Dawkins to Central Florida

[Billy Dat]

Twitter says...

Jeff GoodmanVerified account
‏@GoodmanESPN
Stanford has parted ways with Johnny Dawkins, source told ESPN.

[mr. synellinden]

Here's an ESPN lin (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/14971769/johnny-dawkins-stanford-cardinal-coach-7-seasons)k.

Sorry to see this news but not surprised, unfortunately. I have to think this season would have been a lot different for Stanford had they not lost Reid Travis for the season.

[subzero02]

I am not surprised.

[Sixthman]

I hope he comes home. Class, integrity, knowledge, experience, unbelievable drive.

[brevity]

Johnny D
I hope he comes home.

Hurrah! Hurrah!

[gurufrisbee]

The haters are out in force, claiming the Duke coaching tree is full of failures. Of course Mike Montgomery is seen as a hero at Stanford and in his first eight years he never got to the Sweet Sixteen.

[BeachBlueDevil]

I saw where James Madison fired it's coach today. I think going there would be a good move for Johnny. Yeah, maybe it's a step down, but a coach of his caliber could take a team like that and make them a strong mid-major in a couple years. Much like Amaker did after he got fired and went to Harvard.

[Edouble]

I saw where James Madison fired its coach today. I think going there would be a good move for Johnny. Yeah, maybe it's a step down, but a coach of his caliber could take a team like that and make them a strong mid-major in a couple years. Much like Amaker did after he got fired and went to Harvard.

Much like Paul Hewitt did at George Mason. :rolleyes:

[duke74]

A number of the articles discuss how hard the admissions process is at Stanford, including the front page story here. Is the process more difficult than ours? We've discussed the difficulty in the context of football recruiting in the past, but not so much (if I remember correctly) for basketball.

In other words, why would it be harder for Stanford to recruit in basketball than Duke?

[DukeWarhead]

I imagine when the coaching carousel gets cranking this week and next, JD will have a solid offer or two from a lower profile program, which isn't a bad thing. Worked out nicely for Tommy. I'd think he'd want to stay a head coach somewhere. There are too many variables at play to think that coming back to Duke would guarantee anything. Of course, If Jeff Capel gets an offer (his recruiting has been so good that I have to think schools will start to forget the Oklahoma stuff and go for it) and takes it, that would make things interesting.
I feel strongly that JD will be a head coach by this summer.

[BeachBlueDevil]

Much like Paul Hewitt did at George Mason. :rolleyes:

Hewitt had 2 good years in the CAA, but that move to the A-10 killed them and its a move that Mason should have never made. The caliber of teams from the CAA to the A-10 is much different and so is the talent on the floor.

[duke79]

Interesting story from a West Coast paper (I think?) on the trials and tribulations Johnny faced coaching at Stanford and questions whether he was a good choice to begin with!

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_29638669/purdy-dawkins-wasnt-right-fit-at-stanford

[duke79]

A number of the articles discuss how hard the admissions process is at Stanford, including the front page story here. Is the process more difficult than ours? We've discussed the difficulty in the context of football recruiting in the past, but not so much (if I remember correctly) for basketball.

In other words, why would it be harder for Stanford to recruit in basketball than Duke?

Good question. My GUESS would be that Coach K, at this point in his coaching career, gets much more leeway from the Admissions Office at Duke about which recruited players they will accept than the basketball coach at Stanford does. Obviously, I have no proof of this other than a gut feeling. I would also guess that Duke has accepted some basketball players that Stanford would not have accepted. Again, no proof other than speculation. I would also guess this is just one of the disadvantages Stanford faces in trying to create an elite basketball program, like Duke or UNC (in the good old days) or Kansas, etc. I've linked a interesting story about some of these issue on another posting in this thread.

I also wonder if the era of "one and done" players has changed the admission criteria at all? Does the admission office care as much about the player's academic qualifications (in the sense of whether or not they can do the academic work at a school like Duke (or other places) to graduate in four years IF they know the player will most likely stay only one year and then go pro?)

[JasonEvans]

I imagine when the coaching carousel gets cranking this week and next, JD will have a solid offer or two from a lower profile program, which isn't a bad thing. Worked out nicely for Tommy. I'd think he'd want to stay a head coach somewhere. There are too many variables at play to think that coming back to Duke would guarantee anything. Of course, If Jeff Capel gets an offer (his recruiting has been so good that I have to think schools will start to forget the Oklahoma stuff and go for it) and takes it, that would make things interesting.
I feel strongly that JD will be a head coach by this summer.

I'm not so sure Johnny will want to jump back into coaching.

First of all, I doubt he needs to money as he made more than $10 mil in his NBA career and another $10 mil or so over the past 8 years at Stanford. In other words, unless he has invested very poorly or has been throwing away money on foolish stuff, he can probably live in tremendous luxury without ever earning another dime. Given his lack of success at Stanford (I love Johnny, but his tenure at Stanford was a dramatic step down from the past 20 years for that program), if he gets another head coaching gig it will be at a smaller school and would probably carry a salary in the $200k range. I'm not saying that is bad money, but does Johnny really want to uproot his life to try to lift up some no-name program in the middle of nowhere?

I don't expect to see him back on the Duke bench right away either. Not only is our current roster of assistants full but Nolan Smith was just hired as a special assistant and would logically be in line for the next real assistant job that comes open. Maybe Duke brings Johnny back as a special counselor or something like that, but I really doubt you see him in a suit and tie on the sidelines at Duke next season. It might be possible for Hurley to hire him as an assistant at ASU. That is sorta intriguing if Johnny wants it, though (again), I'm not sure Johnny wants to do something like that.

The Cornell job did just open up (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/14970948/cornell-fires-coach-bill-courtney), so maybe that is a possibility.

--Jason "I expect JD might just want to take it easy and go to a bunch of Michigan games over the next couple years to watch Aubrey play" Evans

http://maizeandgoblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Dawkins-vs-Rutgers.jpeg http://img.spokeo.com/public/900-600/johnny_dawkins_1985_12_01.jpg

[duke79]

I'm not so sure Johnny will want to jump back into coaching.

First of all, I doubt he needs to money as he made more than $10 mil in his NBA career and another $10 mil or so over the past 8 years at Stanford. In other words, unless he has invested very poorly or has been throwing away money on foolish stuff, he can probably live in tremendous luxury without ever earning another dime. Given his lack of success at Stanford (I love Johnny, but his tenure at Stanford was a dramatic step down from the past 20 years for that program), if he gets another head coaching gig it will be at a smaller school and would probably carry a salary in the $200k range. I'm not saying that is bad money, but does Johnny really want to uproot his life to try to lift up some no-name program in the middle of nowhere?

