Utah's next coach

[Surfah]

Goat, several thoughts in response.

First, I think the Utah job has always been considered a pretty good one. It has a good tradition and good facilities (the Huntsman Center will be the largest in the PAC12 - I hope there will be fannies in the seats again some day). One reason we wound up with Giacoletti is that it was hard to find someone willing to succeed Majerus. That is usually an issue after the departure of a very successful and iconic coach, and it was after Majerus. I understand Chris Hill really wanted Lon Kruger, and I also understand Kruger looked hard at the job.

Second, the college hoops world has changed a lot. I heard Hill tell a group I was in that whereas in the past, a coach working for a "low mid-major" school like Ball State needed to take WAC (now MWC) job on his way up to a top-tier job like UCLA or Indiana or [insert school]. Hill says that now, a coach can jump directly to the big time from a smaller program. That makes it much tougher to get really talented coaches for a MWC program. That is an interesting analysis and it does have the ring of truth. For example, San Diego State now has Fisher, who is doing well, but he was someone who failed in a Big 10 program. Hill has always refused to hire a coach like that who is "on the way down."

Third, after Giac ran the program down, Boylen was the best Hill could do. A commentary, I think, on the Utah program's diminished status specifically and also on the changing job market for head coaches.

So there is ground for hope that in the PAC12 Utah will be able to attract coaches who are looking more for a "destination" job. No, Utah won't ever be the top destination in the PAC12 but it won't have the dreaded mid-major label anymore.* There's reason to hope the program will resuscitate. At least that's my story - and I'm stickin' to it.

In response to Donuthole's question below about head coaching experience, I think the skills required for being a head coach are different than those that make a good assistant. Giac had HC experience but just ended up not being up to the job. (His record as a head coach wasn't all that great either. He was not Hill first choice, probably for that reason.) I think Boylen is probably a great assistant but he doesn't seem to have the extra something that a HC needs- maybe it's the ability to see the big picture and then bring it to pass. That's why I think Utah needs someone who has succeeded as a HC somewhere else.



Absolutely right. But that's a chicken-and-egg discussion. Conference affiliation can make success easier, I think.

*I think BYU loses the label too, by going independent.

I was with you until you said Fisher failed at a Big 10 program. The dude technically has a national championship, and two runner ups. He made the postseason all 8 full seasons he coached there. 6 of them in the NCAA. And like I said, went to two national championship games, and an elite 8. He didn't fail on the court. He failed because of the Ed Martin scandal. And he was actually cleared of any wrongdoing aside from allowing Martin access to the players. Whether or not you believe it, he maintains that he knew nothing of the money Martin was giving players.

And while there is some truth to what Hill was saying, it certainly doesn't explain the number of high caliber coaches that have come to the MWC, Steve Fisher among them. Look at Bzdelik who went to Air Force after coaching the Nuggets. Kruger coached at Kansas St., Illinois, Florida, and the Atlanta Hawks before UNLV. Steve Alford is a name coach. I am not buying it. Certainly Utah has more tradition and clout than all of those save maybe UNLV.

The biggest issue with Utah has been recruiting. Utah isn't a draw for the best Utah talent anymore, nor do they have the built in LDS recruiting pool BYU does. That's why Top Ute's claim that the top 10 players at Utah and BYU isn't very useful. The two best players at BYU ever were both from out of state is true. However they were also both Mormon. Will a move to the Pac 10 solve this for you? I doubt it. You need a coach with ties to the Pac 10 footprint IMO who gets after it on the recruiting trail. That's where your next HC should come from.

I also think you're making too much of the mid-major thing. It's not the death sentence that non-AQ gives one in football.

[Top Ute]

Goat, several thoughts in response.

First, I think the Utah job has always been considered a pretty good one. It has a good tradition and good facilities (the Huntsman Center will be the largest in the PAC12 - I hope there will be fannies in the seats again some day). One reason we wound up with Giacoletti is that it was hard to find someone willing to succeed Majerus. That is usually an issue after the departure of a very successful and iconic coach, and it was after Majerus. I understand Chris Hill really wanted Lon Kruger, and I also understand Kruger looked hard at the job.

