasn't been successful is unfair.
[/quote]

I think it's deceptive to compare Harvard's past to Amaker's tenure. Around the same time they hired Amaker, they sunk a bunch more resources into the program to make it more competitive -- which makes it hard to say how much credit belongs to Amaker and how much belongs to the increased institutional support he got at the school.

Amaker's success has been driven by recruiting really, really well at Harvard -- he's got (according to a Harvard friend of mine) the #15 class coming in as well.

That makes for a uniquely bad fit for Stanford at the moment: he'd offer a marginal at best improvement over Dawkins recruiting-wise; and, given his so-so record at Seton Hall (where he also recruited superlatively) and Michigan, not much better than Dawkins at the scheming/development/etc. aspects of the job.

While there might be far worse choices than Amaker, I'd hope we could do a lot better than he. Turner still looks like a superior choice.

Here are some NYT articles on Amaker's early tenure:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/sports...rvard.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/sports...rvard.html

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=14748.msg159104#msg159104 date=1458666064]
Amaker troubles me because he hasn't been successful...

I don't think that's fair.  As with the discussion of JD vs. Monty, you have to look at where a team started.  At Harvard, Amaker took over a team that hadn't qualified for the NCAA tournament in 60 years.  From that starting point, getting that team into the tournament four times seems pretty successful.

I still don't think Stanford should hire him.  But saying he hasn't been successful is unfair.
[/quote]

I think it's deceptive to compare Harvard's past to Amaker's tenure. Around the same time they hired Amaker, they sunk a bunch more resources into the program to make it more competitive -- which makes it hard to say how much credit belongs to Amaker and how much belongs to the increased institutional support he got at the school.

Amaker's success has been driven by recruiting really, really well at Harvard -- he's got (according to a Harvard friend of mine) the #15 class coming in as well.

That makes for a uniquely bad fit for Stanford at the moment: he'd offer a marginal at best improvement over Dawkins recruiting-wise; and, given his so-so record at Seton Hall (where he also recruited superlatively) and Michigan, not much better than Dawkins at the scheming/development/etc. aspects of the job.

While there might be far worse choices than Amaker, I'd hope we could do a lot better than he. Turner still looks like a superior choice.

Here are some NYT articles on Amaker's early tenure:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/sports...rvard.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/sports...rvard.html

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=14748.msg159104#msg159104 date=1458666064]
Amaker troubles me because he hasn't been successful...

I don't think that's fair.  As with the discussion of JD vs. Monty, you have to look at where a team started.  At Harvard, Amaker took over a team that hadn't qualified for the NCAA tournament in 60 years.  From that starting point, getting that team into the tournament four times seems pretty successful.

I still don't think Stanford should hire him.  But saying he hasn't been successful is unfair.
[/quote]

I think it's deceptive to compare Harvard's past to Amaker's tenure. Around the same time they hired Amaker, they sunk a bunch more resources into the program to make it more competitive -- which makes it hard to say how much credit belongs to Amaker and how much belongs to the increased institutional support he got at the school.

Amaker's success has been driven by recruiting really, really well at Harvard -- he's got (according to a Harvard friend of mine) the #15 class coming in as well.

That makes for a uniquely bad fit for Stanford at the moment: he'd offer a marginal at best improvement over Dawkins recruiting-wise; and, given his so-so record at Seton Hall (where he also recruited superlatively) and Michigan, not much better than Dawkins at the scheming/development/etc. aspects of the job.

While there might be far worse choices than Amaker, I'd hope we could do a lot better than he. Turner still looks like a superior choice.

Here are some NYT articles on Amaker's early tenure:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/sports...rvard.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/sports...rvard.html

[winflop]

Amaker has improved at Harvard other than this past season, but his record prior to that at Seton Hall & Michigan is pretty poor - 55% winning percentage, 1 NCAA bid, 6 NIT bids, and 3 no-bids.

I worry that he can coach a mid-major but can't coach in a power conference - but maybe it's that he can coach smart kids which would make him a potential fit.  I guess we'll have to defer to Muir's judgment on that.

