ESPN's Future Power Rankings

[Shockeriffic]

I'd blame whoever came up with that question more. Out of the top 25 teams the next three years, which ones should be worried? The correct answer is none of them. That's why they're on the list.

[CBB_Fan]

What an inane statement!

Doing a "nice job by mid-major standards" is what the ISU Red's of the world do. Hell, it's what the Creighton's of the world do. We have a packed house considered one of the top 10 home courts, a coach getting paid (at the very least) median BCS money, and are just off of a F4 trip where an honest argument could be made that we realistically could've taken the whole cookie. That's doing "a nice job by" HIGH-major standards.

I don't know about the median, but as of 2007 the average BCS coach was getting paid $1.2 million after bonuses. Marshall will make $1.75 million before bonuses in 2014, so he should still be easily above the average BCS coach (and quite a bit better than his starting coaching salary of $60,000 in 1998!).

[im4wsu]

What an inane statement!

Doing a "nice job by mid-major standards" is what the ISU Red's of the world do. Hell, it's what the Creighton's of the world do. We have a packed house considered one of the top 10 home courts, a coach getting paid (at the very least) median BCS money, and are just off of a F4 trip where an honest argument could be made that we realistically could've taken the whole cookie. That's doing "a nice job by" HIGH-major standards.

Of the 68 coaches in the 2012 NCAA tournament, six were unreported salary were Harvard (Tommy Amaker), Iona (Tim Cluess), LIU Brooklyn (Jack Perri), Miami (Fla.) (Jim Larranaga), Saint Louis (Jim Crews), Valparaiso (Bryce Drew). Of the remaining 62, Marshall's $1,155,000 (salary from school) and $32,000 ("otherpay") ranked him 34th. This excludes bonuses, which he raanks 7th in max potential bonus with $803,000. I think it would be safe to say that 3g wasa then in the top 40 of all Div 1 coaches.


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/salaries/ncaab/coach/



A May 2013 article lists 3G at 1.45 and 27th of 67 listed. Coack K was listed #1 at 4.7 million compares to the 2012 number of 7.24 mm.


http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/the-highest-paid-college-basketball-coaches/

[SHOCKvalue]

Of the 68 coaches in the 2012 NCAA tournament, six were unreported salary were Harvard (Tommy Amaker), Iona (Tim Cluess), LIU Brooklyn (Jack Perri), Miami (Fla.) (Jim Larranaga), Saint Louis (Jim Crews), Valparaiso (Bryce Drew). Of the remaining 62, Marshall's $1,155,000 (salary from school) and $32,000 ("otherpay") ranked him 34th. This excludes bonuses, which he raanks 7th in max potential bonus with $803,000. I think it would be safe to say that 3g wasa then in the top 40 of all Div 1 coaches.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...s/ncaab/coach/

Yep, 3G made something on the order of $1.7M last season, based on a reading of his contract at the time - something most people could have done, ability-wise.

http://shockernet.net/forum/showthread.php?15650-Marshall-s-contract-specifics-as-of-most-recent-modification-(07-2012)

Media members in general put forth VERY little effort into anything resembling numbers. It's probably why they ended up newspaper chumps rather than engineers, accountants, financial analysts, or something similarly useful in the employment market.

[im4wsu]

Yep, 3G made something on the order of $1.7M last season, based on a reading of his contract at the time - something most people could have done, ability-wise.

http://shockernet.net/forum/showthread.php?15650-Marshall-s-contract-specifics-as-of-most-recent-modification-(07-2012)

Media members in general put forth VERY little effort into anything resembling numbers. It's probably why they ended up newspaper chumps rather than engineers, accountants, financial analysts, or something similarly useful in the employment market.

Sure did in 2013. The quotes were 2012 and were reported to exclude bonuses.

[Kung Wu]

Katz thinks WSU should worry because he isn't sure Marshall can keep bringing talent in.

The air must be thin on the planet Zorlon, because here on Earth it's pretty obvious Marshall is going to continue to LOAD up the next couple of years.

[Blackmag]

Is he John Goodmans brother......please get real

[ShockerFever]

That was kind of funny, wasn't it? With the F4 in our back pocket, and now Forbes on staff, how could anyone look at us and think we might be headed for a downward trend in recruiting?

Apparently after the things you've mentioned, it'll be harder to bring in talent. The Final Four, Forbes, Top 15 rankings, amenity enhancements, etc. clearly are not good selling points to high talent.

