| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LitePal
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 613
Back to top |
 Posted: 01/09/16 12:33 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
You also accused UCLA of not caring about wbb when they wouldn't hire your friend and wouldn't pay Nikki Caldwell a ridiculous salary. Since your own school Cal amassed a ridiculous $31 million dollar shortfall in this decade so far, maybe you should reexamine your concepts about what "caring about women's sports" actually entails since you clearly know nothing about the ins and outs of their financial situations.
The LSU AD paid the salary to Caldwell-Fargas and since she's on the skids, the fans of wbb are saying he doesn't care about wbb. I mean, get your shit together. It seems like people equate paying money to caring but even when the money is paid, if the result isn't right, you go into victim mode.
Cal almost lost all these sports to financial mismanagement earlier in the decade. Does that mean they don't care?
|
|
Davis4632
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 861
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/09/16 2:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Oldfandepot2 wrote: |
If you want things to change, find an AD who is not hostile to women's sports. |
And the evidence for this "hostility" is
1) following a perfectly rationale recommendation of the school's consultants to unite the entire athletic program under a single brand, and
2) following Pat's choice and hiring her hand picked successor?
Can you imagine the riot that would have ensued if he'd done a full proper search and gone ouside the "family" to hire a proper coach to replace Pat? I expect his position regarding the cult is "you got your own choice, live with it."
He likely also knows both that hiring anyone but Tyler now to replace Holly would cause another uproar and that Tyler is totally unqualified. Indeed, Holly still has considerable support. I'm not surprised he's avoiding that mess.
I fail to see how either of these manifest "hostility". The guy is a well regarded professional. I suspect this "hostility" is largely mythology.
It's interesting that he made exactly the hire the Pat Cult wanted him to make but now that supposedly reflects "hostility." Firing Holly would be proof of "hostility." Keeping her is proof of "hostility." Going out and hiring a real coach would be proof of "hostility."
I wouldn't touch it either if I was in his shoes. |
I agree with you. I like that you are keeping things in the proper context as to what was going on the time Holly was hired. Do you remember that the Cult also wanted a woman to take Pat's place when names like Jeff Walz and Matthew Mitchell were mentioned as possible replacements?
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11142
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/09/16 3:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| LitePal wrote: |
You also accused UCLA of not caring about wbb when they wouldn't hire your friend and wouldn't pay Nikki Caldwell a ridiculous salary. Since your own school Cal amassed a ridiculous $31 million dollar shortfall in this decade so far, maybe you should reexamine your concepts about what "caring about women's sports" actually entails since you clearly know nothing about the ins and outs of their financial situations.
The LSU AD paid the salary to Caldwell-Fargas and since she's on the skids, the fans of wbb are saying he doesn't care about wbb. I mean, get your shit together. It seems like people equate paying money to caring but even when the money is paid, if the result isn't right, you go into victim mode.
Cal almost lost all these sports to financial mismanagement earlier in the decade. Does that mean they don't care? |
Unclear about what you're responding to, as I don't really know if Hart cares or doesn't care about women's basketball. But I do think financial investment can serve as a shorthand look at any institution's (educational or otherwise) evaluations of what it thinks is important.
UCLA now pays Cori Close a competitive salary and UCLA is on the rise. Maybe not buying out Kathy Olivier despite years of mediocrity was their way of showing they cared about women's basketball, but obviously letting Caldwell walk was a good call.
Cal lost a lot of money due to a variety of reasons, and as you point out, there's a difference between spending money and spending money wisely.
But I think the difference in not spending as much money on women's basketball by one institution (Arizona) while another spends a lot more (Cal, Oregon, everyone else in the Pac-12 pretty much) can serve as an indication of how much an institution values success in women's basketball.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
LitePal
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 613
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/09/16 3:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
As I said, you know nothing about UCLA, yet you continually talk about it. Kathy Olivier reached the Elite eight and was very popular among a certain portion of the administration. She also had a ridiculous contract that essentially rolled over every year thanks to the former AD. It wasn't easy to get rid of her. Ironically, even you questioned the rising costs of coaching salaries in the womens game when it suited your argument.
