|
|
Post by artvandelay on Mar 8, 2006 11:43:08 GMT -5
Sorry for the distraction away from VB, but I am in desperate need of a new Latex guy. My last guy went into architecture.
Anyway, here is something you can seek your teeth into a little.
How would the top coaches in your favorite conference do if they were at a bottom feeder in a different conference. Like how would Mary Wise do at Portland?
How would Mick do at Creighton?
Rose @ La Tech?
Shoji @ Montana St.?
Dunning @ Prarie View A&M?
Gimmallaro @ Harvard?
Serenity Now!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2006 11:48:05 GMT -5
Why not look at how the program progressed after the coach arrived.
Take a look at Mike Hebert for instance:
Pittsburgh
New Mexico
Illinois
Minnesota
Amazing results everywhere. And, yes, I'm biased.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Mar 8, 2006 11:59:30 GMT -5
Ooo. Tossing softballs today, are we?
What about McLaughlin at Washington? Last (in the PAC-10) to First (in the nation) in five years.
But it is a good question to ponder, is, for example, Dunning that good or does he just have great players, or is it a combination of the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Mar 8, 2006 12:03:15 GMT -5
Mary did ok when she started out at Iowa State as the youngest head coach in women's volleyball, right out of college. She was 81-63 in 4 years there. When she got to Florida, Florida had as much volleyball history as, well, they had no volleyball history. 1 postseason appearance in the 8 seasons of the program. She put Florida on the map, building that program up to the level it's at now. I think the majority of the coaches listed would do just fine at those schools, but they wouldn't last very long, as other programs would snatch them up.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Mar 8, 2006 12:30:06 GMT -5
There is one big difference between the original question and the examples you folks are giving. Notice that in each of the examples, there is a significant step-down in school stature. And also, there is the question of evaluating on an _absolute_ basis, as opposed to relative.
Yeah, Hebert probably did improve teams like Pitt and New Mexico, but it's hard to say that he had the same success at those places that he did at Illinois or Minnesota. How many Pitt teams did he lead to the final four, for example? Were his New Mexico teams regularly in the top 10 like they have been in Illinois and Minn? So yeah, he did good at New Mexico _for New Mexico_, but compared to how his teams are doing now on the national scene, it wasn't near as good. Granted, there a lot of possible explanations for why that could be (he was a lot younger coach back then, for example), but the short answer is that I don't think it addresses the OP.
Same with Mary. Her teams at ISU weren't near as good as her teams are now. Yeah, she did better than normal ISU teams (esp in years before this one), but that is not the same. OTOH, her success at Fla is undeniable, and when she started, the SEC wasn't quite as recognized as good vb places as now.
However, I still see Fla as being generally recognized as a good potential place. This is even moreso the case for Washington. Yeah, Wash had been down, but jeez, anywhere in the Pac Ten is going to have lots of potential. Shoot, remember a couple of years ago people actually seriously thought that Bobbi Petersen would move from UNI to Iowa, despite the fact that UNI was a top 10 - 20 program and Iowa was the bottom of the Big Ten! Some people even thought it was something she should do! IOW, people recognize that even the worst team in a good conference is a better position than to be a nationally recognized team in even a mid-major conference. Why is that the case? Because there are advantages in being in a conference of big, highly visible athletics schools.
Now move the other direction. Going from the highly visible athletics school to something smaller. I don't know of any examples in VB, but there are cases in other sports. For example, Eldon Miller went from coaching men's BB in Ohio St to UNI. Although he made UNI a lot better than they were, and even got them to the NCAA tournament, his UNI teams never had the same success that he had at Ohio St. Same coach, but significantly limited by the position. Similarly, most people don't even realize that Tom Davis, who had lots of success as a basketball coach at Stanford and Iowa, is still coaching at Drake, where his teams sit regularly near the bottom of the Valley. Same coach, even the same area of the country that he was in before (just a short 2 hours west of Iowa City), and instead of having a team that is making the elite 8, can't get out of the first round of the MVC tournament.
A couple other examples that come to mind are Earle Bruce, who went from having national champion teams at Ohio St to UNI (where he tried to destroy the team that was in the national semi-finals) before moving onto somewhere else where he flopped (Northern Arizona?) and Jerry Tarkanian, who was never able to reproduce his UNLV success at Fresno St (of course, they actually made him follow NCAA regulations, so he had a handicap).
