Who should be Wichita State's Head Coach?

[Shock Top]

Exactly. SEC schools have big names but are football centric. AAC is becoming more basketball centric with the new teams as none and I mean 0 have a hope of making football playoffs, so the focus will be on hoops. Wichita State is king of hoops focused universities in the Midwest.

UTSA is enjoying some CFB success at the moment, but I agree the CFP seems out of reach.

Having said that, I wouldn't have placed a futures bet last year that Tulane would be beating USC in the Cotton Bowl.

[shockerfan_realist]

Here's one thing I've seen people say too when it come to Pitino or Sampson is that they're concerned that they won't be here in 5 years. Well, welcome to the real world of Collegiate athletics. If your coach is good and he's wanted elsewhere that means that you are having success as well. I can tell you I'd rather have a coach get taken after 5 years than fire a coach after 5 years. Then maybe we have a strong enough brand to one day get a coach like we did with Marshall that will stick around for a long time. But right now, we just need to right the ship and get some respect back nationally

[Shocker82/85]

A coach that I haven’t seen mentioned that could be worth consideration is Bryce Drew. He has been a head coach for 11 years with a winning record in 9 seasons. He has six 20 win seasons and has made 5 NCAA tournaments. His record is 228-134. Teams made NCAA tournament at all 3 schools he has coached at. He had 2 bad years at Vanderbilt where I read that the team had multiple injuries, but that he had recruited well. I think he has good international connections. He has name recognition and played in the NBA. It may disqualify him that WSU’s win over Grand Canyon was WSU’s only win over an NCAA tournament team, but Grand Canyon ended up 24-11 and won the WAC tournament. His 3 top scorers are 2 sophomores and a junior so he is positioned to be successful there also.

[CBB_Fan]

Not to derail too much, but what you need to look at for any team is the non-conference. That's the only way you bring in value to the conference and inflate the NET of its teams. Out of Charlotte, Florida Atlantic, North Texas, Rice, UAB and UTSA (the newcomers), they had nonconference SoSs and records of:

• Charlotte - 211 (9-2)
• Florida Atlantic - 119 (10-1)
• North Texas - 106 (9-2)
• UAB - 116 (9-2)
• Rice - 341 ((9-2)
• UTSA - 349 (6-5)

In comparison, Houston was #7 at (12-1), Cincinnati was #79 at (9-4), and UCF was #62 at (9-3). Even though neither Cincinnati or UCF dominated, they still brought more potential than literally any of the newcomers. The best team in any given conference will grow through NET through the expense of everyone else, but getting at-large bids requires having teams enter conference play with good enough rankings to spread good wins to the 2nd or 3rd team.

For comparison, here are the SoSs the week of Dec. 20th (higher is better):

• Houston 8.7
• Memphis 7.9
• Temple 3.1
• Central Florida 2.9
• Wichita State 1.8
• Cincinnati 1.6
• Average (before changes) 1.3
• Florida Atlantic 1.2
• UAB 1.0
• North Texas 0.5
• SMU -0.4
• Average (after changes) -0.9
• Charlotte -1.8
• Tulane -2.3
• Tulsa -2.4
• South Florida -2.6
• East Carolina -4.0
• Rice -7.2
• UTSA -7.9

What this means is that with current scheduling trends, there will be far less points to grab and everyone's NET ranking will be artificially lower. That means that a potential Quad 1 win might shift to a Quad 2 win, an acceptable quad 2 loss might become an unacceptable quad 3 loss, etc. Your conference's ranking is basically determined by its non-conference winning percentage alongside its strength of schedule. Some of teams we are bringing in have good enough NET in a one-year sample, but some are absolutely terrible with no aspirations to do better.

Outside of the power-5 and the Big East, there were only 4 at-large bids this year. It doesn't take much for a conference in our position to shift from 2 bids a year to 1. After all, the CUSA teams we poached weren't at-large bids even though three of them had 25 win seasons. I think the drop-off could be in the range where the AAC won't be a consistent multi-bid league, at least in the immediate short-term.