UCLA in the last decade has won 6 championships in womens sports. Cal, 3, all in swimming/diving. Who sounds like they have a greater commitment to womens sports?
Arizona, Cal and Tennessee all have athletic deficits of more than 30 million dollars and yet fans are so casual about throwing out greater sums of money for a non revenue sport like wbb. Oregon has a surplus, so if they want to spend more, they have it to spend and don't have to balance it out on the back of the students, most of whom couldn't care less about womens sports.
And lest we forget that the coach who is paid 1/3 the salary of Gottleib just beat her, some say outcoached her, with no HS AA.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/09/16 6:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I have no idea whether Dave Hart "cares" or "doesn't care" about Lady Vol basketball, but either way he would probably consider it foolhardy to fire Holly right now.
During her tenure as head coach, Holly's record has been matched or exceeded by only a handful of D1 coaches -- perhaps only Dawn Staley in the SEC.
Could any new coach match or improve upon that record in the three years following the debris from a Holly Apocalypse? Hart likely doubts it. And if the new coach doesn't, the cries will be even louder. As Art Best suggests, Hart will probably be damned if he does or doesn't do anything, no matter what he does.
BT curious W, is it true that Holly was offered the South Carolina job before Staley took it? |
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 12528
Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/16 11:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Can we wake this back up? Or does the issues with the AD at UT make this non-negotiable..😒
_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7828
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63764
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/15/16 4:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Candace Parker on Tennessee
| Quote: |
What does Tennessee need to do in order to close out the season on a high note to solidify a good position in the SEC tournament and NCAA bracket?
I think everybody looks at losses as the end all. Obviously it affects your rank and you definitely have to be careful in the games that you let slip away. But it also could be looked at as a learning experience. Theyve lost one SEC game and hopefully, going forward, theyll understand how talented this conference is and how they have to bring it every night. Really, its about growing and being your best when you get to the postseason. I think that theyre going to do that and it starts with this regular season and going into the SEC tournament. I mean, if they have a good SEC tournament run, theres no reason why they cant be a top 2 seed.
What are your predictions for teams that will end up in the Final Four in Indianapolis?
Tennessee, of course I always pick them. Connecticut, South Carolina, and my sleeper team its not really a sleeper but I like Texas. I think Texas is a good team. |
http://www.hoopfeed.com/content/2016/01/15/qa-with-candace-parker-the-wnba-star-on-her-offseason-activities-the-sparks-and-more/
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18029
Location: Queens
Back to top |
|
Durantula
Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 5223
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/16 10:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
The interesting thing to me is that Tennessee has no signees for 2016, so they are going to have this same nucleus next year. On paper before this season you could say they didn't need 2016s because they return so much (DeShields, Russell, Cooper, Nared, Middleton are all HS AA's) but now you see the struggles and you wonder how they will be in a year with no reinforcements coming. It was thought that Tennessee could just get a jump on 2017 where they were supposedly better positioned for some prospects, but given their struggles, one has to wonder whether 2017 will now be tougher to recruit the top players on their list.
Duke has a similar dynamic, they only have one signee for 2016, although they have Lexie Brown sitting out this year as a transfer, but that itself is a tough dynamic when you have two freshmen guards playing a lot (Lambert, Salvadores). If Brown plays big minutes, those two could see big drop in minutes, and then you wonder how that is handled internally.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11142
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/16 3:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think one thing that Tennessee and Cal both show is that high school rankings are not an automatic guarantee of college success.
One issue that I've mentioned before is that sometimes kids are just tired of playing. They've been going year-round since age 10 (since youth coaches convince parents that playing another sport will hurt youngsters' chances of getting the scholarship they want -- which is completely wrong) and their enthusiasm for the game has been ground down to almost zero.