I don't expect to see him back on the Duke bench right away either. Not only is our current roster of assistants full but Nolan Smith was just hired as a special assistant and would logically be in line for the next real assistant job that comes open. Maybe Duke brings Johnny back as a special counselor or something like that, but I really doubt you see him in a suit and tie on the sidelines at Duke next season. It might be possible for Hurley to hire him as an assistant at ASU. That is sorta intriguing if Johnny wants it, though (again), I'm not sure Johnny wants to do something like that.

The Cornell job did just open up (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/14970948/cornell-fires-coach-bill-courtney), so maybe that is a possibility.



--Jason "I expect JD might just want to take it easy and go to a bunch of Michigan games over the next couple years to watch Aubrey play" Evans

http://maizeandgoblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Dawkins-vs-Rutgers.jpeg http://img.spokeo.com/public/900-600/johnny_dawkins_1985_12_01.jpg

You may be right. Probably in no rush to get another coaching job and most of the available head coaching jobs would be a serious step down from Stanford (and even being an assistant coach at Duke). I had the thought of an interesting "trade": Tommy Amaker goes to Stanford and Johnny takes over at Harvard. Why not??

[Jeffrey]

I'm not so sure Johnny will want to jump back into coaching.

First of all, I doubt he needs to money as he made more than $10 mil in his NBA career and another $10 mil or so over the past 8 years at Stanford. In other words, unless he has invested very poorly or has been throwing away money on foolish stuff, he can probably live in tremendous luxury without ever earning another dime. Given his lack of success at Stanford (I love Johnny, but his tenure at Stanford was a dramatic step down from the past 20 years for that program), if he gets another head coaching gig it will be at a smaller school and would probably carry a salary in the $200k range. I'm not saying that is bad money, but does Johnny really want to uproot his life to try to lift up some no-name program in the middle of nowhere?

I don't expect to see him back on the Duke bench right away either. Not only is our current roster of assistants full but Nolan Smith was just hired as a special assistant and would logically be in line for the next real assistant job that comes open. Maybe Duke brings Johnny back as a special counselor or something like that, but I really doubt you see him in a suit and tie on the sidelines at Duke next season. It might be possible for Hurley to hire him as an assistant at ASU. That is sorta intriguing if Johnny wants it, though (again), I'm not sure Johnny wants to do something like that.


Johnny has hoops blood and I suspect he will be back coaching soon. I think it's important to note this was not an NCAA investigation issue. IMO, there's no reason for leaving hoops due to embarrassment.

I don't think your hypothetical $200k salary would be a major issue. After all, Snyder coached in the D league for 3 years and made less than $200k for the entire time. Things have not worked out badly for him.

I read the Duke assistant situation differently. Seems to me it's like players, best player plays and best coach coaches. For example, we get better options and Carrawell moves on with class and dignity. IMO, at this point, Johnny would leapfrog Nolan and Nolan would probably agree.

[Dev11]

First of all, I doubt he needs to money as he made more than $10 mil in his NBA career and another $10 mil or so over the past 8 years at Stanford.

So after accounting for real estate in Palo Alto, he's probably got enough banked to buy himself a nice new bicycle.

He's been a basketball coach for over 15 years. I expect him to be hired as a basketball coach again soon, and not at Duke, for all the reasons you articulated.

[Billy Dat]

Johnny has hoops blood and I suspect he will be back coaching soon. I think it's important to note this was not an NCAA investigation issue. IMO, there's no reason for leaving hoops due to embarrassment.

I read the Duke assistant situation differently. Seems to me it's like players, best player plays and best coach coaches. For example, we get better options and Carrawell moves on with class and dignity. IMO, at this point, Johnny would leapfrog Nolan and Nolan would probably agree.

IMHO, assistant coaching is about 3 things - recruiting, recruiting and recruiting. Everything else is secondary. That's why Nolan gets the nod over Johnny. Obviously, the assistants have other important stuff to do - scout opponents, player development, etc., but feeding the talent base is the most important and K has very wisely stocked his bench with recruiting killers. Maybe Johnny takes a break until his kids are up and out, and then maybe he hops to an NBA bench, I wouldn't rule that out. NBA staffs are so overloaded with assistants that, aside from the killer travel, they don't have to carry the same kind of back breaking load that college assistants do (not to say it isn't demanding - it is)

[gurufrisbee]

(I love Johnny, but his tenure at Stanford was a dramatic step down from the past 20 years for that program),


I have to protest this. I don't believe that is accurate at all.

Dawkins - 8 years. 156-115. 58%. Two NIT championships. One Sweet Sixteen. Average record 19.5 - 14.4

Trent Johnson - 4 years. 80-48. 63% One Sweet Sixteen. Average record 20 - 12.

Mike Montgomery - 18 years. 393-167. 1 NIT championship. One Sweet Sixteen, One Elite Eight, One FInal FOur (although NONE of those three came in his first ten years there). Average record 21.8 - 9.3

Was Dawkins a step down from Johnson? No.

Was he a step down from Montgomery? Yes, BUT was he a step down from Montgomery's first eight years? Absolutely not - he was better than Montgomery until Montgomery's LAST eight years. Was it a "dramatic" step down? Can't see that at all.

[flyingdutchdevil]

So after accounting for real estate in Palo Alto, he's probably got enough banked to buy himself a nice new bicycle.

He's been a basketball coach for over 15 years. I expect him to be hired as a basketball coach again soon, and not at Duke, for all the reasons you articulated.

I'm not as confident as you are about that. Johnny Dawkins did not do a good job at Stanford. One tournament apparence in 8 years is not the definition of success for a Power 5 team, not to mention a team that made the tournament 11 out of 12 times prior to Dawkins stepping in. Johnny was given a lot of time. More than the vast majority of programs would have given their coaches. Stanford was loyal to Dawkins, but Dawkins just couldn't execute.

Dawkins isn't getting hired by a Power 5 team. He also probably isn't getting hired by a team with any NCAA tournament appearance success in the last 10 years. He may get hired by a team that no one has heard of, but I'm not sure anyone wants to go down that road. I also don't think that Amaker is a good analogy. Amaker was in a really tough spot at Michigan with all those sanctions. Amaker wasn't given a fair chance at Michigan (IMO, he wasn't wise to take that job in the first place), but Dawkins was given every opportunity to execute.