I do hope he makes some more calls before offering Amaker the job.

[winflop]

Amaker has improved at Harvard other than this past season, but his record prior to that at Seton Hall & Michigan is pretty poor - 55% winning percentage, 1 NCAA bid, 6 NIT bids, and 3 no-bids.

I worry that he can coach a mid-major but can't coach in a power conference - but maybe it's that he can coach smart kids which would make him a potential fit.  I guess we'll have to defer to Muir's judgment on that.

I do hope he makes some more calls before offering Amaker the job.

[winflop]

Amaker has improved at Harvard other than this past season, but his record prior to that at Seton Hall & Michigan is pretty poor - 55% winning percentage, 1 NCAA bid, 6 NIT bids, and 3 no-bids.

I worry that he can coach a mid-major but can't coach in a power conference - but maybe it's that he can coach smart kids which would make him a potential fit.  I guess we'll have to defer to Muir's judgment on that.

I do hope he makes some more calls before offering Amaker the job.

[winflop]

Amaker has improved at Harvard other than this past season, but his record prior to that at Seton Hall & Michigan is pretty poor - 55% winning percentage, 1 NCAA bid, 6 NIT bids, and 3 no-bids.

I worry that he can coach a mid-major but can't coach in a power conference - but maybe it's that he can coach smart kids which would make him a potential fit.  I guess we'll have to defer to Muir's judgment on that.

I do hope he makes some more calls before offering Amaker the job.

[BostonCard]

I worry that he can coach a mid-major but can't coach in a power conference - but maybe it's that he can coach smart kids which would make him a potential fit.  I guess we'll have to defer to Muir's judgment on that.

Sounds a bit like Buddy Teevens.

BC

[BostonCard]

I worry that he can coach a mid-major but can't coach in a power conference - but maybe it's that he can coach smart kids which would make him a potential fit.  I guess we'll have to defer to Muir's judgment on that.

Sounds a bit like Buddy Teevens.

BC

[BostonCard]

I worry that he can coach a mid-major but can't coach in a power conference - but maybe it's that he can coach smart kids which would make him a potential fit.  I guess we'll have to defer to Muir's judgment on that.

Sounds a bit like Buddy Teevens.

BC

[BostonCard]

I worry that he can coach a mid-major but can't coach in a power conference - but maybe it's that he can coach smart kids which would make him a potential fit.  I guess we'll have to defer to Muir's judgment on that.

Sounds a bit like Buddy Teevens.

BC

[CTcard]

I worry that he can coach a mid-major but can't coach in a power conference

Assuming there is such a phenomenon, then that would seem to make it odd that the top choice for our new HC seems to be a successful mid-major coach.

[CTcard]

I worry that he can coach a mid-major but can't coach in a power conference

Assuming there is such a phenomenon, then that would seem to make it odd that the top choice for our new HC seems to be a successful mid-major coach.

[CTcard]

I worry that he can coach a mid-major but can't coach in a power conference

Assuming there is such a phenomenon, then that would seem to make it odd that the top choice for our new HC seems to be a successful mid-major coach.

[CTcard]

I worry that he can coach a mid-major but can't coach in a power conference

Assuming there is such a phenomenon, then that would seem to make it odd that the top choice for our new HC seems to be a successful mid-major coach.

[donkey687]

Amaker has recruited well everywhere and underachieved everywhere relative to his recruiting even at mid-major Harvard.  Harvard has been attracting recruits like never before seen in the Ivy League and doesn't dominate the league the way a team with dominant recruits should. We have enough data points to know that Amaker is not a good coach.  I think Amaker could be a better recruiter than Dawkins, but based on his head coaching resume, I wouldn't rate Amaker over Dawkins in coaching skills and maximizing talent.  I would be very disappointed in Muir if Amaker is the choice. I would rather take a chance on someone unproven who has a chance of being a good coach over Amaker who is proven not to be a good coach.