I have no evidence that this is the case at Tennessee or Cal, but in both situations, highly ranked high school players have not lived up to their accolades, for whatever reason.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7828
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/16 3:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Durantula wrote: |
The interesting thing to me is that Tennessee has no signees for 2016, so they are going to have this same nucleus next year. On paper before this season you could say they didn't need 2016s because they return so much (DeShields, Russell, Cooper, Nared, Middleton are all HS AA's) but now you see the struggles and you wonder how they will be in a year with no reinforcements coming. It was thought that Tennessee could just get a jump on 2017 where they were supposedly better positioned for some prospects, but given their struggles, one has to wonder whether 2017 will now be tougher to recruit the top players on their list.
Duke has a similar dynamic, they only have one signee for 2016, although they have Lexie Brown sitting out this year as a transfer, but that itself is a tough dynamic when you have two freshmen guards playing a lot (Lambert, Salvadores). If Brown plays big minutes, those two could see big drop in minutes, and then you wonder how that is handled internally. |
There are some kids who sign in the spring, and Holly may also be looking at JUCO players. Who knows?
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
Durantula
Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 5223
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/16 3:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
I think one thing that Tennessee and Cal both show is that high school rankings are not an automatic guarantee of college success.
One issue that I've mentioned before is that sometimes kids are just tired of playing. They've been going year-round since age 10 (since youth coaches convince parents that playing another sport will hurt youngsters' chances of getting the scholarship they want -- which is completely wrong) and their enthusiasm for the game has been ground down to almost zero.
I have no evidence that this is the case at Tennessee or Cal, but in both situations, highly ranked high school players have not lived up to their accolades, for whatever reason. |
I feel bad for some kids in the sense that if they don't live up to some ranking they are a bust, but when do people critique the rankings? People say Mercedes Russell isn't as good as advertised. Fine. But who advertised her as the next big thing? What do those scouts say now, do any admit they were wrong? In scouting everyone looks to the next class and forgets about prior years so these scouts never get judged on the relative accuracy of their rankings. We judge the players that are ranked but we never critique the rankers. Some have biases, some just aren't good evaluators and I suppose many base their ranking changes on the type of schools recruiting a kid, which is considered the Alabama effect in football.
Russell's AAU team had Jordan Reynolds, Jaime Nared, and Kailee Johnson. Johnson went to Stanford but Reynolds and Nared are at UT with Russell. I believe all 4 were McDonald's All Americans. To be honest none of them really stand out to me but I guess scouts saw all that firepower on one AAU team where they probably blew everyone out, because who else has 6'6, 6'4, 6'2 athletic forwards and then a strong/athletic guard like Reynolds in AAU? And when you score a lot, score easily and look good doing it, its easy to rank players high.
|
|
Durantula
Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 5223
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/16 3:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
| Durantula wrote: |
The interesting thing to me is that Tennessee has no signees for 2016, so they are going to have this same nucleus next year. On paper before this season you could say they didn't need 2016s because they return so much (DeShields, Russell, Cooper, Nared, Middleton are all HS AA's) but now you see the struggles and you wonder how they will be in a year with no reinforcements coming. It was thought that Tennessee could just get a jump on 2017 where they were supposedly better positioned for some prospects, but given their struggles, one has to wonder whether 2017 will now be tougher to recruit the top players on their list.
Duke has a similar dynamic, they only have one signee for 2016, although they have Lexie Brown sitting out this year as a transfer, but that itself is a tough dynamic when you have two freshmen guards playing a lot (Lambert, Salvadores). If Brown plays big minutes, those two could see big drop in minutes, and then you wonder how that is handled internally. |
There are some kids who sign in the spring, and Holly may also be looking at JUCO players. Who knows? |
You are correct, and they could add a graduate transfer too but at the high school level I don't believe Tennessee is going after any of the top 100 types that are uncommitted. JUCO is definitely a possibility.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/16 4:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Durantula wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
I think one thing that Tennessee and Cal both show is that high school rankings are not an automatic guarantee of college success.
