Been catching up on the information this morning on the new AD. I was very pleased with the hire at the outset. Seems to be a story developing on both ends that he was great at raising money (no way I can prove or disprove this) and was questionable with hires, particularly in the revenue sports.
Looking at their records in isolation and that may appear to be true. However, I wanted to take a look at Houston's records in each sport since the moved out of the SWC in 1996.
Football:
1996: 7-5
1997: 3-8
1998: 3-8
1999: 7-4
2000: 3-8
2001: 0-11
2002: 5-7
2003: 7-6 (Briles first year)
2004: 3-8
2005: 6-6
2006: 10-4
2007: 8-5
2008: 8-5 (Sumlin's first year)
--Rhoades Hired--
2009: 10-4
2010: 5-7
2011: 13-1
--Tony Levine Hired--
2012: 5-7
2013: 8-5 (First year in AAC)
2014: 8-5
--Tom Hermann Hired--
Based on the looks of this, Houston's program was terrible before Briles took over. Oddly enough, only one of Briles years was better (based on record) than Levine's best year. Sumlin had two years better than Levine's best, but one year as bad as his worst. It appears as though the Houston faithful didn't think Levine could go for a total higher than 8, and made a splash hire when said situation occurred. While Levine doesn't appear to reach the highs of his two predecessors, he didn't run the program into the ground by any means. In fact, having to move conferences (and theoretically move "up" in competition) he faired as well, or better, than every coach except for sumlin when you limit their tenure to three years. Arguably, you could say Levine was fired to early as opposed to him underachiveing.
More nootably however, under Rhoades, his coaches (whether he hired them or simply presided over them) produced four 8 win seasons in 6 seasons. in the previous thirteen, there were three (all immediately before he took over). It appears that he has experience in continuing a good thing. Likely a good situation for our current program, no?
Basketball
1997: 11-16
1998: 9-20
1999: 10-17
2000: 9-22
2001: 9-20
2002: 18-15
2003: 8-20
2004: 9-18
2005: 18-14
2006: 21-10
2007: 18-15
2008: 24-10
2009: 21-12
--Rhoades Hired--
2010: 19-16 (NCAA)
--Dickey Hired--
2011: 12-19
2012: 15-15
2013: 20-13
2014: 17-16 (First year in AAC)
--Sampson Hired--
2015: 12-18
What a bunch of crap teams. 1 NCAA apperance in 19 years (and it appears to be an auto-bid in Penders last year). Looks like 20 regular season wins was pretty much the cap on Houston. And yet, they've failed to get more than 12 wins eight times.
Penders appears to be the "most successful" coach, but I'd hardly argue it wasn't something not worth changing. Dickey didn't appear to be much, if any of an upgrade (and likely a downgrade), but we're still talking about no change in NCAA tournament appearances. Not sure how the AAC conference move helped/hurt him in his final year. He did improve every year until his last, so it's possible it had some effect.
Sampson appears to be off to a rough start, but for a smaller program like Houston, Sampson is someone who could get their program turned around. When you're dealing with a school that's sucked so hard, for so long, chances have to be taken. He qualifies. Be interested to see how he fares.
Anyway, that adds some context to his hires. I certainly wouldn't say he's a master of finding coaches (although his last two hires could be promising). But I also wouldn't say it's necessarily a negative considering the relative state of each program. And I also add the disclaimer that I don't have the inside information to know about personnel issues, internal expectations etc (unlike with at Mizzou) that may have changed things.
Looking at their records in isolation and that may appear to be true. However, I wanted to take a look at Houston's records in each sport since the moved out of the SWC in 1996.
Football:
1996: 7-5
1997: 3-8
1998: 3-8
1999: 7-4
2000: 3-8
2001: 0-11
2002: 5-7
2003: 7-6 (Briles first year)
2004: 3-8
2005: 6-6
2006: 10-4
2007: 8-5
2008: 8-5 (Sumlin's first year)
--Rhoades Hired--
2009: 10-4
2010: 5-7
2011: 13-1
--Tony Levine Hired--
2012: 5-7
2013: 8-5 (First year in AAC)
2014: 8-5
--Tom Hermann Hired--
Based on the looks of this, Houston's program was terrible before Briles took over. Oddly enough, only one of Briles years was better (based on record) than Levine's best year. Sumlin had two years better than Levine's best, but one year as bad as his worst. It appears as though the Houston faithful didn't think Levine could go for a total higher than 8, and made a splash hire when said situation occurred. While Levine doesn't appear to reach the highs of his two predecessors, he didn't run the program into the ground by any means. In fact, having to move conferences (and theoretically move "up" in competition) he faired as well, or better, than every coach except for sumlin when you limit their tenure to three years. Arguably, you could say Levine was fired to early as opposed to him underachiveing.
More nootably however, under Rhoades, his coaches (whether he hired them or simply presided over them) produced four 8 win seasons in 6 seasons. in the previous thirteen, there were three (all immediately before he took over). It appears that he has experience in continuing a good thing. Likely a good situation for our current program, no?
Basketball
1997: 11-16
1998: 9-20
1999: 10-17
2000: 9-22
2001: 9-20
2002: 18-15
2003: 8-20
2004: 9-18
2005: 18-14
2006: 21-10
2007: 18-15
2008: 24-10
2009: 21-12
--Rhoades Hired--
2010: 19-16 (NCAA)
--Dickey Hired--
2011: 12-19
2012: 15-15
2013: 20-13
2014: 17-16 (First year in AAC)
--Sampson Hired--
2015: 12-18
What a bunch of crap teams. 1 NCAA apperance in 19 years (and it appears to be an auto-bid in Penders last year). Looks like 20 regular season wins was pretty much the cap on Houston. And yet, they've failed to get more than 12 wins eight times.
Penders appears to be the "most successful" coach, but I'd hardly argue it wasn't something not worth changing. Dickey didn't appear to be much, if any of an upgrade (and likely a downgrade), but we're still talking about no change in NCAA tournament appearances. Not sure how the AAC conference move helped/hurt him in his final year. He did improve every year until his last, so it's possible it had some effect.
Sampson appears to be off to a rough start, but for a smaller program like Houston, Sampson is someone who could get their program turned around. When you're dealing with a school that's sucked so hard, for so long, chances have to be taken. He qualifies. Be interested to see how he fares.
Anyway, that adds some context to his hires. I certainly wouldn't say he's a master of finding coaches (although his last two hires could be promising). But I also wouldn't say it's necessarily a negative considering the relative state of each program. And I also add the disclaimer that I don't have the inside information to know about personnel issues, internal expectations etc (unlike with at Mizzou) that may have changed things.
