Howland out at UCLA

#51
#51
Lawrence Wright said:
UCLA's campus is beautiful, no doubt.

Everything else you said I disagree with.

UCLA has a reputation for not paying top dollar to attract the best coaching candidates.

Donovan makes $3.3M in Gainesville while Howland made $2M in Los Angeles.

In addition to a MUCH higher cost of living, California residents pay state income tax while Florida residents don't.

UCLA Basketball plays fifth-fiddle in LA to the Lakers, Dodgers, USC Football and now the Clippers.

Bottom line is UCLA has little to offer Donovan, other than less money, a much larger mortgage payment, higher taxes, a community more focused on professional basketball...and did I mention less money?
Click to expand...

You don't think they wouldn't pony up the big money to get Donovan? If they really wanted him that badly they would.
 
#52
#52
VOLMEB said:
You don't think they wouldn't pony up the big money to get Donovan? If they really wanted him that badly they would.
Click to expand...

History says you're dead wrong about UCLA's willingness to pay top dollar for coaches. UCLA doesn't want anyone "that badly".

Assuming UCLA matched Donovan's $3.3M UF salary (3rd highest in CBB I think), Donovan's taking a major cost of living hit, in addition to having to pay state income tax.

Donovan won back-to-back national titles at a football-first school....destroying UCLA on three different occasions in the NCAA tournament.

Leaving Gainesville for UCLA, where making 3 straight Final Fours apparently isn't good enough, would be a horrible career (not to mention financial) decision for Donovan.
 
#53
#53
It's a mixed vote, but personally, I'll take living in Florida over Southern California. Easy choice for me.
 
#55
#55
Lawrence Wright said:
In the race to retirement, give me $3.3M in Gainesville, or better yet $4M in Lexington over $2M in Los Angeles.
Click to expand...

I'll take the $3.3 million in Gainesville out of the three.
A better comparison would be if the $s were the same, and you still picked a city down here, due to cost of living or whatever.
 
#56
#56
I'd much rather live in Westwood, CA than Gainesville, which is a blah, flat florida town--but it would be more expensive, obviously. The bigger point is that I don't think the UCLA job is all that anymore. It's still a very good job, of course--but there are a lot of very good college basketball jobs nowadays, a lot more than 20 years ago. Jobs that pay well and are in nice places where college sports is big-time. Hell, Pearl made UT basketball a happening with his charisma and our big arena. West coast basketball doesn't have much sizzle--the sport is so east-coast and midwest centric, and there aren't many good western teams. New Mexico wasn't all that good, obviously, and when I saw Gonzaga a couple of weeks ago for the first time, i was sure they weren't getting to the final four much less winning the title. But you can recruit and win at UCLA, as the Pac10 is not better than the SEC, and might be worse. They'll get a good coach, of course, but I don't think a lot of guys are necessarily dying to get the ucla job nowadays.
 
#57
#57
ukvols said:
I'll take the $3.3 million in Gainesville out of the three.
A better comparison would be if the $s were the same, and you still picked a city down here, due to cost of living or whatever.
Click to expand...

True...$2M a year goes much further in Gainesville than it does in Los Angeles.

Given the cost of living in Los Angeles, the fact that an old school blue blood like UCLA paid its basketball coach over $1M less than UF (and half of what UK pays Calipari) speaks volumes.
 
#58
#58
armchair said:
I'd much rather live in Westwood, CA than Gainesville, which is a blah, flat florida town--but it would be more expensive, obviously. The bigger point is that I don't think the UCLA job is all that anymore. It's still a very good job, of course--but there are a lot of very good college basketball jobs nowadays, a lot more than 20 years ago. Jobs that pay well and are in nice places where college sports is big-time. Hell, Pearl made UT basketball a happening with his charisma and our big arena. West coast basketball doesn't have much sizzle--the sport is so east-coast and midwest centric, and there aren't many good western teams. New Mexico wasn't all that good, obviously, and when I saw Gonzaga a couple of weeks ago for the first time, i was sure they weren't getting to the final four much less winning the title. But you can recruit and win at UCLA, as the Pac10 is not better than the SEC, and might be worse. They'll get a good coach, of course, but I don't think a lot of guys are necessarily dying to get the ucla job nowadays.
Click to expand...

Outside of a 10 year run with Gilberts checkbook funding the recruiting trail, UCLA is at best a good program. It might sound weird, but programs like UK, Carolina, Duke, etc., the "program" itself has history. With UCLA, it's almost like the Wooden era has history, but it doesn't stick with the program so much.

I honestly don't think anyone cares anymore, including the fans in So Cal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#59
#59
Hardwood_fanatic said:
Outside of a 10 year run with Gilberts checkbook funding the recruiting trail, UCLA is at best a good program. It might sound weird, but programs like UK, Carolina, Duke, etc., the "program" itself has history. With UCLA, it's almost like the Wooden era has history, but it doesn't stick with the program so much.

