Hotline mailbag: Is Kelvin Sampson as one of the Pac-12’s best ever? What’s the value of 5-star recruits?
The Hotline mailbag is published each Friday. Send questions to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or hit me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline. Due to volume — and in some cases, the need for research — not all questions will be answered the week of submission. Thanks for your understanding.
Some questions have been edited for clarity and brevity.
Even though Kelvin Sampson’s Washington State tenure wasn’t spectacular, he clearly was on his way to becoming great. Where does he rank on your list of best-ever coaches to spend time in the conference (post-1978 expansion era)? — @ollievondoof
Terrific question, and the timing couldn’t be better given the performance of his Houston team against Arizona on Thursday night.
Any evaluation of coaching success must account for 1) the resources and access to recruits, 2) the state of the program when a given head coach takes charge and 3) his success over multiple seasons.
If our window is the Pac-10/12 era, which roughly coincidence with the end of the UCLA dynasty, we would slot Sampson on the third tier.
The Cougars were coming off four consecutive losing seasons, had limited resources and access to recruits, and yet Sampson built a 20-game winner that reached the NCAA Tournament before he left for Oklahoma.
And it’s worth noting that he was just 32 years old when he took charge in Pullman.
It was a prescient move by the Cougars, who have plenty of hits, and a few misses, when it comes to identifying rising stars in the coaching industry.
Would we declare Sampson one of the top-10 coaches in the expansion era (among those with extended tenures)?
Here’s our breakdown:
— The top tier is undoubtedly occupied by Lute Olson (Arizona), Mike Montgomery (Stanford and Cal), Dana Altman (Oregon), Ben Howland (UCLA) and Ralph Miller (Oregon State).
— The next level features Sean Miller (Arizona), Marv Harshman (Washington), George Raveling (WSU and USC) and Lorenzo Romar (Washington).
— The third group would include Jim Harrick (UCLA), Ernie Kent (Oregon years), Ben Braun (Cal) and Tad Boyle, who does a quality job year after year for Colorado.
Given WSU’s ascent to prominence under Sampson, a credible case could be made for placing him on the third tier.
Certainly, if we judged coaches on the entirety of their college careers, Sampson would be on the first level:
He has taken two different schools (Oklahoma and Houston) to the Final Four and been named Coach of the Year in three different Division I leagues (Pac-12, American and Big 12).
It would have been fascinating to watch the trajectory of the WSU program had he stuck around a few more years.
Aren’t basketball recruiting ratings fool’s gold? Five-star recruits are just passing through. The best teams are the ones that recruit good players, coach ’em up and watch them stay around four, five, even six years. Look at UCLA, Villanova, Miami, Arkansas. — @boscpenn83
Not sure I totally agree, particularly when it’s a five-star guard. Success in the NCAA Tournament is all about the perimeter.
Consider Gonzaga: The difference-maker for the Zags during their run to the championship game last year was Jalen Suggs, a one-and-done point guard. This year, they had a one-and-done big man (Chet Holmgren) and were bounced in the Sweet 16.
Arizona’s problem Thursday night? Outplayed out front, despite the best efforts of wing Bennedict Mathurin.
That said, it doesn’t matter how an elite perimeter unit is put together. Baylor used a veteran group to win the championship last year. Virginia did the same a few years ago.
The teams with the best guards are most likely to advance deep in the tournament. Whether they are one-and-dones or veterans is secondary.
Like many writers, you predict the inevitability of the 30-something team model for the top tier of college football — a mini-NFL, so to speak. Can you put on your Nostradamus hat and guess how that will play out?What percentage of fans permanently tune out because their team didn’t make the cut? — @keithdennis
I believe that’s the next step for the sport, but it could take a decade or more to get there. It’s far more likely that the top 30 or 32 football programs break off than we see four 16-team super-conferences.
The drivers will be media money — the networks will pay through the roof and halfway to the Moon for the broadcast rights — and athlete compensation.
Each month, college sports moves closer to players becoming full-time employees (even though that existence would be detrimental to 99 percent of the athletes across all Division I sports).
