Quaoarsking
03-21-2015, 09:45 PM
YEAR
Record
Conference
C Tourn
NCAA Tournament Result
03-04
11
17
0.393
7
11
0.389
04-05
18
11
0.621
11
7
0.611
11 seed
Lost to 6 Texas Tech in first round
05-06
32
7
0.821
14
4
0.778
Champ
2 seed
Lost in Championship Game; beat 1 Memphis to get to F4
06-07
30
6
0.833
15
3
0.833
2 seed
Lost in Final Four; beat 1 Kansas to get to F4
07-08
35
4
0.897
16
2
0.889
Champ
1 seed
Lost in Final Four to 1 Memphis
08-09
26
9
0.743
13
5
0.722
6 seed
Lost to 3 Villanova in Round of 32
09-10
14
18
0.438
8
10
0.444
10-11
23
11
0.676
13
5
0.722
7 seed
Lost to 2 Florida in Round of 32
11-12
19
14
0.576
11
7
0.611
12-13
25
10
0.714
13
5
0.722
Finals
6 seed
Upset by Minnesota in First Round
In 10 seasons:
Won 3 regular season Pac-10 titles
Also finished second twice
Finished above .500 in the Pac-10 eight times
Two Pac-10 Tournament championships
Seven NCAA Tournament appearances
Only upset one time, while defeating 1 seeds twice
Three Final Four appearances
15-7 in NCAA Tournament games
0 fights in the stands
0 players telling the media UCLA lost because it got outcoached
Had the foresight to pull Renardo Sidney's offer when he wanted to commit
People have said that "late Howland" worse than Stansbury, but that's not really true either. Just looking at Howland's last 5 years, you see:
3 NCAA Tournament appearances (60%). That's compared to Stanbury's 43%, and 29% in the second half of Stansbury's tenure (if we want to compare second half to second half).
3 seasons with a .722 conference winning percentage. Stans only had that high of a winning percentage twice his entire tenure (compared to Howland's 5 in fewer years, if we compare entire tenures), and once in the second half of his career, if we're comparing second halves.
The only way to make Howland even comparable to Stansbury, much less "worse" is to compare his worst 5-year stretch at UCLA (his last 5) to Stansbury's best 5-year stretch at MSU (years 3 through 7). In that horribly skewed comparison, it's still pretty similar -- Stans was .6125 in the conference, Howland was .6444. Stansbury made 4 NCAA Tournaments in his best 5-year stretch, compared to the 3 in Howland's worst, but Stans was 3-4 (.4286) in those tournaments to Howland's 2-3 (.4000) and Stansbury was upset by lower seeds 3 times, compared to Howland's 1.
And that's just Stansbury's best 5-year strech to Howland's worst. Any other comparison between the two isn't even close. Howland is everything we wished Stansbury was:
Stansbury is a good recruiter, but Howland is better. Howland put 19 guys into the NBA in 10 years at UCLA. While yes, it is UCLA and that makes recruiting easier, Howland put enough guys in there that his record should appeal to high caliber recruits. Who knows if Howland can pull Newman or not (have they ever spoken before?), but you've got to think it's the type of hire that would give us a chance. (By comparison, Stansbury put 6 guys into the NBA in 14 years, and of those, only 1 (Roberts) played more than just a few games here and there.
Stansbury was a decent floor coach, but Howland was better. Stansbury was pretty outstanding the Road Warriors year, but Howland had a bunch of years like that -- he literally finished first or second in the Pac-10 half of his years out there. Stans's third best conference record (10-6, .625, in 2001-02) would have been Howland's 7th best conference record.
Stansbury was severely lacking in the NCAA Tournament, going to 4-6 with 3 upset losses on the first weekend, and never defeating a higher seed. Howland went 15-7 at UCLA with only 1 upset loss and 2 upset wins. In addition, Stansbury's teams lost a home game in the NIT to a lower-seeded team in three of his 5 NIT appearances.
Howland did have some discipline issues late in his career, just like Stansbury. If that weren't true, we'd have no chance to hire him -- in fact, he'd probably still be at UCLA. I think he's learned his lesson, and even if he hasn't, the off-court issues can't be any worse than they were under Stansbury, and the on-court product is practically guaranteed to be better than Late Stans, and probably will be better than the Stans Golden Age.
Howland's certainly not the only guy out there who would be a good hire, but why hire a mid-major coach and hope he can recruit and coach in the SEC when you can hire a guy who's already coached at a very high level? Bruce Pearl was the splash hire last offseason, and Ben Howland is the splash hire this offseason. Let's hire Howland and enjoy appearing in multiple NCAA Tournaments over the next decade.