One issue that I've mentioned before is that sometimes kids are just tired of playing. They've been going year-round since age 10 (since youth coaches convince parents that playing another sport will hurt youngsters' chances of getting the scholarship they want -- which is completely wrong) and their enthusiasm for the game has been ground down to almost zero.
I have no evidence that this is the case at Tennessee or Cal, but in both situations, highly ranked high school players have not lived up to their accolades, for whatever reason. |
I feel bad for some kids in the sense that if they don't live up to some ranking they are a bust, but when do people critique the rankings? People say Mercedes Russell isn't as good as advertised. Fine. But who advertised her as the next big thing? What do those scouts say now, do any admit they were wrong? In scouting everyone looks to the next class and forgets about prior years so these scouts never get judged on the relative accuracy of their rankings. We judge the players that are ranked but we never critique the rankers. Some have biases, some just aren't good evaluators and I suppose many base their ranking changes on the type of schools recruiting a kid, which is considered the Alabama effect in football.
Russell's AAU team had Jordan Reynolds, Jaime Nared, and Kailee Johnson. Johnson went to Stanford but Reynolds and Nared are at UT with Russell. I believe all 4 were McDonald's All Americans. To be honest none of them really stand out to me but I guess scouts saw all that firepower on one AAU team where they probably blew everyone out, because who else has 6'6, 6'4, 6'2 athletic forwards and then a strong/athletic guard like Reynolds in AAU? And when you score a lot, score easily and look good doing it, its easy to rank players high. |
I understand all these national AAU tournments help in comparing players from diferent backgrounds, but I think there is still a difference in the preparation level and ability to evaluate players from a place like Oregon or from New England compared to those from TX or CAL or GA or NJ or IN or the DC area.
If you are a star on a championship level big HS in TX like Duncanville, or a private school that recruits like Riverdale Baptist, you're probably really good, and there's probably very little doubt about it.
If you're from Oregon, your adjustment is likely going to be greater, and it's especially true when you're tall and have dominated since you were 10 just because of your size.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/16 4:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
I think one thing that Tennessee and Cal both show is that high school rankings are not an automatic guarantee of college success.
One issue that I've mentioned before is that sometimes kids are just tired of playing. They've been going year-round since age 10 (since youth coaches convince parents that playing another sport will hurt youngsters' chances of getting the scholarship they want -- which is completely wrong) and their enthusiasm for the game has been ground down to almost zero.
I have no evidence that this is the case at Tennessee or Cal, but in both situations, highly ranked high school players have not lived up to their accolades, for whatever reason. |
I think what both show is that coaching matters.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/16 4:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I don't think the LV's are underachieving at all. I think they are paying the price of a huge player turnover. Prior to the season I said as much and predicted that the LV's would be a FF candidate, but not till the 16/17 season when they will have some more experience. Others seem at a loss to explain the supposedly underachieving LV's. When that happens to me I go back and reexamine my suppositions.
Supposition - The additions of DD, Russell and Cooper would add so much talent to the roster that the FF was a reasonable goal.
But lost in the euphoria was that after last season Tenn lost nearly half of their scoring and 40% of their court minutes. But everyone was so gaga about DD, Russell and Cooper that they pooh poohed any suggestion that the loss of all that senior experience could be problematic.
But what did these three bring to the table? As a freshmen, if Russell had been 6'1" she would have been written off as a bench player for the impact she made. But she's 6'6" and a HSPOY so her fans and the media waited patiently for her breakout game. When it didn't happen and her foot problems became known after the season those same patient fans and media assured everyone that this year we would see the player the LV's thought they had signed. We are still waiting.
