Mick Cronin to UCLA

[Townie72]

We have among the highest attendance and highest income in the country as a program.
That alone makes this a premier job.

The fact that we play Duke and Carolina every year means if we win the conference, we are in the national conversation. The ACC is the best league in the country, and will get the most media coverage, and be the best platform to get prospects into the NBA.

This is a great job, period. If you don't get that, you just don't understand.

Attendance is a result of winning. Not the reverse. Those numbers can disappear in a hurry.

I think its a huge challenge and fraught with risk.

The ACC is great, even if you are playing for third or fourth place every year.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

If a new coach lost that streak in his first year, the fanbase will run him out of town. Its one thing for guys like Desko and JB to struggle a bit from their prime years but ball under .500 isn't going to fly at all. People will revolt.

It's almost impossible to replace a legend with another legend. I would hate to be the guy who replaces JAB. Look at Kevin Ollie. He was a favorite son. Had almost immediate success with a NC and Yukon still canned his butt out of there. I know it might be apples to oranges, but how can you expect the next guy to have consistent results as JAB has, or even to exceed them as some fans feel they should.

 

[OrangeDW]

Attendance is a result of winning. Not the reverse. Those numbers can disappear in a hurry.

I think its a huge challenge and fraught with risk.

The ACC is great, even if you are playing for third or fourth place every year.

We’ve been largely mediocre and boring for 5 years now and attendance is still there.

It would take a prolonged period of sucking(like missing the tourney 5 years in a row or something) at this point to hurt attendance significantly IMO, and even if that happened(God forbid), as soon as we started winning it would come back. This is not some flash in the pan thing. It’s ingrained in the culture at this point. You’ve got adult season ticket holders who weren’t even born when Pearl was in college, at this point.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

I say the job is no where near as attractive as the fan base thinks.

The job will be as attractive as the administration makes it out to be.

 

[Jake]

Attendance is a result of winning. Not the reverse. Those numbers can disappear in a hurry.

What you’ve stated here is true. It’s actually true everywhere.

But when Syracuse wins, we put more asses in the seats than anyone else...and there isn’t a coach breathing air on the planet that takes a job thinking about what happens if they fail, they take it expecting to win, and then reap the rewards.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

UCLA going after Rick Barnes now?

Wow. Would not have seen that coming two years ago.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Attendance is a result of winning. Not the reverse. Those numbers can disappear in a hurry.

I think its a huge challenge and fraught with risk.

The ACC is great, even if you are playing for third or fourth place every year.

Well, that's why you have to hire someone who has been a successful head coach at a couple different stops before. You don't give this job to somebody with literally zero head coaching experience. You're risking something like $30M a year in revenues. You just don't do something that irresponsible.

 

[IthacaMatt]

We’ve been largely mediocre and boring for 5 years now and attendance is still there.

It would take a prolonged period of sucking(like missing the tourney 5 years in a row or something) at this point to hurt attendance significantly IMO, and even if that happened(God forbid), as soon as we started winning it would come back. This is not some flash in the pan thing. It’s ingrained in the culture at this point. You’ve got adult season ticket holders who weren’t even born when Pearl was in college, at this point.

It has taken a hit, don't kid yourself. The last 3 years we have dropped from an average attendance of about 23,000 per game to about 21,000 per game. We hit 26,000 in 2014, but most other years since 2010, we've been averaging about 23,000 per game, dropping off these last 3 years.

 

[OrangeDW]

It has taken a hit, don't kid yourself. The last 3 years we have dropped from an average attendance of about 23,000 per game to about 21,000 per game. We hit 26,000 in 2014, but most other years since 2010, we've been averaging about 23,000 per game, dropping off these last 3 years.

Is that significant?

That can be increased by a couple attractive matchups being on Saturdays instead of Wednesday’s.

We averaged 17K in 2002. 21k in our title season of 2003.

21K in a mediocre season, coming after 4 other mediocre seasons is great IMO.