I actually think Dawkins will go via the Sidney Lowe route: NBA assistant. Dawkins spent 8 years in the league and he's an incredibly likable guy. I wouldn't be surprised to see him with an NBA team.

[Bluedog]

(I love Johnny, but his tenure at Stanford was a dramatic step down from the past 20 years for that program)


I have to protest this. I don't believe that is accurate at all.

Dawkins - 8 years. 156-115. 58%. Two NIT championships. One Sweet Sixteen. Average record 19.5 - 14.4

Trent Johnson - 4 years. 80-48. 63% One Sweet Sixteen. Average record 20 - 12.

Mike Montgomery - 18 years. 393-167. 1 NIT championship. One Sweet Sixteen, One Elite Eight, One FInal FOur (although NONE of those three came in his first ten years there). Average record 21.8 - 9.3

Was Dawkins a step down from Johnson? No.

Was he a step down from Montgomery? Yes, BUT was he a step down from Montgomery's first eight years? Absolutely not - he was better than Montgomery until Montgomery's LAST eight years. Was it a "dramatic" step down? Can't see that at all.

One thing that you left out which is HUGE from the perspective of fans and AD in determining season success is NCAA appearances. Dawkins led the Cardinal to ONE NCAA appearance in his 8 years. Trent Johnson had 3 NCAA appearances in 4 years. Mike Montgomery had TEN consecutive NCAA appearances to end his tenure at Stanford. So, since 1995 Stanford has appeared in the tournament 14 times and only one of those was under Dawkins despite him coaching 8 years. NIT championships only get you so far...Stanford expects to consistently make the NCAA tournament and Dawkins unfortunately couldn't deliver on that expectation. When you see records and they only differ by a few games it may not seem all that different, but in determining success, making the tournament or not is a big deal in the eye's of the fanbase/AD/school/public perception.

Montgomery also started in the 80s when people had much more patience for coaches than they do today and Stanford at that point hadn't made the tournament since 1942 so he was really resurrecting the program (which he did successfully). Dawkins came in at a much better time in history for Stanford basketball due to recent successes. I also love Johnny, but agree with Jason that certainly the program has not had nearly the success in the past 8 years that they did in the previous 10+ years.

[Kfanarmy]

I have to protest this. I don't believe that is accurate at all.

Dawkins - 8 years. 156-115. 58%. Two NIT championships. One Sweet Sixteen. Average record 19.5 - 14.4

Trent Johnson - 4 years. 80-48. 63% One Sweet Sixteen. Average record 20 - 12.

Mike Montgomery - 18 years. 393-167. 1 NIT championship. One Sweet Sixteen, One Elite Eight, One FInal FOur (although NONE of those three came in his first ten years there). Average record 21.8 - 9.3

Was Dawkins a step down from Johnson? No.

Was he a step down from Montgomery? Yes, BUT was he a step down from Montgomery's first eight years? Absolutely not - he was better than Montgomery until Montgomery's LAST eight years. Was it a "dramatic" step down? Can't see that at all.

by the numbers you've posted, the answer would be Yes and Yes...Johnson was a step down from Montgomery and Dawkins was a step down from Johnson...am I missing something?

[cspan37421]

Dawkins - 8 years. 156-115. 58%. Two NIT championships. One Sweet Sixteen. Average record 19.5 - 14.4
Trent Johnson - 4 years. 80-48. 63% One Sweet Sixteen. Average record 20 - 12.

Mike Montgomery - 18 years. 393-167. 1 NIT championship. One Sweet Sixteen, One Elite Eight, One FInal FOur (although NONE of those three came in his first ten years there). Average record 21.8 - 9.3

Was Dawkins a step down from Johnson? No.

Was he a step down from Montgomery? Yes, BUT was he a step down from Montgomery's first eight years? Absolutely not - he was better than Montgomery until Montgomery's LAST eight years. Was it a "dramatic" step down? Can't see that at all.

How do you define "a step down"? With 2.4 more losses, 0.5 fewer wins, and (related, obv.) -5% in winning percentage, are you saying that the NIT championships offset those? Presumably the NIT championships buoyed Dawkins' already weaker record, implying his "regular season" record was probably more than 5% weaker. OK, so maybe it all counts, but your argument about JD vs. Montgomery's first 8 years is stronger. But even then, it's a matter of direction. What was Stanford like before Montgomery? Per bk-ref, they were coming off 4 years of Tom Davis with a record of 58-59, 0.496 win %.

First 8 with Montgomery were 142-102, 0.582 win %.
So Montgomery improved things vs. his predecessor.

I love Johnny D, what he did as a player, and as an assistant for Coach K, but one can make the argument that his performance was a step down from Johnson. Or a half-step.

Neither Johnny nor Trent came close to matching Montgomery's last 8 years of 0.814 basketball. It's hard to follow a legend.

[Dev11]

I'm not as confident as you are about that. Johnny Dawkins did not do a good job at Stanford. One tournament apparence in 8 years is not the definition of success for a Power 5 team, not to mention a team that made the tournament 11 out of 12 times prior to Dawkins stepping in. Johnny was given a lot of time. More than the vast majority of programs would have given their coaches. Stanford was loyal to Dawkins, but Dawkins just couldn't execute.

Dawkins isn't getting hired by a Power 5 team. He also probably isn't getting hired by a team with any NCAA tournament appearance success in the last 10 years. He may get hired by a team that no one has heard of, but I'm not sure anyone wants to go down that road. I also don't think that Amaker is a good analogy. Amaker was in a really tough spot at Michigan with all those sanctions. Amaker wasn't given a fair chance at Michigan (IMO, he wasn't wise to take that job in the first place), but Dawkins was given every opportunity to execute.

I actually think Dawkins will go via the Sidney Lowe route: NBA assistant. Dawkins spent 8 years in the league and he's an incredibly likable guy. I wouldn't be surprised to see him with an NBA team.

I think we agree, actually. All I said is that he will be coaching basketball, not in any particular role or level. I like your idea about him trying to find his way to the NBA. If he's going to another college job, it will be a big step down in prestige, as you say.

[CDu]

Yeah, I'm not sure there is an objective argument that Dawkins was as effective as Johnson as a coach. Worse record, fewer NCAA Tourney appearances, etc. The argument that Dawkins was as good or better than Montgomery's first 8 years hinges on ignoring the fact that Dawkins was handed a better program than Montgomery was. Montgomery built the program to a respectable to very good program. Johnson just kind of kept things afloat, if not brought it down a bit. Dawkins has unfortunately continued to steer the ship in the wrong direction. Not dramatically so, but clearly the arrow is pointing slightly downward rather than upward.