DeShields has been touted as a premier talent since before she entered high school. She won NFOY at UNC but when I look at her numbers I don't see it. There's nothing diamond-like about a perimeter player who shoots under 28% from behind the arc and has a negative a/to ratio. I thought Nina Davis deserved the prize much more, but then she was ranked around 50th in her HS class while DD flirted with the number 1 ranking her entire HS career. In the year and a half I have watched DD I have seem a lot more flash than production. Lots of individual skills with the ball. Just give her 25 shots a game and she will score 20. But she'll turn it over a lot more times than she will assist on a team mate's basket.
All the talk about Holly's offense being ineffective ignores the fact that it's the same offense they used last year and the same offense with which they won back to back NC's in 07 and 08. When LV fans were screaming for Holly to get the HC job, they wanted the Summitt program to continue. And that's what they got and still have. Holly is doing what everyone wanted her to do, maintain Pat's system. What they didn't get was Summitt herself. Now they want Holly to introduce a new offense? That isn't what she was hired to do. And I don't know she has the ability to do that.
And if folks think that the fans are upset now, wait till the next coach comes in and clears out Pat's assistants.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7828
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/16 9:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
I don't think the LV's are underachieving at all. I think they are paying the price of a huge player turnover. Prior to the season I said as much and predicted that the LV's would be a FF candidate, but not till the 16/17 season when they will have some more experience. Others seem at a loss to explain the supposedly underachieving LV's. When that happens to me I go back and reexamine my suppositions.
Supposition - The additions of DD, Russell and Cooper would add so much talent to the roster that the FF was a reasonable goal.
But lost in the euphoria was that after last season Tenn lost nearly half of their scoring and 40% of their court minutes. But everyone was so gaga about DD, Russell and Cooper that they pooh poohed any suggestion that the loss of all that senior experience could be problematic.
But what did these three bring to the table? As a freshmen, if Russell had been 6'1" she would have been written off as a bench player for the impact she made. But she's 6'6" and a HSPOY so her fans and the media waited patiently for her breakout game. When it didn't happen and her foot problems became known after the season those same patient fans and media assured everyone that this year we would see the player the LV's thought they had signed. We are still waiting.
DeShields has been touted as a premier talent since before she entered high school. She won NFOY at UNC but when I look at her numbers I don't see it. There's nothing diamond-like about a perimeter player who shoots under 28% from behind the arc and has a negative a/to ratio. I thought Nina Davis deserved the prize much more, but then she was ranked around 50th in her HS class while DD flirted with the number 1 ranking her entire HS career. In the year and a half I have watched DD I have seem a lot more flash than production. Lots of individual skills with the ball. Just give her 25 shots a game and she will score 20. But she'll turn it over a lot more times than she will assist on a team mate's basket.
All the talk about Holly's offense being ineffective ignores the fact that it's the same offense they used last year and the same offense with which they won back to back NC's in 07 and 08. When LV fans were screaming for Holly to get the HC job, they wanted the Summitt program to continue. And that's what they got and still have. Holly is doing what everyone wanted her to do, maintain Pat's system. What they didn't get was Summitt herself. Now they want Holly to introduce a new offense? That isn't what she was hired to do. And I don't know she has the ability to do that.
And if folks think that the fans are upset now, wait till the next coach comes in and clears out Pat's assistants. |
Excuse you? The only one of Pat's assistants that's left is Dean Lockwood. Kyra Elzy and Jolette Law were both hired by Holly.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/16 10:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
| linkster wrote: |
I don't think the LV's are underachieving at all. I think they are paying the price of a huge player turnover. Prior to the season I said as much and predicted that the LV's would be a FF candidate, but not till the 16/17 season when they will have some more experience. Others seem at a loss to explain the supposedly underachieving LV's. When that happens to me I go back and reexamine my suppositions.
Supposition - The additions of DD, Russell and Cooper would add so much talent to the roster that the FF was a reasonable goal.
But lost in the euphoria was that after last season Tenn lost nearly half of their scoring and 40% of their court minutes. But everyone was so gaga about DD, Russell and Cooper that they pooh poohed any suggestion that the loss of all that senior experience could be problematic.
