Laley23 wrote:Meh. It has yet to be proven at certain "power" schools if the job is great or the coach. That is the case with UCONN, Duke, UCLA, Syracuse among others.

Before Jim Calhoun, in the ‘60s and ‘70s, UConn was simply a regional power that made a string of NCAA appearances simply by playing in an irrelevant conference that included teams such as Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island and New Hampshire. Comparing the histories of UConn and Duke is really an awful comparison, because there is no comparison.

With almost 2,000 all-time wins (1,971), Duke is the fourth winningest college basketball program of all-time, trailing only Kentucky, Kansas and North Carolina. The Blue Devils also share with those three basketball giants the peerless distinction of being one of only four programs in the history of the sport to win over 70 percent of its overall games. Prior to K's arrival in Durham, Duke reached four Final Fours and two national championship games under the leadership of two different coaches. Under Vic Bubas, the Blue Devils fielded the fourth-winningest program in all of college basketball during the '60s, achieving three Final Fours and one national runner-up in the decade. Largely credited as the pioneer of modern recruiting, Bubas was a legendary figure that turned Duke into a national program long before K. Those are burgeoning roots of future greatness.

As for what K has done for the program: Duke, while very good before K, is now THE national brand in college basketball. More national titles, Final Fours, wins, national players of the year, top 25 appearances and weeks ranked as the country's No. 1 team than any other school since 1986. Generations of youth have grown up associating Duke with winning and winning championships. To them, Duke might as well be the Los Angles Lakers with as much as it has been on top. Like John Wooden did for UCLA, K has taken the program to another planet, creating a brand at Duke that is unsurpassed nationally (right next to Carolina and Kentucky) and one that will stand the test of time. A tradition that has experienced heights as dizzying as Duke's -- let's face it, the Blue Devils have been the most dominant program in college basketball now for a quarter-century -- doesn't just fade away.

The way money is allocated and counted is also very mis-leading. The whole "Louisville is the most profitable program in the country" has been debunked numerous times on CatsPause. It's all in how the numbers are manipulated. If some of the other programs reported finances the same way, those figures would look different.

That Forbes list is indeed outdated, as prescott alluded to.

As is your list.

Citing Equality in Athletics data from the U.S. Department of Education, Duke's 2009-10 revenue was $26.7 million for the basketball program alone. Duke also spent more on basketball than its peers -- $12.3 million in 2009-10.

What does duke spend it's basketball money on??

reclegend22;1094669 wrote:Before Jim Calhoun, in the ‘60s and ‘70s, UConn was simply a regional power that made a string of NCAA appearances simply by playing in an irrelevant conference that included teams such as Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island and New Hampshire. Comparing the histories of UConn and Duke is really an awful comparison, because there is no comparison.

With almost 2,000 all-time wins (1,971), Duke is the fourth winningest college basketball program of all-time, trailing only Kentucky, Kansas and North Carolina. The Blue Devils also share with those three basketball giants the peerless distinction of being one of only four programs in the history of the sport to win over 70 percent of its overall games. Prior to K's arrival in Durham, Duke reached four Final Fours and two national championship games under the leadership of two different coaches. Under Vic Bubas, the Blue Devils fielded the fourth-winningest program in all of college basketball during the '60s, achieving three Final Fours and one national runner-up in the decade. Largely credited as the pioneer of modern recruiting, Bubas was a legendary figure that turned Duke into a national program long before K. Those are burgeoning roots of future greatness.

As for what K has done for the program: Duke, while very good before K, is now THE national brand in college basketball. More national titles, Final Fours, wins, national players of the year, top 25 appearances and weeks ranked as the country's No. 1 team than any other school since 1986. Generations of youth have grown up associating Duke with winning and winning championships. To them, Duke might as well be the Los Angles Lakers with as much as it has been on top. Like John Wooden did for UCLA, K has taken the program to another planet, creating a brand at Duke that is unsurpassed nationally (right next to Carolina and Kentucky) and one that will stand the test of time. A tradition that has experienced heights as dizzying as Duke's -- let's face it, the Blue Devils have been the most dominant program in college basketball now for a quarter-century -- doesn't just fade away.

I didnt need all that, but...thanks.

Im not saying Duke is awful, Id rank it as the 4th best job in America. But I dont see a reason to put it ahead of Kansas. Everything you just stated about the last quarter century is all K. Just as I have said many times. Yes, Duke has a history before K, but K is Duke. That IS NOT the case with the other 3 programs I mentioned. UK is not Cal. Kansas is not Self, and UNC is not Roy. But those 3 have no proven they can win at the programs after the programs legend is gone. UK is the obvious choice (Rupp, Pitino, Smith, Cal). UNC has Dean and Roy. Kansas has Allen, Brown, Roy, Self. Duke has K. No one outside of Duke associates the program with anyone but K.