Second, the college hoops world has changed a lot. I heard Hill tell a group I was in that whereas in the past, a coach working for a "low mid-major" school like Ball State needed to take WAC (now MWC) job on his way up to a top-tier job like UCLA or Indiana or [insert school]. Hill says that now, a coach can jump directly to the big time from a smaller program. That makes it much tougher to get really talented coaches for a MWC program. That is an interesting analysis and it does have the ring of truth. For example, San Diego State now has Fisher, who is doing well, but he was someone who failed in a Big 10 program. Hill has always refused to hire a coach like that who is "on the way down."

Third, after Giac ran the program down, Boylen was the best Hill could do. A commentary, I think, on the Utah program's diminished status specifically and also on the changing job market for head coaches.

So there is ground for hope that in the PAC12 Utah will be able to attract coaches who are looking more for a "destination" job. No, Utah won't ever be the top destination in the PAC12 but it won't have the dreaded mid-major label anymore.* There's reason to hope the program will resuscitate. At least that's my story - and I'm stickin' to it.

In response to Donuthole's question below about head coaching experience, I think the skills required for being a head coach are different than those that make a good assistant. Giac had HC experience but just ended up not being up to the job. (His record as a head coach wasn't all that great either. He was not Hill first choice, probably for that reason.) I think Boylen is probably a great assistant but he doesn't seem to have the extra something that a HC needs- maybe it's the ability to see the big picture and then bring it to pass. That's why I think Utah needs someone who has succeeded as a HC somewhere else.

So we go after Kruger, clearly a coach who was "on the way down" by going back to college after failing in the NBA, but we go after him but not a guy like Fisher? Alford was on the way down, too. Not saying we could've gotten either of those guys, but if that's the mindset of Hill -- that our job is too good for a successful coach who's arrow is pointing down -- it's just as fatal long-term to the program as Jimmy's insistence on not recruiting foreign players.

[kccougar]

Still beating your chest over that 6-6 season, I see. Enjoy your yearly tie-in to the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl.

Thanks. We'll see you there!

[LA Ute]

I was with you until you said Fisher failed at a Big 10 program. The dude technically has a national championship, and two runner ups. He made the postseason all 8 full seasons he coached there. 6 of them in the NCAA. And like I said, went to two national championship games, and an elite 8. He didn't fail on the court. He failed because of the Ed Martin scandal. And he was actually cleared of any wrongdoing aside from allowing Martin access to the players. Whether or not you believe it, he maintains that he knew nothing of the money Martin was giving players.

And while there is some truth to what Hill was saying, it certainly doesn't explain the number of high caliber coaches that have come to the MWC, Steve Fisher among them. Look at Bzdelik who went to Air Force after coaching the Nuggets. Kruger coached at Kansas St., Illinois, Florida, and the Atlanta Hawks before UNLV. Steve Alford is a name coach. I am not buying it. Certainly Utah has more tradition and clout than all of those save maybe UNLV.

The biggest issue with Utah has been recruiting. Utah isn't a draw for the best Utah talent anymore, nor do they have the built in LDS recruiting pool BYU does. That's why Top Ute's claim that the top 10 players at Utah and BYU isn't very useful. The two best players at BYU ever were both from out of state is true. However they were also both Mormon. Will a move to the Pac 10 solve this for you? I doubt it. You need a coach with ties to the Pac 10 footprint IMO who gets after it on the recruiting trail. That's where your next HC should come from.

I also think you're making too much of the mid-major thing. It's not the death sentence that non-AQ gives one in football.

Well, these are all interesting points for fans to argue about. I just don't understand what point the BYU fans want to make here. If it is that Utah's hoops program is down, then that's pretty easy to concede. If you want to argue that Utah's program will never be good again, then you're just talking smack. (Lots of Utah fans were gleefully predicting that after the 1-25 year BYU would never return to respectability. That was smack too.)

IMO, serious college basketball fans know that both BYU and Utah have great basketball traditions and can and will have programs to be reckoned with. I don't think anyone's arguing that being in the PAC12 will solve all of Utah's problems - that's just a straw man you are raising. But to argue that PAC12 membership will make no difference in Utah's ability to recruit a coach is also just smack, IMO. Utah basketball is not dead and is not going away. Far from it.