With football, everything is more, bigger, faster and greater. At some point, the economic pressure on the schools will force a cash grab for the ages, with ESPN, Fox and other networks clearing the path.
What becomes of the other 90-something teams in major college football? They would start to resemble FCS programs in appearance and resources. The level of interest among fans could suffer, which makes the competitive stakes an existential piece.
If the sport is structured like the English Premier League, with advancement and relegation, the stakes would bolster interest at the secondary level.
The aspect of the sport that would change the least is the distribution of talent. The top programs already get the best players. As long as the NFL exists, so will a pipeline for hundreds of draft hopefuls each year. Scholarship limitations would ensure those 90-something teams are able to stock their rosters.
Should the Pac-12 follow the SEC scheduling model with three cupcake games per year? What are the pros and cons of sticking to the current model? What do potential media partners want heading into new TV contract negotiations for 2024? — @TerryTerry79
I’ll address the last question first: Media partners want premium, needle-moving content.
The number of cable TV homes within the conference footprint is not as important as it was 10 years ago — and not as important as providing network partners with must-see matchups will be in the next contract cycle.
Given that, the Pac-12 cannot increase the number of cupcake opponents that appear on each team’s schedule. Only the head coaches, whose job security is tied to won-loss record, would benefit from more cupcakes.
Unless the conference can be assured of adding a quality opponent, it needs to stick with the nine-game rotation.
And unless schools want ticket sales to suffer, they must continue scheduling at least one A-level non-conference opponent each season.
I’ll leave you with this: The SEC is seriously considering changing its schedule model.
You can’t have 16 teams and play eight league games — the math doesn’t work. Teams in opposite divisions would go a decade without playing each other. (And everyone wants a piece of Texas.)
It would be fascinating to watch the Pac-12 drop to eight conference games just when the SEC jumps to nine, but the former move is unlikely to happen unless the Big Ten does the same.
In that situation, there would be no cupcakes involved.
What are your first-year projections for Washington coach Kalen DeBoer? Do you think this group can reach the success that Chris Petersen and his crew did? — @Ansel_Easton
We will take a deep dive (multiple deep dives, in fact) into Washington’s outlook for the 2022 season over the coming months. But I can state without equivocation that the Huskies should be … better.
They should win six or seven games, perhaps even eight. The performance in 2021 was artificially low, a poor reflection of the talent.
Longer term, I am not convinced UW will replicate the Petersen-era success, which featured a playoff berth and three consecutive New Year’s Bowls (2016-18).
One reason: Petersen is a Hall of Fame coach.
Another reason: The talent-acquisition game has changed.
I need proof the Huskies can recruit playoff-level talent before projecting them to return to previous heights.
Why are you so negative while covering this conference? We have our problems, but why do you seem to always look at everything as the glass is half empty? — @AutzenAudibles
Fair question — one that comes our way occasionally. And I’ll offer the same explanation here: The Hotline’s coverage is intended to track reasonably with the results.
The Pac-12 has struggled on the field and court, not only this season but for many seasons (with the 2021 NCAA Tournament as the exception).
As a result, we attempted to explain the reasons for the struggles and the long-haul implications.
Meanwhile, the conference office experienced a series of missteps under the previous administration. Those could not be ignored.
Not every story has been “negative” — we produce a lot of content — but I understand why some readers might view the sweep of our coverage in that fashion.
One final point, and it’s vital. If the conference were thriving on the field and the court, we would have the same goal: Explain the reasons for the success and the long-haul implications.
Only in that case, instead of being viewed as overly negative by some, we would undoubtedly be considered too positive.
Appreciate the question.
Who is your least favorite fanbase to deal with in the Pac-12 and why? — @PacFight
Easy answer: All of them.
Also: None of them.
Although there are varying levels of passion across the schools and the sports, which naturally leads to differing levels of sensitivity, fans are fans and without them the Hotline would not exist.
So we are forever grateful to all of them, even to those who don’t read our content.
Support the Hotline: Receive three months of unlimited access for just 99 cents. Yep, that’s 99 cents for 90 days, with the option to cancel anytime. Details are here, and thanks for your support.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline
*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.
