My guess is that its just not economically feasible to fire Zook. The University of Illinois is in shambles in terms of budget, they are cutting everywhere right now. Im not sure how the athletic department is coping but they may not have the capital to cut loose Zook and afford a high price tag coach.

 

I've heard that the RG had the money from boosters to buy out Zook and hire a new coach so I don't think that would have been a major issues. And even if it would hurt in the short term financially to fire him, if you think long term, keeping him around losing a ton of revenue from donations and a decline in season tickets next year it is very possible that you end up hurting your bottom line significantly by keeping Zook around. But that is the problem with the Illinois athletic department, they consistently think small.

I'll give him credit for the bball program, but it's not like it was in the tank and he resurrected it. The bball program has been consistently in the top 10-15 in terms of winning and getting to the tournament (hence the #6 all time ranking, *cough brag *cough).

 

It wasn't in the tank, but Henson's last few years were really mediocre and the program appeared to be heading on the decline before he brought in Kruger.

I've heard that the RG had the money from boosters to buy out Zook and hire a new coach so I don't think that would have been a major issues. And even if it would hurt in the short term financially to fire him, if you think long term, keeping him around losing a ton of revenue from donations and a decline in season tickets next year it is very possible that you end up hurting your bottom line significantly by keeping Zook around. But that is the problem with the Illinois athletic department, they consistently think small.

Hadnt heard about the boosters, and I totally agree with the future/long term investment in a good coach being more beneficial.

So Illinois decides to keep Zook and the offensive assistant coaches become the sacrificial lambs. I just really don't understand this. The 2010 recruiting class has completely fallen apart and Zook is going to have a really hard time recruiting in 2011 as basically a lame duck head coach. So unless the team has a year similar to 2007 it is likely that the 2011 class sucks as well. What kills me is that there is enough talent on the current roster for a competent coach to come in and have a winning season and build momentum. But no instead of just saying the 2010 class is going to suck regardless lets also sacrifice the 2011 recruiting class, and continue to employ a head coach in over his head. The only way this would even make remote sense is if the assistants that they hire to take over the OC and DC positions are big time coaches but nobody that is a big time coach is going to come be an OC or DC when there is a good chance the HC only will be here for 1 more year.

 

 

 

The begining of the end for the Zooker. Same exact thing happened at Miami a few years ago. Coker fires his offensive assistants and a year later he is fired. Recruiting classes also sucked big time the last few years of Coker's era too.

Mark Stoops is our new DC. I don't know much about him with him being out on the West Coast, but I do know he was the DB coach at Miami when they were DB-U.

Illinois has bigger fish to fry right now with the scandal they just went through. They need to figure out their administration troubles first. Hard to find a new head coach before you find a new President. Also, RG has done a great job with the non-revenue sports as someone said above. Gymnastics, wrestling, volleyball, golf, softball, soccer have all gotten better under RG's watch. Just saying.

Yes, it's part of the college football coaching ladder. However, the odds are pretty decent that Notre Dame never has a year as good as the one Cincinnati is having now. Kelly could be leaving the best year of his career before it's finished. The Cincinnati players are thinking that he took a step back because they're undefeated and Notre Dame is 6-6 and is losing their best 2 players.

Well, they'd be wrong. Cincy isn't a football school nor have they had a traditionally good program. ND is down but the head coaching job at ND is still one of THE jobs in the country. If they can't understand that, I don't know what to tell them. Are they really that surprised?

 

ND may not have any undefeated seasons playing an actual schedule, but they can easily make a BCS bowl, which is what Cincy did.

 

RG has done a good job with his basketball hires and has done well with the non revenue sports. Kruger, Self and Weber were all good hires and Weber could be the guy that actually gives Illinois stability and makes us into a 2nd tier elite program (not traditional elites, so not on the same level as UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, etc. but possibly on the same level as MSU, UConn, etc. at the national level). But the job he has done with the football program has been really poor. And the biggest issue has been holding on to coaches too long when they are on the decline. If you fire Zook now, the guy basically did his job to a certain extent. He dramatically upgraded the athleticism and talent and even gave the program one great season. Instead you hold on to him too long and now there is the possibility the next coach has to start from scratch again.

 

 

Illinois has bigger fish to fry right now with the scandal they just went through. They need to figure out their administration troubles first. Hard to find a new head coach before you find a new President. Also, RG has done a great job with the non-revenue sports as someone said above. Gymnastics, wrestling, volleyball, golf, softball, soccer have all gotten better under RG's watch. Just saying.

That's great...but no one really gives a s***. Plus like you said, they don't generate revenue anyways. Basketball and football are the sports, and one is a giant failure.

Kansas hired Turner Gil and will hire Chuck Long as offensive coordinator.

Kansas hired Turner Gil and will hire Chuck Long as offensive coordinator.

 

Two guys that I'll be thrilled to beat the s*** out of in Ames next year.

Two guys that I'll be thrilled to beat the s*** out of in Ames next year.

 

 

Cocky my friend, remember you are the laughing stock of the big 12.

Cocky my friend, remember you are the laughing stock of the big 12.

 

He's not a Baylor fan

Cocky my friend, remember you are the laughing stock of the big 12.

 

KU could be reaaaaaaallllll bad next year after losing the only three guys worth a s*** in Reesing, Meier and Briscoe.

 

And like wite said, I'm not a Baylor fan.

KU could be reaaaaaaallllll bad next year after losing the only three guys worth a s*** in Reesing, Meier and Briscoe.

 

And like wite said, I'm not a Baylor fan.

 

 

Thats ok, we will be celebrating our bball championship we are about to win in a few months.

Any truth to the rumor that the Big 10 wants to add a 12th team?

 

 

Thats ok, we will be celebrating our bball championship we are about to win in a few months.

 

which totally matters in the football thread

 

 

Any truth to the rumor that the Big 10 wants to add a 12th team?

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4735336

 

Barry Alvarez is stumping for it now, picking up where Paterno left off

Edited December 13, 200916 yr by KyYlE23

So, what school has good enough academics and athletics to join?

 

 

So, what school has good enough academics and athletics to join?

 

Mizzou? Iowa State? I dunno. Have to keep it somewhat regional

Iowa State makes the most sense.

 

Then the Big 12 could bring in Colorado State.

Iowa State makes the most sense.

 

Then the Big 12 could bring in Colorado State.

 

Ha, a big no thanks there. TCU might be the next logical choice for the Big 12, although they have trouble filling their stadiums.

Mizzou makes the most sense because it's an untapped market. ISU wouldn't deliver anything new, though there's a growing movement of Cyclone fans that would seemingly embrace that idea.

 

I'm not sure I'd like the idea of another Texas school in the conference though.

Mizzou makes the most sense because it's an untapped market. ISU wouldn't deliver anything new, though there's a growing movement of Cyclone fans that would seemingly embrace that idea.

 

I'm not sure I'd like the idea of another Texas school in the conference though.

Perhaps, but Iowa St is a natural rival with Iowa; and Missouri would be more travel than ISU.

 

 

Perhaps, but Iowa St is a natural rival with Iowa; and Missouri would be more travel than ISU.

 

Missouri would be more $ for the Big 10.

The Mizzou sites I read always come to the Big Ten discussion at least once a year. It's repetitive.

So, what school has good enough academics and athletics to join?

 

I guess they could let ND in, even though they're more of a hockey school than anything else.

Edited December 13, 200916 yr by MattZakrowski

Perhaps, but Iowa St is a natural rival with Iowa; and Missouri would be more travel than ISU.

 

Mizzou also has a pretty good rivalry with Illinois. Its really a tossup, it could go any way. ND does make a lot of sense as well, although they will resist forever