EDIT: I shouldn't have said Fisher failed at a Big 10 program. He left the program against his will and was rebuilding his career. Anyway, I probably made too much of the "coach on a downward arc" idea. Those are my own thoughts, not Hill's.

[Surfah]

Well, these are all interesting points for fans to argue about. I just don't understand what point the BYU fans want to make here. If it is that Utah's hoops program is down, then that's pretty easy to concede. If you want to argue that Utah's program will never be good again, then you're just talking smack. (Lots of Utah fans were gleefully predicting that after the 1-25 year BYU would never return to respectability. That was smack too.)

IMO, serious college basketball fans know that both BYU and Utah have great basketball traditions and can and will have programs to be reckoned with. I don't think anyone's arguing that being in the PAC12 will solve all of Utah's problems - that's just a straw man you are raising. But to argue that PAC12 membership will make no difference in Utah's ability to recruit a coach is also just smack, IMO. Utah basketball is not dead and is not going away. Far from it.

EDIT: I shouldn't have said Fisher failed at a Big 10 program. He left the program against his will and was rebuilding his career. Anyway, I probably made too much of the "coach on a downward arc" idea. Those are my own thoughts, not Hill's.

I never said Utah basketball is dead. I also never said it won't come back.

I don't have any skin in this. I was simply contending your point about Utah's coaching search. Like Top Ute said, if that is Chris Hill's strategy he's going to miss on lots of great coaches. I think it's a stupid approach, but it seems to be consistent with his digging for that diamond in the rough.

While everyone is arguing the coaching, I think the bigger issue is the recruiting and lack of talent. Now a good coach might be able to polish that turd some, but it's still a turd. I don't think Dave Rose could win 20 games as Utah's coach this year. I brought up the move to the Pac 10 in this context, recruiting. I don't think it will help you win the Utah recruiting wars. And like I said previously, until you have a coach that dedicates his recruiting to the west and the Pac 10 footprint and start winning some of those lousy Utah County kids over, I am not sure you'll see your talent level increase. As far as the move helping your coaching search, who knows. Goat said it best that it will take 4-5 years to determine that.

The difference between BYU and Utah is the LDS recruiting pool. UtahDan and I have talked about this. This is why BYU wouldn't be down for long even after a 1-25 season. Likewise it's also the reason why they'll never reach the heights of the elite programs consistently. Utah doesn't have this benefit. So how does this get fixed? Recruit internationally like TU suggests? Move to the Pac 10 and wait for recruits who don't want to play for a mid-major? While I expect the Utes to run again someday, I think it may be awhile. However basketball is one of those sports where one player can make a big difference. So it may not be long after all.

[U-Ute]

I think an argument could be made that Dr. Chris Hill is doing that right now.

I suspect that Hill has been, or soon will be, making a nice short list of coaches who would like to jump to a weak PAC-12 conference for when Boylen's contract is up.

[Goatnapper'96]

It's ironic you mention Cleveland, or just stop with his name. He's really no different than any BYU coach that preceded him going all the way back to Glenn Potter. BYU fans like to paint any coaching job as the ultimate dream job from which there are no better places for their careers, but BYU has consistently shown it will toss you in the gutter at the smallest sign of a downturn.

I don't think Cleveland was thrown in the gutter. I doubt he would have been fired had he chosen not to take the FSU job. I also don't think he was getting promises of long term support if he could not get BYU to take the next step. I think the attitude at BYU changed a bit towards sports, at least the big 2, after the Crowton debacle. BYU had a pretty long run of mediocrity- absolute suckitude from after the 1996 year in both sports. While I doubt the admin felt that BYU's ceiling was significantly higher, I genuinely believe that it was made clear to the HCs that the expectation was higher than what the languishing period had produced. To be sure, I think the message was received. I think both programs took a step up and while BYU fans want more, I don't think rational expectations are that BYU hoops and football can be much better than what we have seen the past few seasons. Now I think the hoops team might get to the second weekend this year and I am not ruling out a BCS bowl type year for the football team over the next couple of years, but at this point in time can a BYU fan legitimately expect more than that? For a 5 year period I doubt BYU can do much better than what Mendenhall and Rose have done.

