Jank to....

[mrydel]

I think he likes it where he is.

[PonyLawExpress]

I think he likes it where he is.

He does. He loves Dallas. He has moved alot over his career, I think he is ready to settle down and stay out. Also, hoops isnt like football where you have to be P5 to win (see Gonzaga, UConn, WSU, VCU, tons of teams). We aren't in a Mid-Major conference either. I know Hoop is just trolling, but I dont expect Jank to leave unless it was a cant pass up offer, but if he is getting one of those SMU must be an absolute powerhouse by that time and dunno if he would want too.

If we win a conference title and do some tourney damage give him a raise and then a year or two from now if it continues give him a real nice extension. He won't leave after 1 or 2 years after waiting so long to be the coach.

[mustang1992]

Jank has been great this year but lets let him get his own recruiting classes in here for a year or two before proclaiming him our "Coach K"

Exactly. He's doing well with house money, but . . . the big test is going to come over the next two years to see how he can recruit. I was skeptical, based on his previous records. I do like the adjustments that have been made since the start of the season. It's WAY too early for this thread, IMHO.

[hoopmanx]

This works bc of consistency and culture. Let's not eff w that.

[sadderbudweiser]

Dallas and SMU are a hell of a lot nicer city and environment than almost any P5 campus location. It might make sense to go to Stillwater or Tucson to coach a football team. Not so
Much in hoops.

[Pony_Law]

You can make a case that SMU is as good a job if not better then pretty much every school not named duke, unc, Kansas, or Kentucky.

[PonyFan32]

You can make a case that SMU is as good a job if not better then pretty much every school not named duke, unc, Kansas, or Kentucky.

And three of those 4 schools have a worse record than SMU since 2014.

[SMU_Alum11]

One could argue due to us being new bloods, the seat doesn't get as hot nor as quickly relative to the big boy schools. That, to me, is a huge benefit in work/life balance aspect.

[Lonestarguido]

You can make a case that SMU is as good a job if not better then pretty much every school not named duke, unc, Kansas, or Kentucky.

You are insane!

UCLA, Oregon, Arizona

Indiana, Ohio St., Mich, Mich. St, Maryland, Purdue, ILL, Wisconsin and Iowa

Florida is the sole SEC rep. But you can argue Mizzou, LSU, and Aggy...sadly the others might be very attractive since they are all big schools with big athletic budgets who underachieve with ball

Texas, OU (this is a good thing that there is not a lot of close comp)

And then the ACC...Syracuse, Louisville, NC St, GTech, (don't get why Miami can't excel)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[deucetz]

You can make a case that SMU is as good a job if not better then pretty much every school not named duke, unc, Kansas, or Kentucky.

You are insane!

UCLA, Oregon, Arizona

Indiana, Ohio St., Mich, Mich. St, Maryland, Purdue, ILL, Wisconsin and Iowa

Florida is the sole SEC rep. But you can argue Mizzou, LSU, and Aggy...sadly the others might be very attractive since they are all big schools with big athletic budgets who underachieve with ball

Texas, OU (this is a good thing that there is not a lot of close comp)

And then the ACC...Syracuse, Louisville, NC St, GTech, (don't get why Miami can't excel)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The key phrase is "one can make the case."

All those programs have more history, but if we can become the Gonzaga of the AAC, then we will always have a seat at the table for basketball. Our conference is having a down year, but so long as Cincinnati, UCONN, Memphis, Houston, Temple, UCF and Tulsa are competitive we will be a four bid league. In addition we have great work life balance compared to the blue bloods. You are in a top city, and you can sell the academics. Money isn't as much of an issue compared to our football program. Our sanctions have hurt us more.

In my opinion, everything is subjective. the blue bloods are: Duke, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, & UCLA (UCLA and Indiana aren't modern blue bloods, they have been recently tier 2 or 3 programs). Next tier is UCONN, michigan, Michigan state, Louisville, Ohio state, Arizona, Florida, Villanova, Syracuse and Gonzaga (there are others im probably forgetting but I made my point).