[Stickboy46]

Not to derail too much, but what you need to look at for any team is the non-conference. That's the only way you bring in value to the conference and inflate the NET of its teams. Out of Charlotte, Florida Atlantic, North Texas, Rice, UAB and UTSA (the newcomers), they had nonconference SoSs and records of:

• Charlotte - 211 (9-2)
• Florida Atlantic - 119 (10-1)
• North Texas - 106 (9-2)
• UAB - 116 (9-2)
• Rice - 341 ((9-2)
• UTSA - 349 (6-5)

In comparison, Houston was #7 at (12-1), Cincinnati was #79 at (9-4), and UCF was #62 at (9-3). Even though neither Cincinnati or UCF dominated, they still brought more potential than literally any of the newcomers. The best team in any given conference will grow through NET through the expense of everyone else, but getting at-large bids requires having teams enter conference play with good enough rankings to spread good wins to the 2nd or 3rd team.

For comparison, here are the SoSs the week of Dec. 20th (higher is better):

• Houston 8.7
• Memphis 7.9
• Temple 3.1
• Central Florida 2.9
• Wichita State 1.8
• Cincinnati 1.6
• Average (before changes) 1.3
• Florida Atlantic 1.2
• UAB 1.0
• North Texas 0.5
• SMU -0.4
• Average (after changes) -0.9
• Charlotte -1.8
• Tulane -2.3
• Tulsa -2.4
• South Florida -2.6
• East Carolina -4.0
• Rice -7.2
• UTSA -7.9

What this means is that with current scheduling trends, there will be far less points to grab and everyone's NET ranking will be artificially lower. That means that a potential Quad 1 win might shift to a Quad 2 win, an acceptable quad 2 loss might become an unacceptable quad 3 loss, etc. Your conference's ranking is basically determined by its non-conference winning percentage alongside its strength of schedule. Some of teams we are bringing in have good enough NET in a one-year sample, but some are absolutely terrible with no aspirations to do better.

Outside of the power-5 and the Big East, there were only 4 at-large bids this year. It doesn't take much for a conference in our position to shift from 2 bids a year to 1. After all, the CUSA teams we poached weren't at-large bids even though three of them had 25 win seasons. I think the drop-off could be in the range where the AAC won't be a consistent multi-bid league, at least in the immediate short-term.

All of that is factored into the NET .. which had FAU, UNT and UAB all above UC and UCF. FAU/UNT/UAB would have been better for the AAC this year than UC/UCF. The only thing that matters to WSU and the other teams in the league is our opponents NET ranking when it comes to bids.

As far as bids for the conference current AAC ended up with 2 NCAA (UH and Memphis) and 2 NIT (UC and UCF). New AAC would have had 2 NCAA (Memphis and FAU, who was a lock for the tourney even though they got the auto) and 2 NIT (UNT, UAB)

[BostonWu]

How did all this new AAC stats geek crap get into the next coach thread?

[CBB_Fan]

All of that is factored into the NET .. which had FAU, UNT and UAB all above UC and UCF. FAU/UNT/UAB would have been better for the AAC this year than UC/UCF. The only thing that matters to WSU and the other teams in the league is our opponents NET ranking when it comes to bids.

As far as bids for the conference current AAC ended up with 2 NCAA (UH and Memphis) and 2 NIT (UC and UCF). New AAC would have had 2 NCAA (Memphis and FAU, who was a lock for the tourney even though they got the auto) and 2 NIT (UNT, UAB)

You aren't factoring in the drop-off from conference play I mentioned above. You can't simply take end-of-season NET rankings from different conferences. You have to look, almost exclusively, at what they did in the non-conference and how that would affect things going into the conference. None of the newcomers challenged themselves, and in the absolute values it is obvious just how much we'll be hurt be the dead-weight at the end of those additions.

[Stickboy46]

You aren't factoring in the drop-off from conference play I mentioned above. You can't simply take end-of-season NET rankings from different conferences. You have to look, almost exclusively, at what they did in the non-conference and how that would affect things going into the conference. None of the newcomers challenged themselves, and in the absolute values it is obvious just how much we'll be hurt be the dead-weight at the end of those additions.