[Goatnapper'96]

Well, these are all interesting points for fans to argue about. I just don't understand what point the BYU fans want to make here. If it is that Utah's hoops program is down, then that's pretty easy to concede. If you want to argue that Utah's program will never be good again, then you're just talking smack. (Lots of Utah fans were gleefully predicting that after the 1-25 year BYU would never return to respectability. That was smack too.)

IMO, serious college basketball fans know that both BYU and Utah have great basketball traditions and can and will have programs to be reckoned with. I don't think anyone's arguing that being in the PAC12 will solve all of Utah's problems - that's just a straw man you are raising. But to argue that PAC12 membership will make no difference in Utah's ability to recruit a coach is also just smack, IMO. Utah basketball is not dead and is not going away. Far from it.

EDIT: I shouldn't have said Fisher failed at a Big 10 program. He left the program against his will and was rebuilding his career. Anyway, I probably made too much of the "coach on a downward arc" idea. Those are my own thoughts, not Hill's.

I think my point was best articulated by your quoting Hill's sober analysis that the increased information and exposure available concerning college sports has removed a stepping stone or stepping stones. Great coaches can be seen at lower levels of college sports and can vault over a level or two of bigger programs to a top notch program. This trend is hurting programs such as Utah. Because of this it is getting harder for Utah to identify better coaches at lower programs because everyone is identifying them. That landscape shift makes Utah less desirable.

To what extent the Pac-12 affiliation will improve that is yet to be seen. I don't know what else is going on to make Utah more attractive to coaches but IMO using the past two coaching searches as a guide, I am skeptical that just adding the Pac-12 affiliation is enough to overcome some of the historical landscape changes.

It seems to me that Utah has just not recruited good players, or enough of them, for a real long time. But for Majerus' brilliance in maximizing talent that was able to cover the talent shortcomings, Utah has probably had the worst decade of talent in its storied history. Is that trend bad luck, bad coaching or an omen of the future? It is a tough nut for Utah to crack in hoops because I think they need some local players and support to be good consistently. Right now Utah is getting nowhere locally. That is why if this WCC situation for BYU gets as ugly as it reasonably could, I could see Utah having a good opportunity to edge in on that local clout that Rose seems to own most of. Perhaps Ute nation thinks the Ute hoops program can be successful without that local clout, but I don't. To be clear I don't believe that while Rose is in a dominating position today, without question Utah could take ground if it put together a capable staff.

[LA Ute]

I think my point was best articulated by your quoting Hill's sober analysis that the increased information and exposure available concerning college sports has removed a stepping stone or stepping stones. Great coaches can be seen at lower levels of college sports and can vault over a level or two of bigger programs to a top notch program. This trend is hurting programs such as Utah. Because of this it is getting harder for Utah to identify better coaches at lower programs because everyone is identifying them. That landscape shift makes Utah less desirable.

To what extent the Pac-12 affiliation will improve that is yet to be seen. I don't know what else is going on to make Utah more attractive to coaches but IMO using the past two coaching searches as a guide, I am skeptical that just adding the Pac-12 affiliation is enough to overcome some of the historical landscape changes.

Well, it won't hurt, will it? We are hoping that in the PAC12, our tradition, our facilities (including our now too-large) arena, and other positive attributes will help us attract a coach who can take the program back to its prior level and maybe even to a higher one.

It seems to me that Utah has just not recruited good players, or enough of them, for a real long time. But for Majerus' brilliance in maximizing talent that was able to cover the talent shortcomings, Utah has probably had the worst decade of talent in its storied history. Is that trend bad luck, bad coaching or an omen of the future? It is a tough nut for Utah to crack in hoops because I think they need some local players and support to be good consistently. Right now Utah is getting nowhere locally. That is why if this WCC situation for BYU gets as ugly as it reasonably could, I could see Utah having a good opportunity to edge in on that local clout that Rose seems to own most of. Perhaps Ute nation thinks the Ute hoops program can be successful without that local clout, but I don't. To be clear I don't believe that while Rose is in a dominating position today, without question Utah could take ground if it put together a capable staff.