I think Katz is trying to one-up ******* for being the king of the ESPN toolbag. Still gotta go through Myron Metcalf though.

[wsushox1]

Still gotta go through Myron Metcalf though.

truth

[WSUwatcher]

Just curious, Insider RMS -- what were WSU's ratings in the various categories? #1 Duke came out at 9.8 (of 10) for coaching, 9.4 for current talent, 9.6 for recruiting, 9.9 for program power (whatever that may mean, although it sounds imposing -- maybe Insiders know), and 8.5 for stability (which I assume, although don't know, reflects the likelihood of some early departures). How did the Shocks stack up by comparison?

[CBB_Fan]

Just curious, Insider RMS -- what were WSU's ratings in the various categories? #1 Duke came out at 9.8 (of 10) for coaching, 9.4 for current talent, 9.6 for recruiting, 9.9 for program power (whatever that may mean, although it sounds imposing -- maybe Insiders know), and 8.5 for stability (which I assume, although don't know, reflects the likelihood of some early departures). How did the Shocks stack up by comparison?

8.1 Coaching (tied for 17th)
6.8 Current Talent (24th)
6.9 Recruiting (21st)
7.4 Program Power (tied for 22nd)
8.0 Stability (tied for 19th)

Overall, pessimistic, though like any such ratings I think these are mostly bullshit covered with numbers. Essentially they just put a number to their opinions and prejudices to make it sound more official, but it still has no actual relevance as an objective ranking. Entirely subjective, as they pretty much figured where they wanted each program to be then found number to back that up, instead of the other way around.

[ShockerEngr]

Pessimistic? Maybe, but I'd say positive developments that can be built on. And it really says a lot for a program that's had 3 trips to the NCAA in the last 25 years, (all in the last 7) and where they think we're headed

[WSUwatcher]

Thanks, CBB. I don't necessarily take the ratings all that seriously -- certainly down to a tenth of a point -- because they're obviously somewhat arbitrary, although I suppose they indicate what some folks who pay attention believe to represent a comparative evaluation, however subjective it may be. (Like in figure skating, using numbers and decimal points doesn't make an evaluation objective; it just quantifies a subjective judgment.) I was just curious to see the panel's opinion.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Indeed, the numbers are very subjective. Talent and recruiting were our lowest numbers, but those are the most subjective in our situation. Marshall has made a science out of recruiting "under the radar" guys whose true talent is not reflected in the number of stars they receive by the recruiting services. Baker is a prime example. Here's what the write up said about him:

"The key to WSU's future success lies in its backcourt, and Baker is the most important piece. He is as good a big guard as there is in the country -- he is tough and athletic at 6-3, and has an excellent shot fake that sets up his drive. And he can really knock it down from deep. Look for him to be a star these next few seasons for the Shockers. --Seth Greenberg"

Baker was probably our most lightly recruited scholarship guy on this roster, but they're calling him one of the best guards in the country. What Seth says is true, but it's contradictory to their own rating system. Cotton is another example--he was a 2-star right? But he was such an awesome defender in the tournament last year he made the 4 and 5 star guys from the other team disappear during the game.

Their superficial rankings are obviously based on the number of 4 and 5 star recruits on the roster, not on a true analysis of the quality of talent each program has.

[Cdizzle]

Indeed, the numbers are very subjective. Talent and recruiting were our lowest numbers, but those are the most subjective in our situation. Marshall has made a science out of recruiting "under the radar" guys whose true talent is not reflected in the number of stars they receive by the recruiting services. Baker is a prime example. Here's what the write up said about him:

"The key to WSU's future success lies in its backcourt, and Baker is the most important piece. He is as good a big guard as there is in the country -- he is tough and athletic at 6-3, and has an excellent shot fake that sets up his drive. And he can really knock it down from deep. Look for him to be a star these next few seasons for the Shockers. --Seth Greenberg"

Baker was probably our most lightly recruited scholarship guy on this roster, but they're calling him one of the best guards in the country. What Seth says is true, but it's contradictory to their own rating system. Cotton is another example--he was a 2-star right? But he was such an awesome defender in the tournament last year he made the 4 and 5 star guys from the other team disappear during the game.

Their superficial rankings are obviously based on the number of 4 and 5 star recruits on the roster, not on a true analysis of the quality of talent each program has.

Greenberg probably saw Baker play for about 30 minutes last season.