I honestly don't think anyone cares anymore, including the fans in So Cal.
Click to expand...

We are in agreement.
 
#60
#60
Hardwood_fanatic said:
Outside of a 10 year run with Gilberts checkbook funding the recruiting trail, UCLA is at best a good program. It might sound weird, but programs like UK, Carolina, Duke, etc., the "program" itself has history. With UCLA, it's almost like the Wooden era has history, but it doesn't stick with the program so much.

I honestly don't think anyone cares anymore, including the fans in So Cal.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. I know you were just throwing out a few examples, but IMO the truly elite programs are, in order, Kentucky, Carolina, Kansas, Duke, and Indiana.
 
#63
#63
VKAman said:
There are several programs better than UCLA. I also doubt they get Stevens, but if he's going to leave, now is the time to do it.
Click to expand...

You can make an argument for any number of 4 or 5 programs. UCLA makes the best argument, in my opinion.

11 titles, and the list of accolades goes on for miles afterwards.

UK, UNC, Kansas can all make a claim, but I think UCLA's is best. Plus UCLA is in LA, ("where things actually matter"- Arnold Rothstein). Chapel Hill is quaint, Lawrence Kansas is a wasteland and Lexington, Kentucky is in Kentucky.

Hell, even in a the coaching term of the guy who just got fired, UCLA went to three back to back final fours, recruited numerous all americans and put numerous alumni into the NBA>
 
#64
#64
MemphisCanes said:
You can make an argument for any number of 4 or 5 programs. UCLA makes the best argument, in my opinion.

11 titles, and the list of accolades goes on for miles afterwards.

UK, UNC, Kansas can all make a claim, but I think UCLA's is best. Plus UCLA is in LA, ("where things actually matter"- Arnold Rothstein). Chapel Hill is quaint, Lawrence Kansas is a wasteland and Lexington, Kentucky is in Kentucky.

Hell, even in a the coaching term of the guy who just got fired, UCLA went to three back to back final fours, recruited numerous all americans and put numerous alumni into the NBA>
Click to expand...

That's because Howland is a very good coach.

If you really think UCLA has the best claim, you should read up on your basketball history. They've only had 3 decades in which they were actually good, and they have fewer wins than Temple and St. John's.
 
#65
#65
VKAman said:
That's because Howland is a very good coach.

If you really think UCLA has the best claim, you should read up on your basketball history. They've only had 3 decades in which they were actually good, and they have fewer wins than Temple and St. John's.
Click to expand...

Meh, I don't buy it. I think his personnel during his three Final Fours had more to do with his run than his coaching.

I know a good bit about basketball, and it's history. Like I said, and argument can be made for one of several teams.

The posters damning UCLA are promoting Duke in the same breath, when Duke's history is dependent on one particular coach even more so than UCLA.
 
#66
#66
MemphisCanes said:
Meh, I don't buy it. I think his personnel during his three Final Fours had more to do with his run than his coaching.
Click to expand...

The team that went to the title game wasn't all that loaded, particularly in terms of big men. Josh Shipp was out for the season; they were pretty much completely dependent on Farmar and Afflalo. And, his pre-UCLA career would seem to disagree.

The posters damning UCLA are promoting Duke in the same breath, when Duke's history is dependent on one particular coach even more so than UCLA.
Click to expand...

That's more a personal opinion for me, since Duke is now one of four programs with 2,000 wins (~250 more than UCLA) and UCLA's "history" is based almost completely on a run where they blatantly cheated the entire time.

I don't think there's much of an argument at all that UCLA as a program is better than Kentucky.
 
#67
#67
MemphisCanes said:
The posters damning UCLA are promoting Duke in the same breath, when Duke's history is dependent on one particular coach even more so than UCLA.
Click to expand...

The same can be said for Indiana, Syracuse or on a smaller scale, new money Florida.

When your program's history is centered around the all-time winningest coach who's won national titles in three different decades, how is that a bad thing?
 
#69
#69
Shaun1985 said:
UCLA gets good recruits because of it's name. Ben Howland is not a good coach but a nice guy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I think i could have won a couple of NC with johnnys boys in the late 60s getting top recruits is part of the job.:)
 
#72
#72
MemphisCanes said:
Meh, I don't buy it. I think his personnel during his three Final Fours had more to do with his run than his coaching.

I know a good bit about basketball, and it's history. Like I said, and argument can be made for one of several teams.

The posters damning UCLA are promoting Duke in the same breath, when Duke's history is dependent on one particular coach even more so than UCLA.
Click to expand...

:lolabove: :lol: :crazy:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top