 

[rrlbees]

It has taken a hit, don't kid yourself. The last 3 years we have dropped from an average attendance of about 23,000 per game to about 21,000 per game. We hit 26,000 in 2014, but most other years since 2010, we've been averaging about 23,000 per game, dropping off these last 3 years.

The 26000 is the outlier. Since about 1995 our attendance has been pretty consistent.

 

[orangepassion]

How many schools are left that he hasn't coached yet?

 

[Hoo's That]

UCLA going after Rick Barnes now?

Wow. Would not have seen that coming two years ago.

Lotta smoke to that fire right now. Tennessee fans in full meltdown mode.

UCLA had better watch their 6 on this! We thought we had Barnes signed, sealed, and delivered, but he went back to Providence instead. A couple of years later, he left PC and went to Clemson.

 

[IthacaMatt]

The 26000 is the outlier. Since about 1995 our attendance has been pretty consistent.

We had 28-29,000 per game from 1988 to 1991. With sanctions, we fell to 27,000 in 1992 and then down to 24,000 in 1995.

We fell to around 20,000, then 19,000 per game in 1999, 2000, 2001. Our low was 17,000 per game in 2002.

After the championship, we bounced back up to around 23,000, and have stayed at 22-23,000 most years since.

In NIT or Bubble years, we fall to 21,000 or 20,000. So relative success or lack of it has been swinging up and down by about 2,000 tickets per game in good versus bad years.

The last 3 years have generally been on the low end of that range, so a slide is possible. That's kind of the point.

We're doing jumping jacks about a 4,000 increase in football ticket sales (who only play 6 or 7 home games); while we've seen a drop in hoops of 2-3,000 tickets per game over the last few years, and hoops plays 20 home games, not just 6 or 7.

 

[OrangeDW]

We had 28-29,000 per game from 1988 to 1991. With sanctions, we fell to 27,000 in 1992 and then down to 24,000 in 1995.

We fell to around 20,000, then 19,000 per game in 1999, 2000, 2001. Our low was 17,000 per game in 2002.

After the championship, we bounced back up to around 23,000, and have stayed at 22-23,000 most years since.

In NIT or Bubble years, we fall to 21,000 or 20,000. So relative success or lack of it has been swinging up and down by about 2,000 tickets per game in good versus bad years.

The last 3 years have generally been on the low end of that range, so a slide is possible. That's kind of the point. We're doing jumping jacks about a 4,000 increase in football ticket sales; while we've seen a similar drop in hoops over the last few years.

That’s a 4,000 increase in season ticket holders. Not 4,000 in attendance.

If we really added 4,000 new season ticket holders in one offseason(and the season is still 5 months away), our average attendance should go up significantly.

 

[IthacaMatt]

That’s a 4,000 increase in season ticket holders. Not 4,000 in attendance.

If we really added 4,000 new season ticket holders in one offseason(and the season is still 5 months away), our average attendance should go up significantly.

Well, we didn't get 100% renewal of existing season tickets. Yes, the walkup may increase that number enormously, but we have to beat Maryland and Clemson. Otherwise, it might just be those 4,000 extra tickets.

 

[rrlbees]

We had 28-29,000 per game from 1988 to 1991. With sanctions, we fell to 27,000 in 1992 and then down to 24,000 in 1995.

We fell to around 20,000, then 19,000 per game in 1999, 2000, 2001. Our low was 17,000 per game in 2002.

After the championship, we bounced back up to around 23,000, and have stayed at 22-23,000 most years since.

In NIT or Bubble years, we fall to 21,000 or 20,000. So relative success or lack of it has been swinging up and down by about 2,000 tickets per game in good versus bad years.

The last 3 years have generally been on the low end of that range, so a slide is possible. That's kind of the point. We're doing jumping jacks about a 4,000 increase in football ticket sales; while we've seen a similar drop in hoops over the last few years.

We did 22,000 this year. Since 95, not earlier, it’s been pretty consistent.

 

[manleyzoo]

I think Hop would be popular there.

I do too.

