Should I Stay Or Should I Go?

The college basketball coaching carousel has reared its ugly head once again, this time in the form of Billy Donovan leaving Florida for the Orlando Magic head coaching job. There are two moral questions here, the first of which is whether or not Donovan did the "right" thing by leaving Florida for the Magic job. The answer to this is simple: Donovan is free to take whatever job he wants. America is a free market economy, and Donovan's skills will be more highly compensated by Orlando. Case closed. The second question though, is where the waters begin to muddy: did Donovan handle his departure in a moral way? The answer to that one, is a resounding no. Donovan took a page or two out of the Billy Gillespie/Bob Huggins handbook with his exit strategy, saying just last week that he wouldn't be interested in an NBA coaching position, and also sticking around just long enough to sign Jai Lucas two weeks ago. When interviewed yesterday, Jai had this to say:

"That's a big blow, because you know, that's who I was coming in and expecting to play for. ..."

"It's kind of weird, because (Donovan) told me he wasn't going anywhere. But things happen, and I'm sure if he does take it it's the best thing he could do for his family."

There is the rub. It isn't wrong of Donovan to take a better job: it is wrong of him to mislead both the media and recruits. This development is especially dishertening in Lucas' case, as his prolonged recruiting process was a result of him trying to avoid this exact situation.

So now the question is thus: Can Florida hold together this recruiting class? This is not a simple question, as it depends greatly on who Florida brings in as their new coach, but it is indeed an extremely important question. With the loss of Noah, Humphrey, Horford, Green, and Brewer, the incoming freshman class is going to be relied upon to be the backbone of the 2007-2008 team and any defections could severely hamper any chance that the Gators have at making the NCAA tournament next year. The Gator's class has five players, so here is a quick look at each of their situations:

Nick Calathes: Calathes is the best prospect in the group, an athletic guard that can play both the 1 and the 2. He also happens to be the recruit most certain to stay, as he has had an oral committment with Florida since his sophmore year and is a Florida native.

Chandler Parsons: Parsons, a 6-8 small forward with a good shooting touch, will probably follow Calathes lead. Parsons is also an in state recruit, and it is very unlikely that he would jump ship.

Alex Tyus: Tyus is a power forward, more in the Noah mold than the Horford mold. He is from Ohio, and there is some speculation that he might reopen his recruiting. Tyus was also offered scholarships at Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, Miami, Ohio State, and Washington.

Adam Allen: Allen is the least highly regarded recruit of the class, a shooting guard and a Florida native. He was qouted in a New York Times article as saying that he would likely stay with Florida since they were leaning towards hiring VCU coach and former Florida assistant Anthony Grant. Speaking of Grant, Allen said "He’s a great coach and I have a lot of respect for him". If Florida gets Grant, Allen stays.

Jai Lucas: Now here my friends, is where the plot thickens. Lucas would fill the Gator's need at point guard, and allow Calathes to play out on the wing. If Lucas were to leave, it would put Florida in a very bad point guard situation and also might influence Tyus to depart. If Lucas were to leave, it would seem that the obvious choice for his next destination would be Kentucky. Kentucky is in need of a point guard as well, and Lucas would join an extremely talented recruiting class featuring blue chip prospects Patrick Patterson and Alex Legion. Lucas' father has been quoted as saying that Jai will "see who the new coaches are and re-evaluate the situation".

So how is this going to pan out? Will it be a replay of the Kelvin Sampson situation when he departed Oklahoma? It seems to me that the dominoes all begin in one spot: Richmond, VA., and more specifically VCU's campus. If Anthony Grant signs on quickly then Florida will likely be able to hang on to at least four of their recruits if not all. (Lucas being the lone defection in that scenario) Now, there is a somewhat unsettling quote in the New York Times article:

“I am just so excited about what we were doing here,” Christina Grant said in a telephone interview. “To move, it just wouldn’t ... ” She paused. “I feel tight right now. We have so much to do here.”

So what if Grant did not take the job? That is the doomsday scenario for Gator fans, as they would then be facing a future where they could lose two to three of their recruits and be looking at the very real prospect of missing the NCAA tournament next season. So how will things play out? Nobody knows for certain, but is likely that the coaching situation, and as a result the recruit situation, will be resolved before the end of next week. Until then, the eyes of Gator nation will be on Richmond.