[Tripping William]

Not sure where to put this, but Johnny Dawkins has joined the studio crew today, and Chuck Barkley was absolutely gushing about what a good man Johnny is.

[77devil]

Not sure where to put this, but Johnny Dawkins has joined the studio crew today, and Chuck Barkley was absolutely gushing about what a good man Johnny is.

Major upgrade. Is it too much to ask for that Kenny, the UNC homer, Smith be in permanent exile? No doubt, Johnny will play it straight.

To elaborate on Charle's comments, among other complements, he praised Johnny D saying that the first job of a college coach is to develop men.

[uh_no]

Major upgrade. Is it too much to ask for that Kenny, the UNC homer, Smith be in permanent exile? No doubt, Johnny will play it straight.

To elaborate on Charle's comments, among other complements, he praised Johnny D saying that the first job of a college coach is to develop men.

there are enough games on....why are you watching any of the studio bits? Switch to another game! Heck....switch on the women or NIT if it means you avoid the studio clowns

[77devil]

there are enough games on...why are you watching any of the studio bits? Switch to another game! Heck...switch on the women or NIT if it means you avoid the studio clowns

It was during the opening minutes before today's first game started. Anymore insights?

[uh_no]

It was during the opening minutes before today's first game started. Anymore insights?

you could have switched to Uconn Women's 60 point lead after 3 quarters! That MUST be more exciting.

[hurleyfor3]

you could have switched to Uconn Women's 60 point lead after 3 quarters! That MUST be more exciting.

You lost me at uconn, women and quarters

[77devil]

you could have switched to Uconn Women's 60 point lead after 3 quarters! That MUST be more exciting.

I would shoot myself or take poison before watching UConn women's basketball. I might even prefer to watch Kenny Smith blather. No wait.

[throatybeard]

Johnny has hoops blood

Is that like AB+, or what?

[brevity]

you could have switched to Uconn Women's 60 point lead after 3 quarters! That MUST be more exciting.

I know you have an allegiance to UConn and all, but the preordained arrival of Breanna Stewart's 4th national championship is the opposite of exciting. I prefer my sports with parity, and don't have to watch.

[BD80]

Any explanation of why Kenny Smith isn't there?

Definitely an upgrade.

All of your announcers belong to us. You can't swing a boom mike in a studio without hitting a Dukie.

[killerleft]

You young whippersnappers watching meek, mild-mannered Johnny Dawkins as he talks it up with Charles Barkley: There's a Superman costume under that expensive suit. Without him, would Coach K have survived those early years at Duke? Doubtful.

[OldPhiKap]

JD did a very good job, and Charles did a great job selling JD. I forgot they played together in Philly.

Interestingly, in '87-'88, Sir Charles played with David Hendu Henderson, Mike G-Man Gminski, and Gerald Henderson (Sr.)

[Wander]

JD needs to say things of actual substance. Having two people (Clark Kellogg) talk in generic coachspeak on the same panel is unbearable.

[throatybeard]

JD needs to say things of actual substance. Having two people (Clark Kellogg) talk in generic coachspeak on the same panel is unbearable.

Okay, but in the pantheon of things that make CBS' coverage unbearable, this cannot be higher than about seventeenth.

[MartyClark]

He was quiet and uncertain today. That's not a bad quality in this blowhard, opinionated "analyst" world.

I'm not sure he has a future in television.

[77devil]

JD needs to say things of actual substance. Having two people (Clark Kellogg) talk in generic coachspeak on the same panel is unbearable.

He did fine first time out. Orders of magnitude better than Kenny Smith.

[hallcity]

He did fine first time out. Orders of magnitude better than Kenny Smith.

That's not saying much.

[OldPhiKap]

He did fine first time out. Orders of magnitude better than Shane Battier.

FIFY. Love me some Shane, but his first outings we're painful.

[fuse]

Barkley was funny with the quips about firing Kenny.
I wonder if that made Johnny a bit uncomfortable on a couple of different fronts.

[NSDukeFan]

Not sure where to put this, but Johnny Dawkins has joined the studio crew today, and Chuck Barkley was absolutely gushing about what a good man Johnny is.


there are enough games on...why are you watching any of the studio bits? Switch to another game! Heck...switch on the women or NIT if it means you avoid the studio clowns

I watched half time for the first time this,year because I saw Johnny D there. I agree,he didn't have great success at Stanford, but what a classy guy and legend. I enjoyed Barkley as well. I understand he doesn't know much about college ball but enjoyed his cheerleading for former teammate Krystowiak and his mention of Grayson being a great player because he is driving looking to both give and receive contact.

[BD80]

I watched half time for the first time this,year because I saw Johnny D there. I agree,he didn't have great success at Stanford, but what a classy guy and legend. I enjoyed Barkley as well. I understand he doesn't know much about college ball but enjoyed his cheerleading for former teammate Krystowiak and his mention of Grayson being a great player because he is driving looking to both give and receive contact.

I am finding his Capital One commercials Journey to the Tourney with Spike and Samuel this year to be delightful. The "Pina Colada Song" commercial was fantastic.

[uh_no]

I am finding his Capital One commercials Journey to the Tourney with Spike and Samuel this year to be delightful. The "Pina Colada Song" commercial was fantastic.

though I think the "march sadness" nickname now has to be reserved for john calipari

[TKG]

though I think the "march sadness" nickname now has to be reserved for john calipari

As we have come to learn, the only post season Calipari cares about is the NBA Draft.

[OldPhiKap]

though I think the "march sadness" nickname now has to be reserved for john calipari

Number 34, with fries. LOL.

[Reilly]

... Having two people (Clark Kellogg) talk in generic coachspeak ...

There's a special place in hell reserved for whatever CBS higher-ups inflicted (first) Billy Packer and (still!) Clark Kellog on the college hoops loving world all of these years.

[freshmanjs]

As we have come to learn, the only post season Calipari cares about is the NBA Draft.

Yeah, right. You can totally tell that by his 5 final 4s and 3 more elite 8s during the last 11 years.

[TKG]

Yeah, right. You can totally tell that by his 5 final 4s and 3 more elite 8s during the last 11 years.

http://www.kentucky.com/sports/college/kentucky-sports/uk-basketball-men/article44037912.html

Well, there is this remark from Calipari....

