Unsurprising but this is the first domino in the SEC coaching carousel. Are we a better basketball job than UGA? https://t.co/ul9mJEF5TV
Tom Crean done at Georgia
- Thread starter curseddawgs
- Start date
The guy was making $1mm more per year than Howland.
He was 47-74 overall and 15-57 in conference at UGA.
His results were significantly worse than Mark Fox, who Crean replaced.
Over the last decade, UGA is 160-161 overall and 73-105 in conference.
That is flat out terrible for a major conference program when you have so many resources at your disposal.
ETA- MSU has a better overall record and basically the same conference record over that timeframe, and that includes the Rick Ray years. I dont know why UGA would be viewed as a better job except for the fact that it paid more in this most recent coaching cycle. The program isnt better and its not like it is difficult to convince players to travel 4 or 5 hours away to college(GA to MSU general distance).
He was 47-74 overall and 15-57 in conference at UGA.
His results were significantly worse than Mark Fox, who Crean replaced.
Over the last decade, UGA is 160-161 overall and 73-105 in conference.
That is flat out terrible for a major conference program when you have so many resources at your disposal.
ETA- MSU has a better overall record and basically the same conference record over that timeframe, and that includes the Rick Ray years. I dont know why UGA would be viewed as a better job except for the fact that it paid more in this most recent coaching cycle. The program isnt better and its not like it is difficult to convince players to travel 4 or 5 hours away to college(GA to MSU general distance).
Last edited:
Georgia's inability to field a decent to good basketball program has been curious, to say the least.
It's pretty amazing how much Georgia has underperformed in basketball. Not just Fox and Crean, but every coach they've ever had. They've only won an NCAA tournament game in 4 seasons, and only one since 1996. With their money and population (and a major inner city just an hour away), there's no reason they shouldn't consistently be in the upper half of the SEC.
A job's attractiveness is about fan support, the particular culture of the sport, and money (obviously). To-date, Georgia has not had much of those in their basketball program. Seems like they need to figure out culturally what they want to be, or go out and get a name coach, etc. These things don't change overnight. Many will point to Auburn, well, Bruce Pearl was a big name, AND they put a bunch of money into a facility, and he's almost been there a decade. And I guarantee you that if a bigger program came calling, he'd bolt, and who knows what the fan support would do.
It helps that Atlanta is there for the taking, but again, unless you get lucky with a coaching hire, recruits aren't lining up to play basketball in Athens because they know the fanbase doesn't care. Same with baseball honestly.
I also can't imagine the football shadow has ever been any bigger than it is right now.
It helps that Atlanta is there for the taking, but again, unless you get lucky with a coaching hire, recruits aren't lining up to play basketball in Athens because they know the fanbase doesn't care. Same with baseball honestly.
I also can't imagine the football shadow has ever been any bigger than it is right now.
Tubby would have made them a program similar to what Tennessee is today, consistently competing with Florida and Kentucky in the East (while it was still around) and Jim Harrick had a good run for a minute there before his NCAA troubles caught up with him.
Also every school in the country recruits Atlanta. For the most part we have done a good job of keeping the top players in Mississippi here even when big schools come calling.
Auburn/Pearl = State/Schaefer. When bruce leaves I expect auburn basketball will quickly recede back into pack of the 'also ran'.
Yep. Every fanbase has to decide if they want to be proactive or reactive. Proactive is doing what Alabama/Clemson football always does, and what MSU did for a hot minute when Danny first got here - they fill that stadium up win or lose. They pump energy in the program win or lose. Now I will also say that this was forged in fire as they had to win many years ago to develop that attitude. But either way, THAT is the attitude you must have to change your culture, attract coaches and ultimately attract athletes. Auburn and Georgia are examples of this that don't always win big. Michigan is another one of those, and that's why they are considered a blue blood even though they haven't really done it on paper. Texas A&M is now here too, they may indeed be in the process of changing their football culture, we will see.
A smaller football version is maybe Oregon, Kansas State, etc. These programs seems to overachieve no matter the coach.
Reactive is basically everyone else. They show up if we win, and don't if we lose, and talk dumb **** like, "wE aRe SpEaKiNg WiTh OuR cHeCkBoOk!!!!1111". The only way to win with a program like that is to get lucky on a coach. You certainly won't have your pick of the litter.
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.