Amaker says he has been fired by Michigan

Kentucky, for my money, is in a transition period, and a lot of that has to do with it being in the South and the program's history. Even though coaches there have done well nationally (Joe B., Pitino, Tubby), it doesn't have the feel of a prominent, career program anymore because Rupp still overshadows it. UCLA seems to have -- finally -- moved past that type of thinking about Wooden.
I guess in the final analysis, I just don't get the feel that Kentucky is on the level of the four I mentioned. I think it has to do as much with the NCAA problems as it does with Pitino leaving and Tubby being evicerated all day, every day. I think Kentucky is much more dependent on who coaches there than it is on tradition, and I think whoever coaches after Tubby could bring it back (so maybe I'm arguing against myself a little bit).
Indiana was Knight and his three NCAA titles. Without him, it's any other program.

 

So will a Michigan man coach Michigan now?

 

Indiana had two national titles before Bobby. Guy named Branch McCracken was the coach. Indiana has arguably the most rabid basketball fanbase state-wide of anywhere in the Union. Indiana has five national titles, third on the all-time list behind UCLA's 11 and Kentucky's 7. And in front of Carolina's four, Duke's three and Kansas' two. Indiana has eight Final Four appearances alltime as well, five with Knight.

When those who follow college hoops are questioned, they ALWAYS mention Indiana as one of the five biggest programs in history, without fail. Six if they throw in Duke. Coaches mention it as a career job. Yes, it has been 20 years since IU's last national title. Kansas went 30-plus years between its titles. Carolina went 20. UCLA went 20 from Wooden to O'Bannon. Kentucky went nearly 20 between titles, from the late 1970s to 1996, with NCAA trouble thrown in for good measure.

When UCLA was in its down period, did that make it any less of a dream destination? Is Alabama all of a sudden crap because it's had some tough years lately, or would it be great again with the right coach?

Far be it from me to come out and say both you and joe are dead wrong. But the evidence is pretty substantial.

 

Good argument for Indiana. But, extending and stretching that logic, Oklahoma State and Cincinnati should be destination jobs, too -- and they most definitely are not these days.
I think what we get caught up in is the tyranny of the recent, and I'm certainly guilty of it to some degree.
But, tsar adviser, all we're arguing here is perceptions. I don't see Indiana as a destination job. You do. Maybe I'm right, maybe you're right. Doesn't really matter in the end.
But it's cool that UCLA is playing Indiana right now.

 

Obviously Missouri should have hired Self, as he was already proven as a head coach. Maybe he was waiting for a bigger job, or they wanted to pluck the younger (cheaper?) youngster? I'm sure one of the Missouri contingent can help here.

But as far as Self being UCLA's first choice . . . not sure what you base this on, since he went to Kansas in 2003 and Howland went to UCLA the same year. And where Howland had the SoCal conection and well-known adoration for the UCLA program in excess, Self was a guy who had spent his entire life and career in Big Ten/Big XII land.

EDIT: buckweaver: Right now, Indiana is transitioning. Doesn't make it any less of a place where an ambitious coach would want to stamp his career for all-time by winning there. Ditto Kentucky. Everywhere goes through down periods, but the right coach can bring it back from hiring the wrong coach. Davis is to Indiana as Lavin was to UCLA as Doherty was to Carolina. We will see what happens with Sampson. The LA Times made the comparison in today's paper between Howland's first year at UCLA and Sampson at IU, but again, we'll see.

During the Mike Davis years, Indiana was in the mix for some quality recruits, and got some to commit. And you may have heard of Eric Gordon? Sure, it's not Duke, Carolina, UCLA, but Indiana can still get its share of good players.

But the "career jobs" are not necessarily the ones with quick fixes. They're the ones with history up the wazoo, and the potential to recapture that. Indiana falls into that category every bit as much as UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas and carolina did during their down periods.

 

In a different era (say 40 years ago, way before ESPN made everything RIGHT NOW), Okie State and Cincinnati definitely were big programs, with multiple national titles in their recent history.
Again, opinions. Indiana is career to you, not to me. Doesn't make you right, doesn't make me right. Also doesn't make your or I an asshole. Opinion.

 

It's about fucking time...


And I like Rosey's column on it...

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070317/COL22/70317014

 

Buckdub, you're wrong about IU.

Prior to Bobby Knight, Branch McCracken ruled the court for a quarter-century, winning two NCAA titles. His coaching tenure includes a three-year absence due to World War II.

I'd say the career jobs in college basketball are as follows (in no order):

Kentucky
Indiana
Kansas
North Carolina
Duke
UCLA
Louisville

 

They played in the National Championship game five years ago.

 

Wow, Louisville isn't even close to being the best program in its state ... I don't know how you can put it in the same category as North Carolina, et al ...

 

Buckdub,

How do you define a career job? I don't define it as staying there for a career (ala Dean Smith, Coach K, Wooden, etc.), but as a job where you don't intend to go someplace else. If you coached Indiana, under normal circumstances, would you leave there for Michigan or Georgetown or Connecticut or Florida or Texas, etc.? Nope -- it is a pinnacle job in college basketball. I guarantee you that Kelvin Sampson isn't using Indiana as a springboard to someplace else; he used Washington State and Oklahoma to springboard him to someplace like Indiana.

Is Bobby Knight a hinderance? No more than Dean Smith was a hinderance for Matt Doherty or Wooden casts a shadow at UCLA. And it has gotten much better under Sampson. One of the biggest reasons Knight still cast a shadow over the program the last 6 years was that Mike Davis was Knight's opposite in every concievable way: personality, coaching style, resume, race. So fighting over Davis was a proxy for re-living the fight about Knight. Sampson has a defense/rebounding style and willingness to bench players that endear him to the Knight faithful while not being a sociopathic jackass, which endears him to the anti-Knight crowd.