[freshmanjs]

http://www.kentucky.com/sports/college/kentucky-sports/uk-basketball-men/article44037912.html

Well, there is this remark from Calipari...

yes, that remark which in no way at all says the draft is the only post season he cares about. got it.

[throatybeard]

Calpiari's hype works. People have actually looked at my Duke 2015 NatCh hat and said "I thought Kentucky won last year."

[Jeffrey]

Is that like AB+

Yes, ABA-NBA.

[duke79]

Calpiari's hype works. People have actually looked at my Duke 2015 NatCh hat and said "I thought Kentucky won last year."

Jeez, that is the ultimate insult !!

[COYS]

Calpiari's hype works. People have actually looked at my Duke 2015 NatCh hat and said "I thought Kentucky won last year."

To be fair, among the (few) college basketball fans in Tennessee, UK is hated and Duke is loathed. This is probably the case of "same difference" to a casual college basketball fan. Both teams boast top NBA prospects every year. Both teams win a lot. Both teams wear blue and white. Many of the things we view as important differences between Duke and UK are barely registered by a much larger segment of the college basketball fanbase.

I bet that same person who thought UK won last year believes Duke has won more than anyone else in the recent past. If we limit it to the recent past, he's not wrong, I guess.

[jv001]

To be fair, among the (few) college basketball fans in Tennessee, UK is hated and Duke is loathed. This is probably the case of "same difference" to a casual college basketball fan. Both teams boast top NBA prospects every year. Both teams win a lot. Both teams wear blue and white. Many of the things we view as important differences between Duke and UK are barely registered by a much larger segment of the college basketball fanbase.

I bet that same person who thought UK won last year believes Duke has won more than anyone else in the recent past. If we limit it to the recent past, he's not wrong, I guess.

Here in North Carolina, Duke is pretty much hated. The Cheat, Wolfpack and Deacon fans all hate us. But I just remember it comes from being jealous of our success. That makes it all worth while. GoDuke!

[Blue KevIL]

Johnny Dawkins to take Central Florida job.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15047428/ucf-knights-hire-johnny-dawkins-coach
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/ucf-knights/knights-notepad/os-ucf-basketball-coach-story.html

MODS: Please move to Coaching Carousel thread if this doesn't belong here.

[hurleyfor3]

Duke guys get their own thread :)

[gep]

Wow... isn't this kinda fast for a coach that got let go from one school to get hired at another? But in any case, I'm happy that JD can continue his head coaching career... maybe in a better place overall. From N.Carolina, to California, back to Florida... totally across the country

[blazindw]

Johnny wasn't on the bench long. Congrats to him! With Florida being a fertile ground for basketball talent, particularly in the Orlando area where UCF is, should be a great chance for him to grab some recruits to turn around a team that has had records of 12-18, 12-18 and 13-18 the past three seasons.

[TKG]

Interesting that the AD at UCF is Kevin White's son.

[fuse]

Congratulations to Johnny.

Not my place to be surprised by the timing, or scratching my head at the location.

Want nothing but the best for Johnny. Good luck at Central Florida!

[BD80]

He can probably get VIP passes for the Wizarding World of Harry Potter!

Way to go JD!

Since Aubrey, playing at Michigan, is his youngest (I believe), maybe he is planning on being the coolest granddad ever!

[Indoor66]

Climte, Climate, Climate. He likes the mild weather. :cool:

[miramar]

While the choice was a surprise, UCF has 60,000 students and the program may have some real potential with a well-known coach. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[duke blue brewcrew]

I want nothing but the best for my childhood hero, and I'm happy for him that he landed on his feet! Like most posters in this thread, I think this can be a great opportunity for Johnny. I can only guess it's going to be easier to recruit to CFU. Not to imply that CFU isn't w/o it's own set of challenges. It would seem that he as ample support in all the right places at CFU, and I'll be cheering him on from afar.

[luvdahops]

While the choice was a surprise, UCF has 60,000 students and the program may have some real potential with a well-known coach. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Although they went winless this year, the UCF football program did enjoy some real success under George O'Leary, going 10-4, 12-1 (with a Fiesta Bowl win over Baylor) and 9-4 over the 2012-14 seasons, with 2 other 10+ win seasons in the preceding 5 years (2007-11).

[Jeffrey]

I'm not so sure Johnny will want to jump back into coaching.

First of all, I doubt he needs to money as he made more than $10 mil in his NBA career and another $10 mil or so over the past 8 years at Stanford. In other words, unless he has invested very poorly or has been throwing away money on foolish stuff, he can probably live in tremendous luxury without ever earning another dime. Given his lack of success at Stanford (I love Johnny, but his tenure at Stanford was a dramatic step down from the past 20 years for that program), if he gets another head coaching gig it will be at a smaller school and would probably carry a salary in the $200k range. I'm not saying that is bad money, but does Johnny really want to uproot his life to try to lift up some no-name program in the middle of nowhere?


Yes, Johnny has hoops blood. We all have our purpose. IMO, UCF is going to be very pleased with their decision!

[Jeffrey]

Amazing how much salaries have increased in college coaching. Add in a few basketball camps and this position could easily be good for $1 million per year. It sure seems like a good decision to me.

Did Coach K make $40k his first year?

[miramar]

Amazing how much salaries have increased in college coaching. Add in a few basketball camps and this position could easily be good for $1 million per year. It sure seems like a good decision to me.

Did Coach K make $40k his first year?

John Wooden was making $40,500 when he retired in 1975, which is about $175K in today's dollars. Steve Alford is making almost 15 times that amount.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/12/sports/la-sp-sn-ucla-steve-alford-money-20130712

[allenmurray]

UCF just became my favorite team not spelled D-U-K-E. They don't make folks much finer than Johnny Dawkins.

[grossbus]

UCF's best player was sidelined by injury for most of the year. They have a 7'6" kid who just finished his freshman season.

[Henderson]

John Wooden was making $40,500 when he retired in 1975, which is about $175K in today's dollars. Steve Alford is making almost 15 times that amount.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/12/sports/la-sp-sn-ucla-steve-alford-money-20130712

But Alford's haircut alone makes up for part of that.

In 1952, you could get a Mickey Mantle card, plus 5 other player cards and a slab of gum for 5 cents. That would be 45 cents in today's dollars. Today, the same product would cost more. In 1973, the CEO of a Fortune 350 firm averaged about $1M in total compensation, or about $5.3M in today's dollars, but the same CEO today is paid about 3 times that, or almost $16M.

