Dan hurley
- Thread starter VC99
- Start date
Nope. UConn spent a TOTAL of $20,5 mil on men's AND women's hoops combined.
Also....with their NIL, UConn has 2 titles and a national championship game apperance within 4 years. I'd say they are getting what they need out of those players. UConn had three contributors on this years team that have won a championship game and one who has won two titles. Homegrown.
Fault had to start somewhere, so you can't compare him to Hurley. Dusty is a much better example given they started the same year. Built team 1 with a plan, two bigs. S16 (same as Pope). Year two, went out and built himself the best transfer front court in the country, refurbished Elliot Cadeau.
I'd sure like to see where I would fit in on that research, hell I might forget all about basketball.
Not to get political but Matt is involved with the grievance lobby. To people like Matt it’s more about perceived injustice and grievance not what makes the sport better. He knows it doesn’t make the sport better, he’s just looking at grievance because guys like Matt see it everywhere.
The truth is it not only hurts the sport but it actually hurts the kids. These people are not ready for the money, it hurts them long and short term, it eliminates the coaches invovled in the process which is not a good thing. It brings in leaches in the worst way possible who are there to eat off the kids and steal half or more of the money. The system is bad for everyone involved.
The idea that money = better is so short sighted and ridiculous, you have to be brain dead to think that’s how things work. And the sport being better is so laughable and ridiculous Matt is telling on himself by even suggesting it. It’s about perceived grievance to Matt, nothing to do with making the sport better. And I’m not taking shots just looking objectively at what I think his real belief is, it’s just masked as fairness and pretending it’s about making the sport better. A lot of those guys that pushed this for grievance have to then pretend it’s improved the sport, which is exactly what he’s doing. Because they were told over and over it would erode the sport and to get what they wanted they pretended it would help the system. Essentially he’s trying to act as if he wasn’t wrong and it’s helping when obviously it’s not helping anyone except agents and handlers.
I'm saying the portal is crazy, there aren't that many good players and all the top teams are desperate to land players with any talent (which freeman does have) but when meeting with the players and digging further, some coaches are finding out that it is mostly, if not all, about money.
Keep digging. Don't just stop when you find what you want. The Athletic, and other sources reported that they spent 34 million on all sports.
Yes - Hurley obviously has been a terrible investment for UConn.
NIL has made it even more imperative that the HC have a strong personality on top of scouting for their system/culture. Hurley has both. He sends the message that they will pay market or close to it but if it is all about money go elsewhere.
Hmmmmmmm, seems like his comments are much more nuanced than how you presented, in fact possibly the opposite. Direct Hurly quote:
“It’s not terrible in the sense of NIL. I think the NIL for the players is awesome. Our players made a lot of money this year and their commitment level was to the max. So the money didn’t make them lazy or hard to coach. They were awesome the whole year..."
https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/dan-hurley-college-basketball-programs-214135204.html
He does talk about how $$ makes decision-making (e.g. going pro) potentially more difficult for players, which makes sense.
BTW, there's a lot of interesting empirical research out there on intrinsic & extrinsic motivation. It makes sense that under the right conditions, that NIL $ would not necessarily negatively impact performance.
And the issue is, and it’s what people continue to not understand. I don’t know if people that have never been involved in business can understand it honestly. This is a leverage and risk business now. The reason mark sucks is because he has no leverage at all. He’s all risk. Hurley is little risk and all leverage. He’s got the name, history, he’s got the connections, he’s seen a the goat right now. That’s leverage, his players perform and look great, that’s leverage. Pope is the OPPOSITE of that. He’s pure risk, then add JMI, all risk. Kentucky right now is in a horrid position because the people in charge don’t know how to run a business like this.
Last edited:
This makes sense, and I think you're on to something. The money itself is not the problem...if the context is right it works well, if the context is wrong it works poorly. Unfortunately - I think ESPECIALLY for us as Kentucky fans - the NIL era has incentivized players understandably to treat college choice as a mere transaction. We of course want them to be all about the name across the chest, and so does Pope. That's all well and good, and even important. But if the culture isn't there on the business side of things, then in this era it all collapses. Hurly has developed a context under which NIL players thrive; so far, Pope has not. I hope he figures it out soon because I want the guy to succeed.
That’s exactly right. The name does mean something and players obviously would like to play where they’re famous, it pays off down the road with connections to boosters who take care of you, all the perks of the life of a rock star. All of that does matter. Players obviously prefer that because it’s human nature.
But if the Business side of it isn’t there then they can’t take advantage of it. Being a blue blood is an advantage is you have your ducks in a row on the business side. We don’t. And Pope is risky, that makes it almost impossible which is why you’re seeing what you’re seeing.
Kids are coming for three things:
1) $$ 2) Time 3) Coach
Not sure the name on the jersey matters that much.
Like I said it matters in terms of leverage. It definitely matters. Nobody would rather play at UT where you’re not known, boosters don’t entertain you past your playing days, you’re not famous, you’re not followed etc. human conditions dictate this. Blue bloods especially Kentucky give you added bonus. Number 1 it’s a blue blood, telling people you ply at Kentucky vs. Nebraska is a huge selling point. Alabama made a final four and their celebration had a few hundred people. Kentucky brings out 30K for a press conference. We fill stadiums for banner presentations. At Kentucky you are famous, and famous for life. I’ve been a lot of places in college basketball, someone like Oats is unknown walking around even in Tuscaloosa. Not many pay attention.
So yes it’s a huge selling point but this is still a risk / leverage business. Kentucky adds leverage but right now Pope is risky, JMI is risky, the situation is risky. If all of that lined up you’d see the same it’s always been to a large degree. We just have new variables. It used to be “they’re on TV every night” now the variable is the funds and business deals. Everyone is on TV. So that’s out.
The rest is pretty much the same all in all. For us to take advantage of the leverage UK gives you have to have the business side lined up. It’s not enough if you don’t. Money is money. But to say the brand has no leverage is false, obviously.
When the money still lined up, Kobe wanted to play for the lakers. Great example. If LA had bad business in place and a risky, unqualified coach, he probably wouldn’t have.
I think you're wrong. There is a reason every good coach passed up on UNC and they settled on Malone.
Plenty of sizzle at the other schools, doesn't have to be UK level.
$$, Coach, PT
Kobe is not a relevant example, at all.