For many of the Tier 2 programs, one coach consistently winning is what made all the difference. Jank could be that steady hand at SMU. While I know Duke has had success before coach K, they could easily go down such as Indiana without the right coach. NCAA basketball is really a what have you done for me lately league due to the one and done situation.

You don't need P5 money to be competitive in NCAA basketball. We have all the facilities the P5 have. We just need tourney runs and to start getting a pipeline to the NBA again

[sadderbudweiser]

You're bringing tiers to my eyes!?

[PonyLawExpress]

You can make a case that SMU is as good a job if not better then pretty much every school not named duke, unc, Kansas, or Kentucky.

You are insane!

UCLA, Oregon, Arizona

Indiana, Ohio St., Mich, Mich. St, Maryland, Purdue, ILL, Wisconsin and Iowa

Florida is the sole SEC rep. But you can argue Mizzou, LSU, and Aggy...sadly the others might be very attractive since they are all big schools with big athletic budgets who underachieve with ball

Texas, OU (this is a good thing that there is not a lot of close comp)

And then the ACC...Syracuse, Louisville, NC St, GTech, (don't get why Miami can't excel)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The key phrase is "one can make the case."

All those programs have more history, but if we can become the Gonzaga of the AAC, then we will always have a seat at the table for basketball. Our conference is having a down year, but so long as Cincinnati, UCONN, Memphis, Houston, Temple, UCF and Tulsa are competitive we will be a four bid league. In addition we have great work life balance compared to the blue bloods. You are in a top city, and you can sell the academics. Money isn't as much of an issue compared to our football program. Our sanctions have hurt us more.

In my opinion, everything is subjective. the blue bloods are: Duke, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, & UCLA (UCLA and Indiana aren't modern blue bloods, they have been recently tier 2 or 3 programs). Next tier is UCONN, michigan, Michigan state, Louisville, Ohio state, Arizona, Florida, Villanova, Syracuse and Gonzaga (there are others im probably forgetting but I made my point).

For many of the Tier 2 programs, one coach consistently winning is what made all the difference. Jank could be that steady hand at SMU. While I know Duke has had success before coach K, they could easily go down such as Indiana without the right coach. NCAA basketball is really a what have you done for me lately league due to the one and done situation.

You don't need P5 money to be competitive in NCAA basketball. We have all the facilities the P5 have. We just need tourney runs and to start getting a pipeline to the NBA again

I agree with your primary point, which is outside of a blue blood SMU can be every bit as desireable (not better) of a job than most other programs, and I agree. As Jank has said it's a sleeping giant program. Not saying it's better, but if you're winning consistently and going to tourney and competiting consistently, I think the point is we have great facilties, academics, good city, and with recent successs we are good hoops job.

[longbuzzer]

Isn't it nice that other schools want our coaches.

Spent a lot of time following the Stangs when that wasn't the case.

[Pony_Law]

Deucetz made a more detailed argument. Just to add a bit more, think about it as a job not an athletic competition. SMU can offer a competitive salary, good facilities, relative job security (consistent tournament appearances is enough and the AAC should be pretty easy to get a tournament bid for the next 4+ years), all resources you need to achieve that job security (recruiting resources in financial support and location), and you get to live in a vibrant major city with low taxes, good schools, and a relatively low cost of living.

Very few P5 programs can offer that combination. Most don't give you the job security. Most are located in 3rd or 4th tier cities. Also except for true blue bloods no one is entitled to be good every year, remember 15 years ago when Illinois was going undefeated and winning the big 10 all the time? How has that been going? We will see how long Wisconsin stays up now that their program building coach has left. Butler has been straight better than IU for almost 15 years.

[SMUstangs22]

What if Indiana comes calling? They are having an awful year. You did list them as blue blood