Of course I expect whoever succeeds K to keep Duke at the top. But the other schools have proven it. In fact, would you rather, if all 4 jobs were open, rather follow Cal, Self, Roy or K? Id choose to follow K last. Take out all bias and strictly look at it as easiest transition phase. Duke would be the toughest to keep going as the direct successor.

Meh. It has yet to be proven at certain "power" schools if the job is great or the coach. That is the case with UCONN, Duke, UCLA, Syracuse among others.

Totally agree.

Disagree. I might agree with Connecticut and Syracuse (less with Syracuse), but UCLA and Duke have the recognition (almost 100% due to a certain coach) to attract a top of the line candidate. UCLA is about as low as it has ever been right now, but it still maintains a certain level of clout because of the history, location and potential. I don't equate the job in the top 3, maybe top 10, and I certainly don't equate their program on the level of the others, especially UNC, UK and KU, but it's always going to be in the top 10-15 regardless.

For Duke, everything they have will depend on their next coach. If they find the right guy, they will continue to be at the very top of the sport. It's not to that time yet, but it will be interesting to see who K recommends, if he had the nads to come out and support a former protege or to what degree he has on influencing who gets the job.

I like this list on Bleacher Report.

1. Kenticky-At Kentucky, the fans and the program demand excellence. They don't expect it, they don't really want it, they demand it. And while that can be unnerving to some and too much pressure for others, it is what makes UK great. Because if you can deal with it properly, you should win big at Kentucky.

2.UNC-But the best part of coaching at UNC is that recruiting is so darn easy. Locally there is some talent, but location doesn't matter for UNC. They are the school that every recruit in country has some interest in. Be it the Michael Jordan effect or whatever you want to call it, UNC gets in any door they want to get in. And recruiting is the lifeblood of college basketball.

3-Kansas-Located in the western part of the country (especially for basketball power purposes), Kansas has been the dominant program in that half of the country for almost as long as there has been college basketball. Aside form UCLA's golden decade, it has almost always been Kansas, Kansas and then more Kansas when discussing basketball in the west.

4-Indiana-More importantly for me though is how patient the fans are. Most school with as much winning as Indiana has had would have gone through about 10 coaches in the last three years with how much they have struggled. Not so with the Hoosiers. The fans are being very patient with Tom Crean and giving him time to build up a winner his way, and that speaks well of fans.


5-Texas-Loads of talent, loads of money, great city, absolutely no pressure to ever win. None.

6-Duke-Advantages for Duke: the media loves you, you're in a great conference and the media loves you.

7-Ohio State-Football school? Check Little pressure? Check Great athletic department? Check (unless you want honesty) Lots of money? Check..And it's not like Ohio State has no basketball history either. This has almost always been a strong school and they have won titles at Ohio State in the past, so it can be done there.

8.Arizona-There aren't a lot of powers in the west to contend with, so Arizona should have an easy time staying on or near the top out west, and any time you can be the best program in an entire region of the country that is going to be good for recruiting.

9.Florida-Florida is a great place for recruits with wonderful weather and scenery comparable to UCLA, and there also isn't really any noticeable pressure on the basketball team to be any good at all. As long as Florida football is winning, the basketball job flies right under the radar.

10.UCLA-But any school surrounded by this much talent on and off the court, as well as weather almost as beautiful as the ladies, UCLA would be a good gig for almost anyone to have.

11.Louisville-Louisville has been winning games, so this isn't just some example of a team winning only because of a great coach. Louisville almost always wins...Throw in an improving and attractive downtown scene in Louisville and a new arena which should have recruits salivating, Louisville is a wonderful and possibly improving job.

12.Maryland-Maryland should be a much better program than they are with all of the talent surrounding them. But missing out on the Kevin Durants of the world can keep you as a mid-level achiever, which is what Maryland has traditionally been.

13.UConn-Big East affiliation is huge, as it is widely considered the best conference in all of basketball. You have access to major markets, major recruits and if you so choose major endorsement dollars. And you basically have the entire northeast locked up for recruiting purposes as you have no real competition in your neck of the woods.

14.Memphis- For Memphis local talent matters. And they have a lot of it. Pastner can almost field a squad that will keep him in or near the top 25 with guys from his own city every season. Memphis and the surrounding area is that loaded with talent.

15.-Michigan State- For starters, Michigan has more talent than a lot of people think at first glance, and being the premier basketball school for the last 15 years or so has helped Izzo to lock down that talent on a pretty consistent basis.