[donkey687]

Amaker has recruited well everywhere and underachieved everywhere relative to his recruiting even at mid-major Harvard.  Harvard has been attracting recruits like never before seen in the Ivy League and doesn't dominate the league the way a team with dominant recruits should. We have enough data points to know that Amaker is not a good coach.  I think Amaker could be a better recruiter than Dawkins, but based on his head coaching resume, I wouldn't rate Amaker over Dawkins in coaching skills and maximizing talent.  I would be very disappointed in Muir if Amaker is the choice. I would rather take a chance on someone unproven who has a chance of being a good coach over Amaker who is proven not to be a good coach.

[donkey687]

Amaker has recruited well everywhere and underachieved everywhere relative to his recruiting even at mid-major Harvard.  Harvard has been attracting recruits like never before seen in the Ivy League and doesn't dominate the league the way a team with dominant recruits should. We have enough data points to know that Amaker is not a good coach.  I think Amaker could be a better recruiter than Dawkins, but based on his head coaching resume, I wouldn't rate Amaker over Dawkins in coaching skills and maximizing talent.  I would be very disappointed in Muir if Amaker is the choice. I would rather take a chance on someone unproven who has a chance of being a good coach over Amaker who is proven not to be a good coach.

[donkey687]

Amaker has recruited well everywhere and underachieved everywhere relative to his recruiting even at mid-major Harvard.  Harvard has been attracting recruits like never before seen in the Ivy League and doesn't dominate the league the way a team with dominant recruits should. We have enough data points to know that Amaker is not a good coach.  I think Amaker could be a better recruiter than Dawkins, but based on his head coaching resume, I wouldn't rate Amaker over Dawkins in coaching skills and maximizing talent.  I would be very disappointed in Muir if Amaker is the choice. I would rather take a chance on someone unproven who has a chance of being a good coach over Amaker who is proven not to be a good coach.

[winflop]

Amaker has recruited well everywhere and underachieved everywhere relative to his recruiting even at mid-major Harvard.  Harvard has been attracting recruits like never before seen in the Ivy League and doesn't dominate the league the way a team with dominant recruits should. We have enough data points to know that Amaker is not a good coach.  I think Amaker could be a better recruiter than Dawkins, but based on his head coaching resume, I wouldn't rate Amaker over Dawkins in coaching skills and maximizing talent.  I would be very disappointed in Muir if Amaker is the choice. I would rather take a chance on someone unproven who has a chance of being a good coach over Amaker who is proven not to be a good coach.

Amaker smells a lot like Dawkins 2.0

To earlier comment, Amaker has proven to be mediocre at the power conference level.  Other mid-major coaches have not so there's potential.

[winflop]

Amaker has recruited well everywhere and underachieved everywhere relative to his recruiting even at mid-major Harvard.  Harvard has been attracting recruits like never before seen in the Ivy League and doesn't dominate the league the way a team with dominant recruits should. We have enough data points to know that Amaker is not a good coach.  I think Amaker could be a better recruiter than Dawkins, but based on his head coaching resume, I wouldn't rate Amaker over Dawkins in coaching skills and maximizing talent.  I would be very disappointed in Muir if Amaker is the choice. I would rather take a chance on someone unproven who has a chance of being a good coach over Amaker who is proven not to be a good coach.

Amaker smells a lot like Dawkins 2.0

To earlier comment, Amaker has proven to be mediocre at the power conference level.  Other mid-major coaches have not so there's potential.

[winflop]

Amaker has recruited well everywhere and underachieved everywhere relative to his recruiting even at mid-major Harvard.  Harvard has been attracting recruits like never before seen in the Ivy League and doesn't dominate the league the way a team with dominant recruits should. We have enough data points to know that Amaker is not a good coach.  I think Amaker could be a better recruiter than Dawkins, but based on his head coaching resume, I wouldn't rate Amaker over Dawkins in coaching skills and maximizing talent.  I would be very disappointed in Muir if Amaker is the choice. I would rather take a chance on someone unproven who has a chance of being a good coach over Amaker who is proven not to be a good coach.

Amaker smells a lot like Dawkins 2.0

To earlier comment, Amaker has proven to be mediocre at the power conference level.  Other mid-major coaches have not so there's potential.