Then there was that former Notre Dame football coach who moved to South Carolina, and built them into a power. But he had the advantage of the SEC going for him. Could he have done that well at Ball St? Not likely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2006 12:57:07 GMT -5
Yeah, Hebert probably did improve teams like Pitt and New Mexico, but it's hard to say that he had the same success at those places that he did at Illinois or Minnesota. How many Pitt teams did he lead to the final four, for example? Were his New Mexico teams regularly in the top 10 like they have been in Illinois and Minn? He was only at those schools for a couple of years, so I think it's fair to base success on different standards than top 10 or final fours. Erbe from USC to MSU and Liskeyevitcyskdfh from Pacific to Oregon State are possible examples, off the top of my head -- certainly in terms of VB stature. Otherwise, carry on. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Mar 8, 2006 13:08:44 GMT -5
Yeah, Hebert probably did improve teams like Pitt and New Mexico, but it's hard to say that he had the same success at those places that he did at Illinois or Minnesota. How many Pitt teams did he lead to the final four, for example? Were his New Mexico teams regularly in the top 10 like they have been in Illinois and Minn? He was only at those schools for a couple of years, so I think it's fair to base success on different standards than top 10 or final fours. Right. Like I said, there are a lot of explanations. However, I don't see the case that he was just as successful at those places as he has been. He did well, and maybe could have had the same success, but he didn't. Therefore, as I said, I don't see it as really relevant to the OP, either way. Does not apply, I think is the answer. Of course, they are again moves to Big Ten/Pac Ten schools so really don't fit into the question. OTOH, Erbe is a fair example to consider for another reason. What has been his success at Mich St compared to USC? Has it been as good? Possibly not, but it's not obvious that it is meaningful. It's not surprising at all for coaches who have had streaks of great success to do worse in the future, regardless of whether they move down or not. Shoot, Mick Haley from 2004 - 2005 hasn't had the success of Mick Haley of 2001 - 2003. When you start at a very high level, it is hard to maintain that, and pretty much impossible to top it. Therefore, the question of whether top coaches would be as successful at the next place always has this problem, wherever the step is. Some are able to continue succeeding. Others don't. One thing that Mick and Dunning have going for them (and Hebert) is that they have shown the ability to maintain high quality when moving among those good-potential programs. If you can't do that, you aren't going to be able to move to a lower-profile place, either. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 8, 2006 13:42:13 GMT -5
Hebert's success at Illinois would seem to fit the original question quite well.
Illinois was a bottom feeder for the most part in the Big 10 until Mike took over the program and got them national recognition and got them to consecutive Final Fours.
Mike's success at Minnestoa is similar, though perhaps not quite as dramatic since were really only a Big 10 bottom feeder with their interim coaches between the time Steph Schlueder was released and Mike was hired. Other than that they were frequently in the top 5 range of the conference and even though they hadn't often been in the NCAA tournament prior to Mike's arrival at least some of that can be attributed to their being only 16, 32, and then 48 teams being invited to the tournament.
McLaughlins success at Washington is also a good fit for the original question since he got them to the point of winning a national championship only five years after they'd been at the bottom of the Pac 10.
Jim did similarly well at Kansas State taking them from a relative unknown to a Big 12 contender with national recognition in a short period of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 8, 2006 13:45:41 GMT -5
Russ Rose at Penn State is also a prime example of taking a small program to exceptional success.
Penn State was in the Atlantic 10 conference and not from what I recall known as a volleyball powerhouse before he became their head coach.
His teams won the A10 championship something like 10 consecutive seasons and started gettting national recognition before Penn State joined the Big 10 and they started having even more success on a national level plus quickly became one of the dominant teams in the Big 10 from the timing they joined the conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 8, 2006 13:51:50 GMT -5
I'm not sure about Dunning though.
I do think he is a very good coach, however, he was "handed" highly ranked programs at both Pacific and Stanford.
He took both to multiple national championships and additonal final fours, however, there wasn't as much success at Pacific after he started getting his own recruits as there was when he was largely working with Lyskevich's recruits.
We don't know yet how well he will do at Stanford without Shaw's recruits.
Injuries sidelined Stanford somewhat last year, and he still does appear to be gettting a lot of highly ranked recruits at Stanford.
But he hasn't exactly taken any program that I can think of "out of nowhere" to having national recognition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2006 13:57:38 GMT -5
Lyskeyvyich.
Liskeyevych.
Lyskevych.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2006 13:59:43 GMT -5
Liskevych.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Mar 8, 2006 14:16:55 GMT -5
Hebert's success at Illinois would seem to fit the original question quite well. Depends on how you read the question. If you are looking for it as "a bottom feeder in a different conference" then it technically does, but if that is the case, then the examples that the OP provided do not all apply (Creighton is not a bottom feeder in the MVC). OTOH, if you read it as "a (national) bottom feeder who happens to be in a different conference" then it is very different. For example, Illinois and Wash may have been at the bottom of their respective conferences, but in the national scheme of things, they were still probably better than average nationwide. Thus, even teams that do well in weak conferences could be considered "bottom feeders" That's how I view it. It think it is a more interesting question for the reasons I discuss above. Even the worst team in the Big Ten has far more advantages than do teams in lesser conferences. I know that expense thing on RichKern that was mentioned a bit back is not perfect, but it provides some insight. For example, Iowa has the lowest expenditures of any of the Big Ten teams, but are 68th highest. Oregon in the Pac 10 is 103rd. UNI is best in the Valley at 58, with Indiana St at 199. Northern Arizona is top of the Big Sky at 31, but the bottom drops to 168. Regardless of position or history of the team, the Pac Ten and Big Ten provide advantages that are not felt by teams in other conferences. |
|
|
|
Post by vbfanatic on Mar 8, 2006 15:36:47 GMT -5
The real question is that if Mick Haley were at Creighton would he be able to get the RECRUITS to be nationally competitive. There are a lot of good coaches out there but they are not in the "name" conferences. When was the last time a Top 5 H.S. player went to a program in a conference other than the Pac-10, Big 12, Big 10 or SEC? Is Misty May at Long Beach the last one? Also money has a lot to do with it. Programs with more money can and do provide a better atmosphere for volleyball which attracts recruits. If John Dunning could manage to get the best players to go to a smaller school, then he could win because no one doubts his coaching ability.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2006 15:41:21 GMT -5
Notre Dame's come close.
Pepperdine?
Hawaii?
|
|