I am not sure about Memphis being in the top 15. I also question Texas' ranking.

The Texas gig is so great because (like the BR list says) there is no pressure to win. Literally no one cares about basketball at Texas. And you'll get the funds, you'll get the recruits.

Totally agree.

Of course you do. If Laley had said that the instructor of the Seton Hall marching band was a more attractive job than coaching Duke basketball, you would have been right there on board with it.

What does duke spend it's basketball money on??

The things that make a program go. Travel expenses (hotels, air and all the other variables that go into playing basketball all-around the country and world; last year, for example, Duke Basketball traveled to China and Dubai), recruiting planning and trips, building and maintaining state-of-the-art facilities, game costs, equipment, salaries and benefits, marketing the program, scholarships, et cetera. Like UK, UNC and KU, Duke does it big.

Laley23 wrote: I didnt need all that, but...thanks.

I know you didn't, but you were severely underplaying the history of the Duke basketball program and I just wanted to add my thoughts on the matter. The Blue Devils are on the top of the sport right now with the nasty rate of big-time winning that they have maintained for decades. Duke is the only program to have won a national championship in each of the last three decades, and, even if they all came with K, that is worth quite a lot. UNC, Kansas and Kentucky are obviously right there at the top, too. My point is, like Wooden at UCLA, K has cemented Duke as a blueblood of the sport and the job in Durham is now one of the most coveted in all of college athletics.

Durham is now one of the most coveted in all of college athletics.

That I agree with.

The Blue Devils are on the top of the sport right now

That I disagree with.

reclegend22;1094736 wrote:I know you didn't, but you were severely underplaying the history of the Duke basketball program and I just wanted to add my thoughts on the matter. The Blue Devils are on the top of the sport right now with the nasty rate of big-time winning that they have maintained for decades. Duke is the only program to have won a national championship in each of the last three decades, and, even if they all came with K, that is worth quite a lot. UNC, Kansas and Kentucky are obviously right there at the top, too. My point is, like Wooden at UCLA, K has cemented Duke as a blueblood of the sport and the job in Durham is now one of the most coveted in all of college athletics.

No they aren't.

If you want to look at the last 3 decades, meaning 30 years; you are wrong. Even if you want to look at just the actual decades; you are wrong.

Going back 30 years Carolina has 4, along with Dook's 4.

Going back 3 decades, meaning 1990-1999, 2000-2009, 2010-present....

UConn had 3.

Of course you do. If Laley had said that the instructor of the Seton Hall marching band was a more attractive job than coaching Duke basketball, you would have been right there on board with it.

You argue out of both sides of your mouth. If it is convenient for "k' to be the sole reason for duke's success you go with that and ignore the contributions made by Foster and Bubas. If Foster and Bubas support your claim , you use them.

I agreed with Laley because the jury hasn't even been called in the case of duke, UConn, and Syracuse. One man has been at the helm for a very long time. UK,KU, and UNC have proven excellence under more than one leader.duke may be able to sustain excellence when "k" leaves, but that is unproven at this point.

IMO it's Shaka Smart's to turn down--from there it's anyone's guess

vball10set;1094792 wrote:IMO it's Shaka Smart's to turn down--from there it's anyone's guess

GTFOH with content regarding the thread lol.

reclegend22;1094736 wrote: I know you didn't, but you were severely underplaying the history of the Duke basketball program and I just wanted to add my thoughts on the matter. The Blue Devils are on the top of the sport right now with the nasty rate of big-time winning that they have maintained for decades. Duke is the only program to have won a national championship in each of the last three decades, and, even if they all came with K, that is worth quite a lot. UNC, Kansas and Kentucky are obviously right there at the top, too. My point is, like Wooden at UCLA, K has cemented Duke as a blueblood of the sport and the job in Durham is now one of the most coveted in all of college athletics.

I know I was downplaying it. I realize they have a great history. I guess my point is, it was like 40 freaking years ago. Recruits dont care, and recruits are college basketball. K has been there SO long that you dont know what the next guy is going to bring or do. Im not saying Duke is even bad (I said they were 4th best job if it was open).

My main point is that within the last recent (ie, 10 years) the other 3 jobs have been opened up and new guys have been able to get the program to that of the legend. Cal hasnt won yet, but they are putting together some of the best seasons in UK history. Self is right there with the others at KU, Roy is right there with Dean.

Can the next guy get to or keep Duke at what K has made it? The right coach is obviously a factor in all this. But I believe that a lot of Dukes success is from K then the brand name while a lot of UK/KU/UNC success is from the school name more than the coach. It has been proven. At Duke it has (though to be fair, it hasnt had the chance).