On the other hand, in 1984, you could get an Apple IIc "portable" computer for about $1300, which would be about $3000 in today's dollars. And in 1980, you could buy a 19 inch color TV for about $600, which would be about $1700 in today's dollars. I forget what the iPhone 6 cost in 1980, but it was quite a bit.

The list goes on in both directions. It's crazy how non-linear the pricing of things can be, but we should probably stop dropping our jaws.

[dukelifer]

John Wooden was making $40,500 when he retired in 1975, which is about $175K in today's dollars. Steve Alford is making almost 15 times that amount.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/12/sports/la-sp-sn-ucla-steve-alford-money-20130712

College coaches make too much money. Millions of people have played basketball and many of them would be fine coaches and happy to make a salary that is in line with others in a University. If you replaced every coach in the Sweet Sixteen by a Duke Basketballreport poster right now- one of us would win the National Championship. That is a fact. That is because coaches don't play- players do. By giving coaches million dollar contracts- we are effectively saying they are more valuable than anyone in the institution. When Wooden made 40K - his salary was likely in line with what faculty made. Likely on the high end of the faculty salaries - but not off the scale. Was basketball worse then? Clearly not- it may have been better. 100's of coaches make 500K-2M a year and most are effectively very mediocre at what they do- yet salaries continue to go up. Yes the institution can fire a coach but they often end up often paying the next one more- while they may also pay the one they fired. In the end - almost every athletic dept in the country loses money. The system is designed to make the coaches and administrators rich and the Universities end up having to subsidize the enterprise with 10-20M dollars. If you constrained the coaches salaries to be in line with faculty let say- most would stay in the profession. I have no doubt. They should be free to make money on the outside (camps, books, talks)- but Universities should not be paying these high salaries. In a business, the highest salary goes to the CEO (which are also obscenely high). So are Universities saying that the University is simply set up to support the football and basketball programs and the coaches are the CEOs of the institution? Something is very strange about this.

[flyingdutchdevil]

College coaches make too much money. Millions of people have played basketball and many of them would be fine coaches and happy to make a salary that is in line with others in a University. If you replaced every coach in the Sweet Sixteen by a Duke Basketballreport poster right now- one of us would win the National Championship. That is a fact. That is because coaches don't play- players do. By giving coaches million dollar contracts- we are effectively saying they are more valuable than anyone in the institution. When Wooden made 40K - his salary was likely in line with what faculty made. Likely on the high end of the faculty salaries - but not off the scale. Was basketball worse then? Clearly not- it may have been better. 100's of coaches make 500K-2M a year and most are effectively very mediocre at what they do- yet salaries continue to go up. Yes the institution can fire a coach but they often end up often paying the next one more- while they may also pay the one they fired. In the end - almost every athletic dept in the country loses money. The system is designed to make the coaches and administrators rich and the Universities end up having to subsidize the enterprise with 10-20M dollars. If you constrained the coaches salaries to be in line with faculty let say- most would stay in the profession. I have no doubt. They should be free to make money on the outside (camps, books, talks)- but Universities should not be paying these high salaries. In a business, the highest salary goes to the CEO (which are also obscenely high). So are Universities saying that the University is simply set up to support the football and basketball programs and the coaches are the CEOs of the institution? Something is very strange about this.

It's about $$$, but not the kind that institutions pay coaches. I agree with you about coaches; they get paid waaaaaaay too much, especially compared to other employees at the university. But the return on investment in paying a Coach K, or a Coach Roy, or a Coach Self, is really, really high as many alums view Duke basketball as a way to feel connected to the school and hence donate to Duke's healthy endowment. Isn't one of the biggest draws to being an Iron Duke access to Duke basketball tickets? If Duke was as good - or bad - as, say, Wake Forest, would the Iron Duke program suffer somewhat? I think so.

As long as Duke basketball makes money for the university - either in the form of revenue or donations - I don't mind the high salary for coaches. I mean, I'd rather they weren't so high, but sports is one of the most irrational industries in the world when it comes to compensation.

[Stray Gator]

College coaches make too much money. Millions of people have played basketball and many of them would be fine coaches and happy to make a salary that is in line with others in a University. If you replaced every coach in the Sweet Sixteen by a Duke Basketballreport poster right now- one of us would win the National Championship. That is a fact. That is because coaches don't play- players do. By giving coaches million dollar contracts- we are effectively saying they are more valuable than anyone in the institution. When Wooden made 40K - his salary was likely in line with what faculty made. Likely on the high end of the faculty salaries - but not off the scale. Was basketball worse then? Clearly not- it may have been better. 100's of coaches make 500K-2M a year and most are effectively very mediocre at what they do- yet salaries continue to go up. Yes the institution can fire a coach but they often end up often paying the next one more- while they may also pay the one they fired. In the end - almost every athletic dept in the country loses money. The system is designed to make the coaches and administrators rich and the Universities end up having to subsidize the enterprise with 10-20M dollars. If you constrained the coaches salaries to be in line with faculty let say- most would stay in the profession. I have no doubt. They should be free to make money on the outside (camps, books, talks)- but Universities should not be paying these high salaries. In a business, the highest salary goes to the CEO (which are also obscenely high). So are Universities saying that the University is simply set up to support the football and basketball programs and the coaches are the CEOs of the institution? Something is very strange about this.

I believe it's fair to assume that the main reason why the compensation of college coaches -- both basketball and football -- has increased so disproportionately to that of college faculty members is the fact that those sports are producing exponentially more revenue (from media and merchandising rights) than they were 50 years ago.

[dukelifer]

I believe it's fair to assume that the main reason why the compensation of college coaches -- both basketball and football -- has increased so disproportionately to that of college faculty members is the fact that those sports are producing exponentially more revenue (from media and merchandising rights) than they were 50 years ago.

But are coaches making that money for the institution or the players. If I was the coach of Duke football- and lost every game (like most of the well compensated coaches before Cut)- Duke would make effectively the same amount of money because of revenue sharing. But the point is while exponentially more money is coming in- the Universities are paying more to subsidize the enterprise. The money is staying inside the athletic dept. Sure one can say that football and basketball help some institutions with their brand- some more than others. In some cases- it may help with alumni unity. But that does not require large coaches salaries. The increased revenue could be shared with the Physics Dept that helps provide the University that houses the Athletic Dept- but it does not. The extra cash goes to more elaborate facilities and higher salaries.