But what did these three bring to the table? As a freshmen, if Russell had been 6'1" she would have been written off as a bench player for the impact she made. But she's 6'6" and a HSPOY so her fans and the media waited patiently for her breakout game. When it didn't happen and her foot problems became known after the season those same patient fans and media assured everyone that this year we would see the player the LV's thought they had signed. We are still waiting.
DeShields has been touted as a premier talent since before she entered high school. She won NFOY at UNC but when I look at her numbers I don't see it. There's nothing diamond-like about a perimeter player who shoots under 28% from behind the arc and has a negative a/to ratio. I thought Nina Davis deserved the prize much more, but then she was ranked around 50th in her HS class while DD flirted with the number 1 ranking her entire HS career. In the year and a half I have watched DD I have seem a lot more flash than production. Lots of individual skills with the ball. Just give her 25 shots a game and she will score 20. But she'll turn it over a lot more times than she will assist on a team mate's basket.
All the talk about Holly's offense being ineffective ignores the fact that it's the same offense they used last year and the same offense with which they won back to back NC's in 07 and 08. When LV fans were screaming for Holly to get the HC job, they wanted the Summitt program to continue. And that's what they got and still have. Holly is doing what everyone wanted her to do, maintain Pat's system. What they didn't get was Summitt herself. Now they want Holly to introduce a new offense? That isn't what she was hired to do. And I don't know she has the ability to do that.
And if folks think that the fans are upset now, wait till the next coach comes in and clears out Pat's assistants. |
Excuse you? The only one of Pat's assistants that's left is Dean Lockwood. Kyra Elzy and Jolette Law were both hired by Holly. |
Strictly speaking you are correct but they were both hired within a month or 6 weeks of Pat becoming head coach emeritus. I seriously doubt they were more Holly's choices than Pat's. They are just two more examples of how Holly is just running Pat's program.
|
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3512
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/16 10:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
I don't think the LV's are underachieving at all. I think they are paying the price of a huge player turnover. Prior to the season I said as much and predicted that the LV's would be a FF candidate, but not till the 16/17 season when they will have some more experience. Others seem at a loss to explain the supposedly underachieving LV's. When that happens to me I go back and reexamine my suppositions.
Supposition - The additions of DD, Russell and Cooper would add so much talent to the roster that the FF was a reasonable goal.
But lost in the euphoria was that after last season Tenn lost nearly half of their scoring and 40% of their court minutes. But everyone was so gaga about DD, Russell and Cooper that they pooh poohed any suggestion that the loss of all that senior experience could be problematic.
But what did these three bring to the table? As a freshmen, if Russell had been 6'1" she would have been written off as a bench player for the impact she made. But she's 6'6" and a HSPOY so her fans and the media waited patiently for her breakout game. When it didn't happen and her foot problems became known after the season those same patient fans and media assured everyone that this year we would see the player the LV's thought they had signed. We are still waiting.
DeShields has been touted as a premier talent since before she entered high school. She won NFOY at UNC but when I look at her numbers I don't see it. There's nothing diamond-like about a perimeter player who shoots under 28% from behind the arc and has a negative a/to ratio. I thought Nina Davis deserved the prize much more, but then she was ranked around 50th in her HS class while DD flirted with the number 1 ranking her entire HS career. In the year and a half I have watched DD I have seem a lot more flash than production. Lots of individual skills with the ball. Just give her 25 shots a game and she will score 20. But she'll turn it over a lot more times than she will assist on a team mate's basket.
All the talk about Holly's offense being ineffective ignores the fact that it's the same offense they used last year and the same offense with which they won back to back NC's in 07 and 08. When LV fans were screaming for Holly to get the HC job, they wanted the Summitt program to continue. And that's what they got and still have. Holly is doing what everyone wanted her to do, maintain Pat's system. What they didn't get was Summitt herself. Now they want Holly to introduce a new offense? That isn't what she was hired to do. And I don't know she has the ability to do that.