The Cautionary Tale of Kelvin Sampson

Coaching changes in college basketball are often quick and suprising. Witness Tubby Smith's bolt from Kentucky to Minnesota, or Billy Gillispie leaving for Kentucky directly after having negotiated a contract extension (and raise) with Texas A&M. These types of moves leave the teams left by the departing coaches confused, and the recruits brought in by the coach in an even greater cloud of disarray. Am I loyal to the coach, the man whose plan and regime I had ascribed to when I accepted my scholarship? Or do my loyalties truly lie with the college to which I have pledged my services? This conundrum came to prominence recently in the wake of Bob Huggins leaving Kansas State for his alma matter at West Virginia. Specualtion ran rampant that Michael Beasley, the number one prospect in the entire nation and the crown jewel of Huggin's #1 rated recruiting class at Kansas State, would follow his coach to WVU or otherwise seek to be let loose of his national letter of intent. In the end Kansas State was spared from this reality, and the school has been able to hold Huggin's recruiting class together for a run at a Big 12 conference that has seen many of the top teams weakened by graduation and early defections.

Not every story wraps itself up so neatly however

Sometimes when a coach leaves, he sets off a series of shockwaves that resonate across the country.

Meet Kelvin Sampson.

Let's take a little trip back in time. March 29th, 2006 to be exact. On that day it was announced that Kelvin Sampson would be leaving Oklahoma, the school that he had taken to 11 NCAA Tournaments, in order to take the coaching job at Indiana that had been vacated by Mike Davis. The move was a complete shock to Oklahoma, as Sampson had no ties to Indiana that would seem to pull him away form the Sooners. It was revealed soon thereafter however, that Sampson may have been running from his past, as the NCAA came down with sanctions against Sampson for a series of recruiting violations involving phone calls that had occured under Sampson's watch at Oklahoma. Oklahoma acted quickly and hired Jeff Capel from VCU within two weeks to replace Sampson. The shockwaves however, had already begun to spread.

It has been mentioned many times that the three elite recruits Sampson had signed for his 2006 recruiting class were released from their letters of intent to Oklahoma. The identity of those recruits, and where they subsequently went, has not been as widely noted. The three recruits were the top players from what at the time was a national top 5 recruiting class for the Sooners. Once word of Sampson's departue got out, his top recruits were not far behind. All three recruits were rated in the top 100 by Rivals.com, and played 3 different positions, which goes to say that Oklahoma lost a lot of elite talent all across their lineup that day.

So who were these three? Well, I am assuming you have heard of the first player if you followed college basketball last season, and that would be Villanova scoring sensation Scottie Reynolds. Reynolds selected Villanova over Michigan in late May, and stepped onto a Wildcats team that had holes in their lineup the size of buildings after the departure of Allan Ray, Kyle Lowry, and Randy Foye to the NBA. Reynolds leapt at the opportunity and became the team's second leading scorer at 14.8 ppg after a slow start to his freshman campaign. Down the stretch in the Big East schedule Reynolds began to reguarly throw in 20 point games, even going off for 40 in a game against UConn. Suffice it to say, I am sure Sooners fans would have liked to see him wearing an Oklahoma jersey instead of a Villanova one.

The second prospect that jumped ship landed in a bit of an ironic spot. 6 foot 10 inch PF Jeremy Mayfield chose UAB after getting out of his Oklahoma commit, and was greeted there by none other than the man that Sampson had gone to Indiana to replace, Mike Davis. Mayfield played interrmittently throughout his freshman year at UAB, but still posted respectable averages of 4.6 pts and 4.1 rebs per contest in only 17.3 minutes of action a night. Mayfield should play a more prominent role next season, when he is joined by...oh, is that the sound of another dominoe falling?... Indiana transfer Robert Vaden. You see, Vaden is a big Mike Davis fan. Big enough to leave Indiana and follow Davis to UAB. Vaden is no slouch either, rather quite the opposite, having averaged 13.5 pts, 5.5 rebs, and 3.5 asts during his sophmore year at Indiana. Can you feel the shockwaves now?

The third prospect to leave Oklahoma, and the most highly touted, was 6 foot 8 SF Damion James. You have probably heard of him too, although he was overshadowed last season by a slightly more prominent freshman on his own team...one Kevin Durant. James quietly had a very good year for the Longhorns, chipping in 7.6 pts and 7.2 rebs a game, including 4 double-doubles. Also, with Durant leaving James should step in for the lion's share of minutes and shots left in his wake.

The departure of Kelvin Sampson led directly to exodus of three elite recruits from the Oklahoma program, and his departure also directly allowed three other programs to bolster their records for years to come by acquiring those same players. Oklahoma was not nearly as fortunate last season, limping through the year on their way to a 16-15 finish. So what is to be learned from this sad tale, of the lost promise of an Oklahoma program that had what could have been, with Reynolds, James, and Mayfield in the fold, a possible run at a final four? I suppose that it goes to show that perhaps the greatest trait that a school should look for, above recruiting or X's and O's, is getting a coach with loyalty and integrity, lest they see their hard work and hopes scatterred to the wind like so many 5 star grains of sand.