Record
Conference
C Tourn
NCAA Tournament Result
03-04
11
17
0.393
7
11
0.389
04-05
18
11
0.621
11
7
0.611
11 seed
Lost to 6 Texas Tech in first round
05-06
32
7
0.821
14
4
0.778
Champ
2 seed
Lost in Championship Game; beat 1 Memphis to get to F4
06-07
30
6
0.833
15
3
0.833
2 seed
Lost in Final Four; beat 1 Kansas to get to F4
07-08
35
4
0.897
16
2
0.889
Champ
1 seed
Lost in Final Four to 1 Memphis
08-09
26
9
0.743
13
5
0.722
6 seed
Lost to 3 Villanova in Round of 32
09-10
14
18
0.438
8
10
0.444
10-11
23
11
0.676
13
5
0.722
7 seed
Lost to 2 Florida in Round of 32
11-12
19
14
0.576
11
7
0.611
12-13
25
10
0.714
13
5
0.722
Finals
6 seed
Upset by Minnesota in First Round
In 10 seasons:
Won 3 regular season Pac-10 titles
Also finished second twice
Finished above .500 in the Pac-10 eight times
Two Pac-10 Tournament championships
Seven NCAA Tournament appearances
Only upset one time, while defeating 1 seeds twice
Three Final Four appearances
15-7 in NCAA Tournament games
0 fights in the stands
0 players telling the media UCLA lost because it got outcoached
Had the foresight to pull Renardo Sidney's offer when he wanted to commit
People have said that "late Howland" worse than Stansbury, but that's not really true either. Just looking at Howland's last 5 years, you see:
3 NCAA Tournament appearances (60%). That's compared to Stanbury's 43%, and 29% in the second half of Stansbury's tenure (if we want to compare second half to second half).
3 seasons with a .722 conference winning percentage. Stans only had that high of a winning percentage twice his entire tenure (compared to Howland's 5 in fewer years, if we compare entire tenures), and once in the second half of his career, if we're comparing second halves.
The only way to make Howland even comparable to Stansbury, much less "worse" is to compare his worst 5-year stretch at UCLA (his last 5) to Stansbury's best 5-year stretch at MSU (years 3 through 7). In that horribly skewed comparison, it's still pretty similar -- Stans was .6125 in the conference, Howland was .6444. Stansbury made 4 NCAA Tournaments in his best 5-year stretch, compared to the 3 in Howland's worst, but Stans was 3-4 (.4286) in those tournaments to Howland's 2-3 (.4000) and Stansbury was upset by lower seeds 3 times, compared to Howland's 1.
And that's just Stansbury's best 5-year strech to Howland's worst. Any other comparison between the two isn't even close. Howland is everything we wished Stansbury was:
Stansbury is a good recruiter, but Howland is better. Howland put 19 guys into the NBA in 10 years at UCLA. While yes, it is UCLA and that makes recruiting easier, Howland put enough guys in there that his record should appeal to high caliber recruits. Who knows if Howland can pull Newman or not (have they ever spoken before?), but you've got to think it's the type of hire that would give us a chance. (By comparison, Stansbury put 6 guys into the NBA in 14 years, and of those, only 1 (Roberts) played more than just a few games here and there.
Stansbury was a decent floor coach, but Howland was better. Stansbury was pretty outstanding the Road Warriors year, but Howland had a bunch of years like that -- he literally finished first or second in the Pac-10 half of his years out there. Stans's third best conference record (10-6, .625, in 2001-02) would have been Howland's 7th best conference record.
Stansbury was severely lacking in the NCAA Tournament, going to 4-6 with 3 upset losses on the first weekend, and never defeating a higher seed. Howland went 15-7 at UCLA with only 1 upset loss and 2 upset wins. In addition, Stansbury's teams lost a home game in the NIT to a lower-seeded team in three of his 5 NIT appearances.
Howland did have some discipline issues late in his career, just like Stansbury. If that weren't true, we'd have no chance to hire him -- in fact, he'd probably still be at UCLA. I think he's learned his lesson, and even if he hasn't, the off-court issues can't be any worse than they were under Stansbury, and the on-court product is practically guaranteed to be better than Late Stans, and probably will be better than the Stans Golden Age.
Howland's certainly not the only guy out there who would be a good hire, but why hire a mid-major coach and hope he can recruit and coach in the SEC when you can hire a guy who's already coached at a very high level? Bruce Pearl was the splash hire last offseason, and Ben Howland is the splash hire this offseason. Let's hire Howland and enjoy appearing in multiple NCAA Tournaments over the next decade.