[DukeandMdFan]

Congratulations, Johnny D! I'll need to wear my 24 - Thanks for the memories tee-shirt tonight


College coaches make too much money. Millions of people have played basketball and many of them would be fine coaches and happy to make a salary that is in line with others in a University. If you replaced every coach in the Sweet Sixteen by a Duke Basketballreport poster right now- one of us would win the National Championship. That is a fact. That is because coaches don't play- players do. By giving coaches million dollar contracts- we are effectively saying they are more valuable than anyone in the institution. When Wooden made 40K - his salary was likely in line with what faculty made. Likely on the high end of the faculty salaries - but not off the scale. Was basketball worse then? Clearly not- it may have been better. 100's of coaches make 500K-2M a year and most are effectively very mediocre at what they do- yet salaries continue to go up. Yes the institution can fire a coach but they often end up often paying the next one more- while they may also pay the one they fired. In the end - almost every athletic dept in the country loses money. The system is designed to make the coaches and administrators rich and the Universities end up having to subsidize the enterprise with 10-20M dollars. If you constrained the coaches salaries to be in line with faculty let say- most would stay in the profession. I have no doubt. They should be free to make money on the outside (camps, books, talks)- but Universities should not be paying these high salaries. In a business, the highest salary goes to the CEO (which are also obscenely high). So are Universities saying that the University is simply set up to support the football and basketball programs and the coaches are the CEOs of the institution? Something is very strange about this.

I agree they make too much money and almost all of them would still do it if the range was 100K-200K. Although, that would suppose that the NBA wouldn't offer more lucrative contracts.

For your example, one of us DBR posters would certainly win the 2016 Championship, but not the tourney in 2017, 2018, etc.

Obviously, we are all part of the problem and likely spend more time and money following Coach K and his teams than the Nobel Laureates and their teams.

While it is easy to see how Coach K brings in a lot of money to Duke, it is much harder to understand how lesser coaches from lesser conferences attract enough attention and additional revenue to justify their salaries. I suppose it could be the same mentality that gets people to buy lottery tickets.

[dukelifer]

It's about $$$, but not the kind that institutions pay coaches. I agree with you about coaches; they get paid waaaaaaay too much, especially compared to other employees at the university. But the return on investment in paying a Coach K, or a Coach Roy, or a Coach Self, is really, really high as many alums view Duke basketball as a way to feel connected to the school and hence donate to Duke's healthy endowment. Isn't one of the biggest draws to being an Iron Duke access to Duke basketball tickets? If Duke was as good - or bad - as, say, Wake Forest, would the Iron Duke program suffer somewhat? I think so.

As long as Duke basketball makes money for the university - either in the form of revenue or donations - I don't mind the high salary for coaches. I mean, I'd rather they weren't so high, but sports is one of the most irrational industries in the world when it comes to compensation.

Duke Basketball does make folks feel connected and it did so 40 years ago when coaches made effectively what faculty made. You don;t have to pay coaches 5-10M a year to make alums feel more connected. Donations is a strange part of this and hard to quantify. Perhaps most people at Duke only give back because of Duke Basketball- but I hope not. John's Hopkin's gets a lot of donations without any football or basketball programs to speak of. And if Duke replaced every athlete on scholarship with a full paying student- they would make more year to year revenue that would directly affect the academic units and not athletics. Athletics is a part of Duke and I enjoy watching the teams play. But I enjoyed it just as much when coaches were making what faculty made. The product is not exponentially better now- in fact in some ways it is worse.

[dukelifer]

Congratulations, Johnny D! I'll need to wear my 24 - Thanks for the memories tee-shirt tonight





For your example, one of us DBR posters would certainly win the 2016 Championship, but not the tourney in 2017, 2018, etc.



Well every year a different one would win- pretty much like it is now.

[DukeandMdFan]

Well every year a different one would win- pretty much like it is now.

Grammar....I should have said "one of us would win in 2016, but none of us would win in 2017, 2018, etc.

[Jeffrey]

Thanks, the compensation conversation certainly supports my point. IMO, Jason Evans nailed the description of where Johnny has landed. Nevertheless, Johnny will make more than $1 million a year doing what he loves. Why would he have seriously considered doing anything else or nothing at all?

[lotusland]

I believe it's fair to assume that the main reason why the compensation of college coaches -- both basketball and football -- has increased so disproportionately to that of college faculty members is the fact that those sports are producing exponentially more revenue (from media and merchandising rights) than they were 50 years ago.

I think Stray Gator is right. Also you can argue that faculty provide equal or greater "worth" however that is measured - my father is a retired college professor and I've heard him make that argument - but ultimately markets determine value. People who never attended college pay thousands for season tickets at state U and complain about local school bonds and slight tax increases. There's no Duke Debate Team Report online. We are the market and we've voted with our time and money.

[dukelifer]

I think Stray Gator is right. Also you can argue that faculty provide equal or greater "worth" however that is measured - my father is a retired college professor and I've heard him make that argument - but ultimately markets determine value. People who never attended college pay thousands for season tickets at state U and complain about local school bonds and slight tax increases. There's no Duke Debate Team Report online. We are the market and we've voted with our time and money.

We pay for the game and not the coach. The game is played by players who get a scholarship - the same as it was 40 years ago. They are trained by high school coaches and AAU coaches who make much less than Izzo and Coach K. But should we be attributing all the growth of Ingram or Parker as players to K and the Duke system? Coach K has built a great program as did Wooden in the 60's and 70's. But just because people are willing to pay to be entertained doesn't mean that the money has to go to the coach. It would be more fair if the money went to the players- who are providing all the entertainment.. Most are not going to make outrageous salaries. A hundred thousand bucks in the bank over a 4 year career is a nice way to start a career. The Market is artificial when it comes to coaches salaries as most coaches are pretty mediocre if you look only at wins and losses.

[Jeffrey]

The Market is artificial when it comes to coaches salaries as most coaches are pretty mediocre if you look only at wins and losses.

Most coaches must be mediocre, if you look only at wins and losses.

[lotusland]

We pay for the game and not the coach. The game is played by players who get a scholarship - the same as it was 40 years ago. They are trained by high school coaches and AAU coaches who make much less than Izzo and Coach K. But should we be attributing all the growth of Ingram or Parker as players to K and the Duke system? Coach K has built a great program as did Wooden in the 60's and 70's. But just because people are willing to pay to be entertained doesn't mean that the money has to go to the coach. It would be more fair if the money went to the players- who are providing all the entertainment.. Most are not going to make outrageous salaries. A hundred thousand bucks in the bank over a 4 year career is a nice way to start a career. The Market is artificial when it comes to coaches salaries as most coaches are pretty mediocre if you look only at wins and losses.
College ball is built on high profile coaches. Players come and go. Recruiting is arguably the coaches greatest role. So you are arguing that the players should earn more than the faculty? Seems like the target is moving.