*Disclaimer: Well, it seems as if I have managed to anger both Oklahoma and Indiana fans with this post. (And been accused of being an Illini fan?) So just as an explanation...1. I have never had a rooting interest for or against any of the above teams...2. As the title says, this is meant as a cautionary look at the type of fallout that can occur when a big time college coach leaves a program, not a rant against anyone in particular. That is all.

Rivera vs. Rooney: A Game Where Nobody Wins

So let me ask; what do you think when you hear that the defensive coordinator of one of the top 4-3 defenses in the NFL interviews for the head coaching vacancy for a team with millions of dollars in cap space committed to players hand-picked to play in a 3-4 defense? What do you think when it happens twice in a month to the same man? Are the aforementioned 3-4 defense teams looking to change course in midstream, and attempting to change their roster and philosophy to the 4-3? Probably not, considering the fact that the first team hired a different defensive coordinator to be their head coach, one that ran the 3-4. So why has this 4-3 coordinator, who logically would seem not to have any chance whatsoever to win the head coaching position of the 3-4 teams, been interviewed for the positions? The answer is a little thing called the Rooney Rule, and it is acting as a disservice to the coordinator in question, Ron Rivera.

The Rooney rule was designed in order to promote the hiring of minority head coaches in the NFL. It stipulates that every NFL team must interview at least one minority head coaching candidate for a head coaching vacancy, or otherwise face fines. Do not get me wrong; I think that in spirit this rule is a very good one, as it is foolish to ignore the discrepancy in the NFL between the number of minority coaches and the number of minority players. It just doesn't add up. The dark side of this rule however, has manifested itself this off-season, as Ron Rivera has conducted a number of head coaching interviews. Ron Rivera is an excellent football coach, and has run one of the best defenses in the NFL in recent years. He is a more than amply qualified head coaching candidate, of that there is no dispute. What does seem strange however, is why two teams, the Cowboys and the Chargers, that seemingly have no use for Rivera and his 4-3 principles, would interview him anyway. This is where the Rooney Rule fails, when a man like Ron Rivera makes the circuit of head coaching interviews merely to fill a spot. It is disservice to both the man and the integrity of the league.

First, it is necessary to understand the fundamental differences between the 4-3, and the 3-4 that the Chargers and Cowboys have been running in order to see that Rivera has no chance when interviewing with these teams. The 4-3 depends upon having four down linemen, whose main task is to occupy the offensive linemen in order for the linebackers behind them to make plays, as well as to play either one or two gap responsibility. (i.e. They are responsible for anything coming through their respective gaps) On a pass the speedy defensive ends are mainly responsible for pass pressure, with the defensive tackles bull-rushing up the middle. Linebackers in this scheme have to be quick on the outside, in order to run down any sweeps off tackle. The main difference between the concept of the 4-3 and the 3-4 lies with playmaking responsibility. In a 4-3 pass pressure comes from the defensive line, and they are also expected to make a large number of tackles stopping the run. In a 3-4 however, the lone nose tackle and the defensive ends main responsibility is to take up as many blockers as possible in order to free up the linebackers to make most of the tackles against the run and provide most of the pressure on pass plays. The true success of the modern 3-4 however, lies in the ability of the defensive coordinator to disguise what his defense is doing pre-snap. One of the major prerequisites to effectively deceiving a defense is having outside linebackers that are fast and strong enough to drop into zone coverage, speed rush the QB, and play the run as a down lineman on any given play. Think Shawne Merriman. Think DeMarcus Ware. Don't think Lance Briggs.

To further show the philosophical difference in defenses, take for example the number of sacks by the linebacking corps of the three teams in question. Rivera's 4-3 defense generated one sack from the linebacker position for the entire season. One. The Cowboys, led by prototypical 3-4 linebacker DeMarcus Ware, had 20.5 sacks from their linebackers. The Chargers had 42.5. To state the obvious, Rivera does not run the type of defense that would fully realize the potential of players like Ware and Merriman. To state something even more obvious, Merriman and Ware are not going anywhere anytime soon. So it begs the question; Did Rivera ever really have a chance to get either of those two head coaching jobs? Or were they merely interviews motivated by courtesy and the Rooney Rule?

The Cowboys job went to Wade Phillips, a defensive coordinator that ran a 3-4, and the Chargers job has just gone to Norv Turner, an offensive coordinator with a reputation for molding quarterbacks. And who might you ask, have the Chargers tagged as their next defensive coordinator? Ted Cottrell who coincidentally is known for running a, you guessed it, 3-4 defense. Hopefully next off-season Rivera will be able to get interviews for jobs that he actually has a fair chance to win, instead of wasting his time due to Rooney Rule interviews.

