Jank leaving Illinois State?

[SubGod22]

I just reread my post. And sure enough, I never said Carmichael, Moore, or Brown were bad players. In fact, I've always thought Jackie Carmichael was a damn good player. I wish we had him. I did however say Yank-on-it is not a good coach. Maybe Yank is not a good recruiter, so he has not brought in enough good players like the three you listed. Maybe Yank is a lousy X,s and O,s guy. But Yanks

1st Season, 25-10
2nd Season, 24-10
3rd Season, 22-11
4th Season, 12-19
5th Season, 21-14

As Mosers' players left and Yank had more of his own players, he had fewer wins and more losses, including 14 this season. Yanks ISUR record together with his record at North Texass as a head coach indicates to me he is not a good head coach.

So once a bad coach always a bad coach? You can never learn from your past and improve? He's only had one horrible year at ISU. He hasn't been spectacular but they weren't before he got there either. And he's put together a team that will finish in the top 3 this coming season and have a shot at number 1. Is that because he's a bad coach or a bad recruiter?

[ShockTalk]

So once a bad coach always a bad coach? You can never learn from your past and improve? He's only had one horrible year at ISU. He hasn't been spectacular but they weren't before he got there either. And he's put together a team that will finish in the top 3 this coming season and have a shot at number 1. Is that because he's a bad coach or a bad recruiter?

Not going to say he's a horrible coach, but I think his teams generally under performed.

[SubGod22]

Not going to say he's a horrible coach, but I think his teams generally under performed.

I'm not 100% sure on that. I think the biggest thing that held his teams back were the scheduling issues that have been well documented. I'm not sure he understood how difficult things were in the Valley when he first arrived. I think two years ago things went well south, but they didn't have a lot of pieces either. They really came on this year with a young team. I know he's popular to bad mouth, but outside of scheduling, I don't think he's that bad. I do think he had to learn and make an adjustment when he first got there, but I think he's done pretty well considering. I wouldn't say he's great. But I'd say he's good and has grown in his time there.

[SHOCKvalue]

Not only is the idea of Jank leaving ISU Red to be the CIW for what is at best a parallel HC job a head-scratcher, but just the mere fact that SMU is in talks with the BE makes absolutely no flipping sense to me. Can someone explain why SMU bears interest to a BCS conference? Overall, they are a mid to low level competitor in the mid-major league they're already a part of, and from what I can tell they are not well-supported either by budget or fanbase. It can't have anything to do with TV sets, as SMU's fan base might even be smaller than our's from a national perspective. What's the story?

[SubGod22]

Not only is the idea of Jank leaving ISU Red to be the CIW for what is at best a parallel HC job a head-scratcher, but just the mere fact that SMU is in talks with the BE makes absolutely no flipping sense to me. Can someone explain why SMU bears interest to a BCS conference? Overall, they are a mid to low level competitor in the mid-major league they're already a part of, and from what I can tell they are not well-supported either by budget or fanbase. It can't have anything to do with TV sets, as SMU's fan base might even be smaller than our's from a national perspective. What's the story?

It's not about being a major player in a market, it's about getting exposure in a market. The Big East wants to be in Dallas and Houston and with the additions of SMU and Houston, they get that. Neither bring a ton to the table from an athletic standpoint. I think Houston has had some OK football recently, SMU hasn't done much of anything. But now the Big East is in Texas and has exposure in two very large markets.

[pinstripers]

Any of Jank's recruits leaving? Anybody we wanted?

[SHOCKvalue]

I just don't see it. Neither SMU or Houston are the significant players in their respective markets. Maybe Houston brings a little something to the table in Houston, but SMU in DFW is laughable logic.

Personally, I don't get the TV set arguments, except in the case of major schools.

[SubGod22]

I just don't see it. Neither SMU or Houston are the significant players in their respective markets. Maybe Houston brings a little something to the table in Houston, but SMU in DFW is laughable logic.

Personally, I don't get the TV set arguments, except in the case of major schools.

You may not, but that's what it's about. They'll automatically get more exposure in both of those areas just by having a school there. Texas is a big recruiting hot bed for a number of sports. More exposure to those kids opens up the possibility of landing more of those kids. Same goes for why the Big East took UCF. Florida and the Orlando area I believe.

[Dan]

Living in Texas, the only schools that have any impact on the media markets are UT and A&M - Baylor and TCU to a lesser extent. SMU, Rice, Houston, UTEP, etc. have virtually no TV viewership and get very little coverage in the papers. Houston, Rice and SMU have to compete with pro sports on top of the UT and A&M coverage. I don't get the media markets angle because it's just not there with these second tier teams.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I just don't see it. Neither SMU or Houston are the significant players in their respective markets. Maybe Houston brings a little something to the table in Houston, but SMU in DFW is laughable logic.

Personally, I don't get the TV set arguments, except in the case of major schools.

I think Texas recruiting has something to do with it too. The BE will now have exposure there. Remember TCU was going to the BE, but when they backed out the BE needed plan B (and C). Apparently SMU + UH = TCU.

[shockmonster]

Basketball at SMU and TCU both average around 3,000-4,000 per game. Football may get 25,000. Sad for the Big East.

[SubGod22]

SMU averaged 1970 in '11 for basketball. TCU averaged 4285.

Both will go up as people want to watch the opposing teams that will now visit. I don't know how much TCUs place holds, but it'll sell out for Texas and Baylor as well as Kansas.

SMU will probably do the same if they get to host Georgetown or UConn.

[Rlh04d]

Not only is the idea of Jank leaving ISU Red to be the CIW for what is at best a parallel HC job a head-scratcher, but just the mere fact that SMU is in talks with the BE makes absolutely no flipping sense to me. Can someone explain why SMU bears interest to a BCS conference? Overall, they are a mid to low level competitor in the mid-major league they're already a part of, and from what I can tell they are not well-supported either by budget or fanbase. It can't have anything to do with TV sets, as SMU's fan base might even be smaller than our's from a national perspective. What's the story?

SMU is a private school with tons of cash. There's a reason they're talking about this ... This looks like a $4-5 million coaching staff coming in. They just built a new practice facility, and have $40 million in renovations planned to their basketball facility.

Texas is important and the Big East wants in. And don't forget that SMU had tons of fans until the NCAA death penalty. If they start winning again, the fans will be there.

Not sure I understand the argument on here that Jankovich's problem is scheduling ... If they played tougher teams, they'd lose more games. It's not like he'd have the same win loss record with better scheduling from our perspective.

He's a slightly above average coach. Slightly above average isn't what IllState wasn't paying him, though, so of course he's gone at the first opportunity

[SubGod22]

Scheduling has cost him at least 1 NCAA bid. It also hasn't prepared the team for conference. They'd probably have won as many games with a tougher schedule. With the exception of one season, they haven't really been that bad.

SMU will never be more than a bottom feeder.