Is it possible to argue that the Memphis job is actually better than the UCLA job at this moment in time?

 

Yeah that's pretty debatable. Historically, obviously not, but currently, Memphis is very solid.

Memphis was willing to give Cal whatever he wanted in terms of money. What they could not give--and maybe still cannot give--is a national spotlight.

 

IF UK wasn't willing to offer as much as they did Cal may still be in Memphis. From what I've read I don't see UCLA offering any coach Cal type money. The UC school system athletic budget doesn't allow them to pay the same as other top programs. Unless everything I understand and read about the situation is wrong.

Good recruiter, young, and west coast ties.

 

HE CAN"T COACH!!!!!!!!!!! Any coach with as much talent on Memphis roster can win C-USA

HE CAN"T COACH!!!!!!!!!!! Any clown with as much talent on that roster can win C-USA

 

Ha. It almost seems like the coaching part is lower on the list when hiring anymore! I want a guy who can "win the press conference," "who can recruit like crazy," "who the boosters will like," and finally, if there is time, "a good coach."

HE CAN"T COACH!!!!!!!!!!! Any coach with as much talent on Memphis roster can win C-USA

 

So all that talent on the Memphis roster just magically showed up on their doorstep?

Is it possible to argue that the Memphis job is actually better than the UCLA job at this moment in time?

 

Pretty sure people tried to make that argument about Memphis/UK a few years ago. The right coach could turn UCLA around quickly IMO. The wrong coach could bury it for a while.

So all that talent on the Memphis roster just magically showed up on their doorstep?

 

Does it matter though if the coach can't do anything with it?

Does it matter though if the coach can't do anything with it?

 

Let's put it in proper context. This season's team was easily his most talented at Memphis. They went undefeated in CUSA, and got knocked out of the tournament by a team with superior talent in Michigan State. If they had lost 1st round to St. Mary's that would be one thing, it's not like they lost to a team devoid of high level talent.

Does it matter though if the coach can't do anything with it?

 

26.5 wins per year is doing something with it whether you want to admit it or not. Plenty of other schools have great recruiting classes and fail to be productive at all on the court.

Let's put it in proper context. This season's team was easily his most talented at Memphis. They went undefeated in CUSA, and got knocked out of the tournament by a team with superior talent in Michigan State. If they had lost 1st round to St. Mary's that would be one thing, it's not like they lost to a team devoid of high level talent.

 

Both teams had three McDonald's All-Americans on the roster. Maybe he was just really out-coached by Tom Izzo, which is nothing to be ashamed of as Izzo might be the best in college basketball.

IF UK wasn't willing to offer as much as they did Cal may still be in Memphis. From what I've read I don't see UCLA offering any coach Cal type money. The UC school system athletic budget doesn't allow them to pay the same as other top programs. Unless everything I understand and read about the situation is wrong.

 

Didn't Memphis offer Cal more money?

Didn't Memphis offer Cal more money?

 

UK made Coach Cal the highest paid coach in basketball at the time. Whether Memphis offered more I'm not sure. The point is UCLA isn't making a coach near the highest paid coach in the game.

@JonRothstein BREAKING --- Josh Pastner is staying at Memphis and is no longer a candidate at USC, per a source....

Both teams had three McDonald's All-Americans on the roster. Maybe he was just really out-coached by Tom Izzo, which is nothing to be ashamed of as Izzo might be the best in college basketball.

 

This does not mean that the talent was equal.

This does not mean that the talent was equal.

 

Doesn't mean the coaching was either.