Nobody is disputing this. I think it will get better, but not under Jimmy.

I brought up the move to the Pac 10 in this context, recruiting. I don't think it will help you win the Utah recruiting wars.

I disagree and don't think your argument can be supported, but no one really knows. If history is any guide, all Utah needs is one or two of the Utah blue chippers every couple of years.

As far as the move helping your coaching search, who knows. Goat said it best that it will take 4-5 years to determine that.

Again, if history is any guide, I don't see a 4-5 year wait ahead. In hoops, unlike in football, one player (as you note) or one coach can make a very quick difference.

I think both programs took a step up and while BYU fans want more, I don't think rational expectations are that BYU hoops and football can be much better than what we have seen the past few seasons. Now I think the hoops team might get to the second weekend this year and I am not ruling out a BCS bowl type year for the football team over the next couple of years, but at this point in time can a BYU fan legitimately expect more than that? For a 5 year period I doubt BYU can do much better than what Mendenhall and Rose have done.

This point of view will not make you any friends on Cougarboard.

[Goatnapper'96]

This point of view will not make you any friends on Cougarboard.

Hell, it gets me in trouble with many of the realistic ones here who pull string about consistent 10-2 years with rankings in the top 20.

Now wrt BYU football, I don't think a BCS type of year is too far off. I think the talent was there for BYU in 2006,7 and maybee even 2009. I think Bronco has learned some things and I hope is better prepared to leverage the opportunities of the future. Or it might be that he is just not good enough to get BYU over that hump. Both arguments seem to have some legitimate support. 2006 we can look past because the program was still digging out of a hole, 2007 had a lot of young players on offense but in hindsight of 2010 since Mendenhall took over the defense I am beginning to view 2009 as potentially a huge opportunity lost that falls squarely on Mendenhall's failure to head off problems brought to pass by his staff members.

I still think the Big-12 is going to expand and if BYU wants to make a BCS bowl I think it will be easier to do before that happens.

[Blueintheface]

Hell, it gets me in trouble with many of the realistic ones here who pull string about consistent 10-2 years with rankings in the top 20.

Now wrt BYU football, I don't think a BCS type of year is too far off. I think the talent was there for BYU in 2006,7 and maybee even 2009. I think Bronco has learned some things and I hope is better prepared to leverage the opportunities of the future. Or it might be that he is just not good enough to get BYU over that hump. Both arguments seem to have some legitimate support. 2006 we can look past because the program was still digging out of a hole, 2007 had a lot of young players on offense but in hindsight of 2010 since Mendenhall took over the defense I am beginning to view 2009 as potentially a huge opportunity lost that falls squarely on Mendenhall's failure to head off problems brought to pass by his staff members.

I still think the Big-12 is going to expand and if BYU wants to make a BCS bowl I think it will be easier to do before that happens.

Don't think I didn't notice the Broncoism.

[TheBYUGuy]

Ceiling: The point at which a program can go where it has stretched reasonable expectations to the maximum, IMO, a point largely built on historic performance but subject to change based on outside forces, like a change in conference affiliation, for example.

How is it measured? Advancement in the NCAA tournament? Attendance? Fanbase? Exposure on TV? Conference affiliation (go Depaul!)? Or is it the secret Top Ute quotient that you just reach in and pull out of your ass?

[falafel]

How is it measured? Advancement in the NCAA tournament? Attendance? Fanbase? Exposure on TV? Conference affiliation (go Depaul!)? Or is it the secret Top Ute quotient that you just reach in and pull out of your ass?

Whoa, hold on here. Have you checked whether this topic is even debatable?

[TheBYUGuy]

Whoa, hold on here. Have you checked whether this topic is even debatable?

I will admit that the Top Ute quotient is unfortunately undebatable.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Eff you PAC 10. Do you see what you have done to this rivalry? Do you? Bastards.

I don't know it seems just as whiny as before, only Utah now gets to act the high and mighty role once in a while.