Which program got the biggest gift

**ruxCYtable** · 04-04-2011, 09:06 AM

Getting rid of a terrible coach without a buyout:

**CycoCyclone** · 04-04-2011, 09:16 AM

no buyout and we have the mayor

**greatshu** · 04-05-2011, 09:09 AM

We got $$$ to get rid of coach that we no longer needed/couldn't deliver what we asked for.

What else can you more ask for?

**Clonefan94** · 04-05-2011, 09:12 AM

Getting paid to get rid of McD was the ultimate win!

**Cyclonepride** · 04-05-2011, 09:14 AM

34 to 1.....

Didn't see that coming

**UNIGuy4Cy** · 04-05-2011, 09:16 AM

We are ISU fans so of course us. Miami and Iowa are doormats in basketball anyways, at least we have accomplished something in recent memory.

**hawkeyeh8r** · 04-05-2011, 09:21 AM

43-2 now...not shocked by this one. at least alford helped iowa win most seasons. no idea about haith but im glad to see mizzou hired what appears to be a bad coach

**CycloneErik** · 04-05-2011, 09:27 AM

This seems easy. Alford had some good teams, and Lickliter didn't pan out at all.

Miami doesn't have any history outside of Leonard Hamilton, and that was 7 years ago now.

We've been highly competitive for a long stretch, or at least were until the hire in question. We ended up with a coach that brought a fun style and a whole lot of hope. How can we not win this hands-down?

Well, and we're on Cyclone Fanatic.

**Tre4ISU** · 04-05-2011, 09:31 AM

Iowa doesn't even belong in the discussion IMO. Alford won.

**Cyclonestate78** · 04-05-2011, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by CycloneErik

This seems easy. Alford had some good teams, and Lickliter didn't pan out at all.

Miami doesn't have any history outside of Leonard Hamilton, and that was 7 years ago now.

We've been highly competitive for a long stretch, or at least were until the hire in question. We ended up with a coach that brought a fun style and a whole lot of hope. How can we not win this hands-down?

Well, and we're on Cyclone Fanatic.

With McDoormat you can sit back and look at his results and come up with 3 possible explanations...

1. The easy explanation... He is an absolutely terrible coach... A program killer. End of story.

2. The optimists explanation... He had bad luck from day 1 at ISU. It wasn't his fault.

3. The realists explanation... He recruited to lose, he taught his guys to rebound to lose, dribble to lose, pass to lose, play D to lose, and shoot to lose. The guy coached games to lose, subbed to lose, etc..... Hell... It's almost enough reason to think his intentions at ISU were to make sure that we would lose.

**jdoggivjc** · 04-05-2011, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclonestate78

With McDoormat you can sit back and look at his results and come up with 3 possible explanations...

1. The easy explanation... He is an absolutely terrible coach... A program killer. End of story.

2. The optimists explanation... He had bad luck from day 1 at ISU. It wasn't his fault.

3. The realists explanation... He recruited to lose, he taught his guys to rebound to lose, dribble to lose, pass to lose, play D to lose, and shoot to lose. The guy coached games to lose, subbed to lose, etc..... Hell... It's almost enough reason to think his intentions at ISU were to make sure that we would lose.

I don't agree with #3 at all, and I take a realistic approach on this. No coach goes into a job trying to lose as you would claim - they would be out of a job very quickly.

I think the truth lies somewhere between #1 and #2. Yes, he had bad luck early on - but you can't use 4 years worth of bad luck as a legitimate excuse. And you can't say he's a terrible coach and/or a program killer because he won at UNI and by all appearances he looks like he's going to win at Creighton.

The best explanation to me is this is a guy that was clueless when it comes to coaching at the power conference level. His biggest deficiency being not having any idea what kind of talent it takes to win in the Big 12. I think he overestimated the strength of the MVC and underestimated the strength of the Big 12. He thought, "hey, I got away with not having the world's greatest talent at UNI, and I was successful there. I don't need the best talent at ISU - my system will make up for any talent deficiencies." And why not? Wisconsin, who plays a "similar" system to how McDermott wanted to implement, is very successful without the greatest talent. The problem was most of the talent McDermott recruited to ISU wasn't even good enough to beat decent MVC teams, much less talent that could compete in the Big 12, and when he did recruit talent it wasn't compatible with the system he wanted to run.

On the surface what I said sounds an awful lot like what is being said in #3, but it's not - being clueless as to how to win at a certain level is not the same as coaching to intentionally lose, which is what #3 suggests.

**awd4cy** · 04-05-2011, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by yaman3

Iowa doesn't even belong in the discussion IMO. Alford won.

Also, Haith doesnt belong there either. He still had a winning overall record in 6 of his 7 years at Miami. The only one that belongs in this question is Iowa State and McDermott.

**Palmer** · 04-05-2011, 03:28 PM

McDermott...easy.

will go down as one of the worst coaches in Iowa State history.

and that is really saying something!

**brokenloginagain** · 04-05-2011, 03:31 PM

i think the biggest winner is creighton. Gmac is a really nice guy.

**Cyclonestate78** · 04-05-2011, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

I don't agree with #3 at all, and I take a realistic approach on this. No coach goes into a job trying to lose as you would claim - they would be out of a job very quickly.

I think the truth lies somewhere between #1 and #2. Yes, he had bad luck early on - but you can't use 4 years worth of bad luck as a legitimate excuse. And you can't say he's a terrible coach and/or a program killer because he won at UNI and by all appearances he looks like he's going to win at Creighton.

The best explanation to me is this is a guy that was clueless when it comes to coaching at the power conference level. His biggest deficiency being not having any idea what kind of talent it takes to win in the Big 12. I think he overestimated the strength of the MVC and underestimated the strength of the Big 12. He thought, "hey, I got away with not having the world's greatest talent at UNI, and I was successful there. I don't need the best talent at ISU - my system will make up for any talent deficiencies." And why not? Wisconsin, who plays a "similar" system to how McDermott wanted to implement, is very successful without the greatest talent. The problem was most of the talent McDermott recruited to ISU wasn't even good enough to beat decent MVC teams, much less talent that could compete in the Big 12, and when he did recruit talent it wasn't compatible with the system he wanted to run.

On the surface what I said sounds an awful lot like what is being said in #3, but it's not - being clueless as to how to win at a certain level is not the same as coaching to intentionally lose, which is what #3 suggests.

I was trying to go over the top to describe just how bad of a job he did at ISU.... so bad that he must have been trying to lose. I didn't figure I would need this...