No you don't have to factor that in. They played in a weaker conference and STILL had a higher NET than UC and UCF who go an artificial bump by playing in a better conference.

I agree a couple of the low end adds are bad. The top end will replace the UC/UCF part of the deal well. No team we were going to get would replace Houston.

All of the teams will now have more money coming in and get a conference reputation boost which will help them in scheduling going forward. Its not the end of the world like you are making it out to be. We will still be the 7th-8th best conference like we have been the entire time we have been in the AAC.

[Maizerunner08]

The next hire will define ADKS's legacy here. This has to be one of the most important hires in a long time. If it's a miss, essentially everything built up by 3G is going to disappear.

With that all said, I think he's going to hit and hit big.

[Atxshoxfan]

UTSA is enjoying some CFB success at the moment, but I agree the CFP seems out of reach.

Having said that, I wouldn't have placed a futures bet last year that Tulane would be beating USC in the Cotton Bowl.

Bowl games outside of the playoffs are becoming less relevant as nfl prospects generally opt out of those anymore. So they are poor indicators of the current team.

[CBB_Fan]

No you don't have to factor that in. They played in a weaker conference and STILL had a higher NET than UC and UCF who go an artificial bump by playing in a better conference.

I agree a couple of the low end adds are bad. The top end will replace the UC/UCF part of the deal well. No team we were going to get would replace Houston.

All of the teams will now have more money coming in and get a conference reputation boost which will help them in scheduling going forward. Its not the end of the world like you are making it out to be. We will still be the 7th-8th best conference like we have been the entire time we have been in the AAC.

Again, for the last time, you shouldn't be looking at ANYTHING to do with what happens in a conference. To get two teams over the finish line, you need to start by having enough performance outside the conference. You enter conference play with the conference's NET virtually fixed.

Imagine it is a currency that can get redistributed among the conference members. 10 tickets gets you an at-large, but your automatic bid is probably going to take a lot of tickets themselves. The newcomers are bringing less tickets into the conference than the teams that left. It doesn't matter that Florida Atlantic ended with 10 tickets by the end of the year, the question is whether they brought 10 tickets into conference play. Or to be more accurate, if they brought more tickets in than Houston et. al are taking with them.

And to put it simply, they aren't. Even if we look at the above historical performance of last year, the scheduling is a killer. There is a reason C-USA didn't sniff an at-large this season, and it is because they entered conference play without enough tickets to get two teams over the finish line. We don't have an abundance of NET ourselves; even Memphis was on the bubble for most of the year.

[Topshock]

UNT didn’t even sniff the tournament with a NET of 38. It’s all about Quad 1 wins. They weren’t even viewed as being on the bubble. Cincinnati and UCF are way more valuable than any of the newcomers.

All four of those teams are in the NIT, so considering UNT and UAB have a higher NET, I would say they would have had more value in the AAC this year.

[Ted Lasso's Neighbor]

I tried to find the contract but couldn't find the details. Paging Ted Lasso's Neighbor ... Need investigation work on Jans contract lol.

I looked around in various FOIA venues and didn't see anything. The only thing I saw otherwise were news reports from when he was hired that said 2.4 million a year for 4 years with 600K in incentives the first year.

[Topshock]

And to put it simply, they aren't. Even if we look at the above historical performance of last year, the scheduling is a killer. There is a reason C-USA didn't sniff an at-large this season, and it is because they entered conference play without enough tickets to get two teams over the finish line. We don't have an abundance of NET ourselves; even Memphis was on the bubble for most of the year.

Next year, being in the AAC and coming off the year they had it will be easier for them to schedule better in the future. You can rationalize your goal of trashing the new AAC all you want but it still has an excellent chance of being a multi-bid league going forward.

[pogo]

Seems as if the only coaches mentioned are head coaches now. Jerome Tang at k state was an assistant at Baylor and has done well this year with his one on out the door transfers. Has anyone looked at asst coaches from bigger/successful teams or conferences.