[dukelifer]

College ball is built on high profile coaches. Players come and go. Recruiting is arguably the coaches greatest role. So you are arguing that the players should earn more than the faculty? Seems like the target is moving.

Well in a fair system the entertainers should get the most money. If a kid in college writes a popular book- she should get paid. If the system is generating billions from advertisers because people love the game- I believe the players more than the coaches and athletic dept staff should benefit directly -if you are going to give the money to someone. I am even fine if the boosters want to contribute or pay the coaches salary through some other mechanism- but the wrong message is sent when an employee of the University is paid over 2 million dollars to coach a game. Coaches have lots of ways to make money- camps, radio shows, books etc. Of course no one will buy your book unless you win- so the market speaks. For some reason the market fails to generate enough revenue so the campus side of the University makes money or even breaks even. This happens at 5 Universities. If the system generates 45M - you can pay the coach 200K or 45M. But if you pay 45M - then there is not anything left to pay everyone else and you need to ask for money- from the University. Most universities needs to pump 15-20M back into athletics to balance the budget because a lot of people get paid first. Is it worth it? That is another debate.

[dukelifer]

College ball is built on high profile coaches. Players come and go. Recruiting is arguably the coaches greatest role. So you are arguing that the players should earn more than the faculty? Seems like the target is moving.

If 8M used to pay the football and basketball coaches was divided among that 120 athletes that are in the revenue generating sports- then each athlete would get 66K per year. The coaches would still make 1M a year. Or the 8 million could be returned to the University and pay for the full scholarship for 120 students.

[lotusland]

If 8M used to pay the football and basketball coaches was divided among that 120 athletes that are in the revenue generating sports- then each athlete would get 66K per year. The coaches would still make 1M a year. Or the 8 million could be returned to the University and pay for the full scholarship for 120 students.

Paying players is a different discussion that we've had on many threads. I'm opposed while others are all for it. I'm glad Johnny D has a new gig. I wish him much success.

[-jk]

Folks - Johnny to CFU is the discussion here. If you want to discuss the economics of college sports, please start another thread.

thanks,

-jk

[BD80]

Folks - Johnny to CFU is the discussion here. If you want to discuss the economics of college sports, please start another thread.

thanks,

-jk

But nobody would read that thread

[Blue KevIL]

DAWKINS TO CENTRAL FLORIDA x 2

"ANN ARBOR, Mich. -- University of Michigan men's basketball head coach John Beilein announced today (Wednesday, April 6) that sophomore Aubrey Dawkins was granted his release from the program. Dawkins intends to transfer to the University of Central Florida and play for his father, newly hired head coach Johnny Dawkins."


http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/040616aab.html

[duke79]

DAWKINS TO CENTRAL FLORIDA x 2

"ANN ARBOR, Mich. -- University of Michigan men's basketball head coach John Beilein announced today (Wednesday, April 6) that sophomore Aubrey Dawkins was granted his release from the program. Dawkins intends to transfer to the University of Central Florida and play for his father, newly hired head coach Johnny Dawkins."


http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/040616aab.html

Interesting !! But better weather and why not play for your Dad?? (but academics not as good; maybe not a big deal to him)

Did he play much at Michigan?

[CDu]

Interesting !! But better weather and why not play for your Dad?? (but academics not as good; maybe not a big deal to him)

Did he play much at Michigan?

He was a regular rotation player in his two years at Michigan (16-20 mpg). Good 3pt shooter (43.8% as a frosh, 44.0% as a soph).

[tbyers11]

Interesting !! But better weather and why not play for your Dad?? (but academics not as good; maybe not a big deal to him)

Did he play much at Michigan?

His minutes, particularly in the second half of this year, were down from his freshman year in 2015. This happened while Michigan was short-handed with injuries as well.

[wilson]

...sophomore Aubrey Dawkins was granted his release from the program. Dawkins intends to transfer to the University of Central Florida and play for his father, newly hired head coach Johnny Dawkins."


http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/040616aab.html


Interesting !! But better weather and why not play for your Dad?? (but academics not as good; maybe not a big deal to him)

Did he play much at Michigan?I heard his dad promised him a Disney World season pass.

[Jeffrey]

DAWKINS TO CENTRAL FLORIDA x 2

"ANN ARBOR, Mich. -- University of Michigan men's basketball head coach John Beilein announced today (Wednesday, April 6) that sophomore Aubrey Dawkins was granted his release from the program. Dawkins intends to transfer to the University of Central Florida and play for his father, newly hired head coach Johnny Dawkins."


http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/040616aab.html

I'd rather get the Michigan degree, if I knew the NBA was not a realistic option. Maybe, coaching is the long-term thought?

UCF is certainly a winner in this deal.

[brevity]

By one measure, UCF is bigger than Michigan. A lot bigger.

Fall 2015 undergraduate enrollment

Michigan: 28,312 (PDF source (http://www.ro.umich.edu/report/15fa105.pdf))
UCF: 54,527 (web page source (http://ikm.ucf.edu/enrollment-and-graduation/enrollment-statistics/2015-16-enrollment/))

[devildeac]

And, if so, I hope he never gets lost in the amusement park...

[Jeffrey]

And, if so, I hope he never gets lost in the amusement park...

Not likely to get lost when your Dad holds the leash.

[53n206]

Duke Basketball does make folks feel connected and it did so 40 years ago when coaches made effectively what faculty made. You don;t have to pay coaches 5-10M a year to make alums feel more connected. Donations is a strange part of this and hard to quantify. Perhaps most people at Duke only give back because of Duke Basketball- but I hope not. John's Hopkin's gets a lot of donations without any football or basketball programs to speak of. And if Duke replaced every athlete on scholarship with a full paying student- they would make more year to year revenue that would directly affect the academic units and not athletics. Athletics is a part of Duke and I enjoy watching the teams play. But I enjoyed it just as much when coaches were making what faculty made. The product is not exponentially better now- in fact in some ways it is worse.

Colorado School of Mines does quite well with alumni donations. And I believe that their football team won a few games in the last year or two.(I should've googled that.) It's awfully nice to have graduates get really good jobs when they finish school. I believe it does affect donations.