 

[moqui]

the bruins should pump the breaks here. wait at least until the final four is over.

ucla is an under armour school and is the crown jewel in that company's list of schools. auburn and texas tech are both under armour schools, too, so maybe the ua ceo can cajole bruce pearl or chris beard to listen

or wait until the end of the nba season. as noted in this thread, luke walton likely becomes available.

and the grand slam choice: if the thunder lose in the first round, maybe billy donovan becomes available

 

[Sherman20]

Which is why I said that yes, I view them through the same lens.

Disagree. Few is a great coach. Gonzaga’s (relative) issues in the tourney stem from the fact that their mid-major conference doesn’t prepare them for the competition and rigors of the Big Dance. They play a strong non conference schedule but then the team softens up because of the WCC competition.

 

[RF2044]

Disagree. Few is a great coach. Gonzaga’s (relative) issues in the tourney stem from the fact that their mid-major conference doesn’t prepare them for the competition and rigors of the Big Dance. They play a strong non conference schedule but then the team softens up because of the WCC competition.

Few is a more accomplished coach than Dixon, but as you point out -- he coaches in a mid-major which might inflate his record, and hist teams have only been okay in the postseason.

Please note, I'm not knocking Few -- he's a fine coach. I didn't even bring him up, IthacaMatt did as a comparison to Dixon. But I wouldn't view Few as a home run for a glitzy, wannabe blue blood program like UCLA either. Dixon would be a nice, solid double. Few would be a triple. Calipari would have been a home run.

 

[MSOrange]

UCLA is conducting the dumbest coaching search it could possibly conduct

 

[Townie72]

What you’ve stated here is true. It’s actually true everywhere.

But when Syracuse wins, we put more asses in the seats than anyone else...and there isn’t a coach breathing air on the planet that takes a job thinking about what happens if they fail, they take it expecting to win, and then reap the rewards.

Well, I would absolutely disagree that a coach doesn't evaluate the likelihood of success or failure on whether to take a new job.

Wouldn't you?

Why is it that so many coaches who are mentioned, considered or even offered new jobs at supposedly better programs say they aren't interested? It happens almost every time there is a search. The fans put together their dream list. The AD sometimes pursues these names and some of the time it's just to placate the fans. They are just going through the motions.

No coach that was considered and declined is ever interviewed and says, "Yeah. They talked to me or my agent. But I wouldn't touch that job. Too hard a task, too high expectations and a an unrealistic fan base."

The Georgetown experience sticks in my mind. The guys they really wanted, like Shaka Smart, said they weren't interested. The next tier of guys, like Hurley, used the GU interest to drive up their own salary. They ended up having to twist Ewing's arm to do it.

It works like clockwork as these schools work down the list from who they really want to who is "acceptable" and will take the job. That's exactly what will happen at SU after JB.

Unless of course, they decide to give the job to GMac ar Autry. And don't think SU won't do that. The school has a history of doing things like that from Pasqualoni to Desko.

 

[Sherman20]

ESPN had it at 7 in 2012.
Brennan: The nation's top 10 coaching jobs

We keep going 20-13 or whatever, and maybe some of these candidates will think they can do better!

It’s not like we’ve been going 30-5 or 34-3 lately.

This is the rating I remember. Also, many coaches probably think they can improve on our recent struggles relative to our history.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I'm not hearing anyone out here pining away for the good old days of Ben Howland.

He was a good coach for UCLA. He made something like 3 Final Fours in a row, if I remember correctly. He recruited really well, too, and brought in a bunch of future NBA players, some of whom became all stars.

 

[RF2044]

He was a good coach for UCLA. He made something like 3 Final Fours in a row, if I remember correctly. He recruited really well, too, and brought in a bunch of future NBA players, some of whom became all stars.

Is anyone familiar with what happened with Howland there? He started out like gangbusters -- and recruited a lot of top flight talent right out of the gate, like you pointed out. Had quite a bit of initial success [final fours, etc.], then it all seemed to dry up.

From afar, it seemed like the players tired of his antics / he wore out his welcome, which caused the recruiting faucet to trickle to a close, which in turn caused his teams to not perform as well. Anyone clued into what really went down?