[winflop]

Amaker has recruited well everywhere and underachieved everywhere relative to his recruiting even at mid-major Harvard.  Harvard has been attracting recruits like never before seen in the Ivy League and doesn't dominate the league the way a team with dominant recruits should. We have enough data points to know that Amaker is not a good coach.  I think Amaker could be a better recruiter than Dawkins, but based on his head coaching resume, I wouldn't rate Amaker over Dawkins in coaching skills and maximizing talent.  I would be very disappointed in Muir if Amaker is the choice. I would rather take a chance on someone unproven who has a chance of being a good coach over Amaker who is proven not to be a good coach.

Amaker smells a lot like Dawkins 2.0

To earlier comment, Amaker has proven to be mediocre at the power conference level.  Other mid-major coaches have not so there's potential.

[Bruce Wang]

Amaker smells a lot like Dawkins 2.0

Agreed.  Amaker would be a terrible hire for exactly the same reason Dawkins was a terrible hire.  There's no upside.  If he's successful, we're just grooming him to be The Dark Lord's successor.  At least with Dawkins, there was no track record to suggest that he was a bad coach, other than that nobody else seemed interested in hiring him to be head coach ever.

A former Ivy Leaguer hooper told me Harvard's recent success in MBB can be simply attributed to the lowering of academic standards below the rest of the league.  While that does sound like the kind of whining we hear across the Bay, there is one data point that suggests this is true: Boston College is now epically bad.

Interviewing Amaker suggests that the root cause of our problem is the AD.  I'm telling you he's more interested in being involved in every tournament selection decision and does not want to get conflicted out.  He's a bracket junkie.

[Bruce Wang]

Amaker smells a lot like Dawkins 2.0

Agreed.  Amaker would be a terrible hire for exactly the same reason Dawkins was a terrible hire.  There's no upside.  If he's successful, we're just grooming him to be The Dark Lord's successor.  At least with Dawkins, there was no track record to suggest that he was a bad coach, other than that nobody else seemed interested in hiring him to be head coach ever.

A former Ivy Leaguer hooper told me Harvard's recent success in MBB can be simply attributed to the lowering of academic standards below the rest of the league.  While that does sound like the kind of whining we hear across the Bay, there is one data point that suggests this is true: Boston College is now epically bad.

Interviewing Amaker suggests that the root cause of our problem is the AD.  I'm telling you he's more interested in being involved in every tournament selection decision and does not want to get conflicted out.  He's a bracket junkie.

[Bruce Wang]

Amaker smells a lot like Dawkins 2.0

Agreed.  Amaker would be a terrible hire for exactly the same reason Dawkins was a terrible hire.  There's no upside.  If he's successful, we're just grooming him to be The Dark Lord's successor.  At least with Dawkins, there was no track record to suggest that he was a bad coach, other than that nobody else seemed interested in hiring him to be head coach ever.

A former Ivy Leaguer hooper told me Harvard's recent success in MBB can be simply attributed to the lowering of academic standards below the rest of the league.  While that does sound like the kind of whining we hear across the Bay, there is one data point that suggests this is true: Boston College is now epically bad.

Interviewing Amaker suggests that the root cause of our problem is the AD.  I'm telling you he's more interested in being involved in every tournament selection decision and does not want to get conflicted out.  He's a bracket junkie.

[Bruce Wang]

Amaker smells a lot like Dawkins 2.0

Agreed.  Amaker would be a terrible hire for exactly the same reason Dawkins was a terrible hire.  There's no upside.  If he's successful, we're just grooming him to be The Dark Lord's successor.  At least with Dawkins, there was no track record to suggest that he was a bad coach, other than that nobody else seemed interested in hiring him to be head coach ever.

A former Ivy Leaguer hooper told me Harvard's recent success in MBB can be simply attributed to the lowering of academic standards below the rest of the league.  While that does sound like the kind of whining we hear across the Bay, there is one data point that suggests this is true: Boston College is now epically bad.

Interviewing Amaker suggests that the root cause of our problem is the AD.  I'm telling you he's more interested in being involved in every tournament selection decision and does not want to get conflicted out.  He's a bracket junkie.