Laley23;1094858 wrote:GTFOH with content regarding the thread lol.

sorry, wtf was I thinking!!!

wildcats20;1094759 wrote:No they aren't.

Going back 3 decades, meaning 1990-1999, 2000-2009, 2010-present....

UConn had 3.

This is what I meant, and, yes, I forgot about UConn winning last year. So, UConn and Duke are the only schools to have won national championships in each of the past three decades.

Laley23 wrote:My main point is that within the last recent (ie, 10 years) the other 3 jobs have been opened up and new guys have been able to get the program to that of the legend. Cal hasnt won yet, but they are putting together some of the best seasons in UK history. Self is right there with the others at KU, Roy is right there with Dean.

Can the next guy get to or keep Duke at what K has made it? The right coach is obviously a factor in all this. But I believe that a lot of Dukes success is from K then the brand name while a lot of UK/KU/UNC success is from the school name more than the coach. It has been proven. At Duke it has (though to be fair, it hasnt had the chance).

Fair points. But I think your last point is the best. Duke (luckily for Blue Devil fans) hasn't found it necessary to open a head coaching search for 30-plus years. Then again, neither did North Carolina under Dean Smith. And then he retired and a few years later the 8 and 20 ordeal ensued. Being a blue-blood, however, Carolina was able to bounce right back and reach ridiculous amounts of success just as quickly as the program had fallen as low as it could seemingly go. My contention is that Duke will be just as resilient after K and find the right coach that will be able to once again enable to the program to fight yearly for national crowns.

SportsAndLady wrote:That I disagree with

That statement that you are referring to here (about Duke being on top of the college game right now) is simply based on the success the program has sustained for 25 years. As I said, Duke has more NCAA titles, Final Fours, wins, No. 1 rankings, top 25 appearances, NPOTYs, etc. over that period. And, with the last title coming just two years ago, Duke is without question the most prestigious program over that stretch. ESPN seems to agree. For what it's worth, Kansas was ranked No. 2. (The rankings are from 2008, so Duke didn't even get credit for the 2010 title.)

I agreed with Laley because the jury hasn't even been called in the case of duke, UConn, and Syracuse. One man has been at the helm for a very long time. UK,KU, and UNC have proven excellence under more than one leader.duke may be able to sustain excellence when "k" leaves, but that is unproven at this point.

Stop with the "one leader" argument. Duke reached four Final Fours and earned two national runner-ups before K. Syracuse and UConn had a combined one Final Four before Boeheim and Calhoun took over those two programs, respectively -- Roy Danforth led Syracuse to the Final Four in 1975. While I think that Syracuse and UConn, because of the sheer longevity of prominence that both Boeheim and Calhoun have architected at their schools, will continue to prosper when their coaches leave, there is a big difference between the history of Duke and the histories of the other two. Duke was a perennial national title contender as far back as the '60s. The others were not. Thus, Duke is on another level in terms of basketball prominence.

Lets not make this an entire thread about Duke...or maybe it should just be a general coaching vacancy topic.

I would say Smart has to be number one. He's a talented coach with a great system. I would put frank Martin number 2 because he seems like the kind of coach who would love to be even more in the spotlight and at k state he will always be number 2 in his own state. The only downside I see with Martin is that k state is known to bend rules so maybe he would rather stay there and do whatever he wants.

I would have Stevens at number one but I think he waits for a premier job somewhere. With two final fours on his resume at his age at butler he will be able to get any opening he wants when he's ready to leave.

As far as top schools I like the br reports list except I move duke to at least number 4. my top four would be UNC, Kentucky, Duke, and KU. I think after those four you have a second tier with schools like Texas OSU IU Cuse UF GTown uConn Arizona UCLA

Stop with the "one leader" argument. Duke reached four Final Fours and earned two national runner-ups before K.

You have said in many posts that k built duke much in the same way that Calhoun built UConn. Since that no longer fits your argument, Bubas and Foster get the credit they deserve? I get you.

As for the duke job, I don't think it is worth taking when k leaves. Following a legend rarely works out.

when coach k retires hes gonna leave beind 4-5 mcdonalds all americans you wouldnt want to take that job with their fanbase and willingness to spend money

when coach k retires hes gonna leave beind 4-5 mcdonalds all americans you wouldnt want to take that job with their fanbase and willingness to spend money

You can only lose in the comparison. Wait for the 1st replacement to fail and then take the job.

Any headway being made in the rumor mill surrounding the Illinois job?

Would Shaka Smart or Brad Stevens even consider Illinois?

hoops23;1098276 wrote:Would Shaka Smart or Brad Stevens even consider Illinois?

I don't understand why they would.

But maybe it could be their stepping stone job to one of the true big boys.