Run, Run, Pass, Pink Slip; The End of MartyBall

So Marty Schottenheimer was fired yesterday. Well, it was obviously going to happen sooner or later, right? I mean, it seems like my entire life every sportscaster and sports analyst I have ever heard speak has had one thing to say about Marty: “He can't win in the playoffs”. Never mind the fact that in order to lose 13 playoff games a coach has to first get to the playoffs 13 times, a feat that only two other NFL coaches have ever been able to match. (Don Shula and Tom Landry) It has been well documented that Marty's career playoff record stands at a disappointing 5-13. It has not been nearly as well documented however, how exactly Marty lost those games. So I decided to do a little digging and find out for myself: how exactly did Marty lose 13 times?

After looking through the annals of NFL playoff history (also known as pro-football-reference.com), one major commonality stood out from among Marty's losses with the Browns, Chiefs, and Chargers: Marty's teams were beaten by teams with better QBs, and in most cases by vastly better QBs. To break it down a little further, Marty has lost playoff games to Dan Marino three times, John Elway three times, Jim Kelly twice, Warren Moon once, and Tom Brady once. That is 10 losses to Hall of Famers. (Yes I am counting Brady as a HOFer...you disagree?) And whom, might you ask, did Marty have going for him under center in these games? Well, since I thought you might ask, here is a list of the QB match ups in all 13 of Marty's losses:

Bernie Kosar at Dan Marino
Bernie Kosar vs. John Elway
Bernie Kosar at John Elway
Bernie Kosar vs. Warren Moon
Steve Deberg at Dan Marino
Steve Deberg at Jim Kelly
Dave Krieg at Stan Humphries
Joe Montana at Jim Kelly
Joe Montana at Dan Marino
Steve Bono vs. Jim Harbaugh
Elvis Grbac vs. John Elway
Drew Brees vs. Chad Pennington
Phillip Rivers vs. Tom Brady

To further compound this point, of the three non HOF quarterbacks that Marty lost to, two of them (Humphries and Harbaugh) had the best year of their careers the year they beat Marty, both making their sole Pro Bowl appearance that same year. Now, the other thing you might notice looking at the list of quarterbacks is that Marty's were not exactly the cream of the crop. Montana was on the downswing of his career when he joined Marty in Kansas City, and with even a depleted Montana Marty was able to go 2-2 in the playoffs with Joe at the helm. The rest of the list includes the overwhelmingly average (Kosar and Grbac), the good but young (Brees and Rivers), and the downright forgettable (Bono, Krieg, and Deberg). Now, let me riddle you this my dear reader. How many coaches do you think would have won those 13 games with those matchups? Especially after the emphasis that has been placed, particularly in this past post season, on needing a talented and experienced QB to win in the playoffs.

The other major trait that stands out in Marty's losses is the margin of the games. Nine of the thirteen losses were by less than seven points. This of course, is where the chorus of sports pundits will begin to sing you to sleep with a steady chorus of “Martyball baby, just run the rock, if we are up, just run out the clock”. Granted, it is a staple of Schottenheimer coached teams to run the ball on first and second down with the lead, and then to throw on third down. Run, run, pass, punt, repeat. But is this any different than the common NFL coaching strategy? Would any other NFL coach this side of Mike Martz NOT run the ball with the lead? And after seeing exactly what Marty had at QB in his playoff runs, would you as a coach trust your hopes to the likes of Kosar, Grbac, and Bono? Perhaps it was not Marty's strategy that was to blame, but rather quarterbacks that he had that were incapable of converting pass plays on third down. In addition, in three of the losses Marty's kicker missed a FG late in the fourth or OT that would have won or tied the game. (Nate Kaeding's 54 yarder against the Pats this past postseason to tie in the 4th, Kaeding's 40 yarder two years ago to win in OT against the Jets, and Nick Lowery's 52 yarder to win against the Dolphins in 1990) Also to remember from the most recent loss to New England was Marlon McCree's fumbled interception on fourth down late in the fourth quarter, followed four plays later by the Patriot's game winning touchdown. No reasonable person can blame Marty for McCree's blunder, or for his kickers missing clutch kicks. Those types of things are out of a coach's hands.

I suppose this all goes to say that you shouldn't always take every stat you hear bandied about entirely at face value. Yes, Schottenheimer has only won 28% of his post season games as a head coach. He has also however, won 61% of his regular season contests and taken 13 different teams to the playoffs. I would prefer to have a coach with that record, who has lost close playoff games throughout his career to some of the greatest quarterbacks of our generation, to some hot commodity coordinator or rising college coaching star. If Marty was ever paired with an elite signal caller, I would dare say that he would break his post season curse. It's a shame Marty won't get that opportunity in San Diego, where Philip Rivers seems to be only a year or two of maturation away from being the stud QB in his prime that Marty has been missing his entire coaching career.