And if folks think that the fans are upset now, wait till the next coach comes in and clears out Pat's assistants. |
That bolded sentence is really the crux of the matter. Russell and DD are playing out just as you described, and Cooper too is a bust as compared to preseaon expectations, turnover prone with poor shooting mechanics who can neither run the team as a PG nor shoot well. There's always trouble when a fandom pins their hopes on an incoming freshman PG to make the team click. I expect Cooper to improve with time, but I'm not sure Tenn's coaching is adequate to make her truly elite.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7828
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/16 11:52 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| summertime blues wrote: |
| linkster wrote: |
I don't think the LV's are underachieving at all. I think they are paying the price of a huge player turnover. Prior to the season I said as much and predicted that the LV's would be a FF candidate, but not till the 16/17 season when they will have some more experience. Others seem at a loss to explain the supposedly underachieving LV's. When that happens to me I go back and reexamine my suppositions.
Supposition - The additions of DD, Russell and Cooper would add so much talent to the roster that the FF was a reasonable goal.
But lost in the euphoria was that after last season Tenn lost nearly half of their scoring and 40% of their court minutes. But everyone was so gaga about DD, Russell and Cooper that they pooh poohed any suggestion that the loss of all that senior experience could be problematic.
But what did these three bring to the table? As a freshmen, if Russell had been 6'1" she would have been written off as a bench player for the impact she made. But she's 6'6" and a HSPOY so her fans and the media waited patiently for her breakout game. When it didn't happen and her foot problems became known after the season those same patient fans and media assured everyone that this year we would see the player the LV's thought they had signed. We are still waiting.
DeShields has been touted as a premier talent since before she entered high school. She won NFOY at UNC but when I look at her numbers I don't see it. There's nothing diamond-like about a perimeter player who shoots under 28% from behind the arc and has a negative a/to ratio. I thought Nina Davis deserved the prize much more, but then she was ranked around 50th in her HS class while DD flirted with the number 1 ranking her entire HS career. In the year and a half I have watched DD I have seem a lot more flash than production. Lots of individual skills with the ball. Just give her 25 shots a game and she will score 20. But she'll turn it over a lot more times than she will assist on a team mate's basket.
All the talk about Holly's offense being ineffective ignores the fact that it's the same offense they used last year and the same offense with which they won back to back NC's in 07 and 08. When LV fans were screaming for Holly to get the HC job, they wanted the Summitt program to continue. And that's what they got and still have. Holly is doing what everyone wanted her to do, maintain Pat's system. What they didn't get was Summitt herself. Now they want Holly to introduce a new offense? That isn't what she was hired to do. And I don't know she has the ability to do that.
And if folks think that the fans are upset now, wait till the next coach comes in and clears out Pat's assistants. |
Excuse you? The only one of Pat's assistants that's left is Dean Lockwood. Kyra Elzy and Jolette Law were both hired by Holly. |
Strictly speaking you are correct but they were both hired within a month or 6 weeks of Pat becoming head coach emeritus. I seriously doubt they were more Holly's choices than Pat's. They are just two more examples of how Holly is just running Pat's program. |
Now you are just being ridiculous, and dare I say delusional. Get over it.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
kool-aide
Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Posts: 1650
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/19/16 3:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Even HOF coaches sometimes have teams that develop interpersonal issues & bad chemistry. Holly & the assistant coaches are not the main problem with this iteration of the Lady Vols.
This is not the first time an NCAA team of DeShields led has shown up for some games and not others. Or refused to follow game plans. Or had chemistry issues. She may or may not be The Problem in both of those situations. But the comparisons between the two teams are there.
Her physical gifts & basketball skills could be so very good for women's bball, imo. I want her to develop on & off the court to fulfill that promise & potential.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7828
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/19/16 4:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| kool-aide wrote: |
Even HOF coaches sometimes have teams that develop interpersonal issues & bad chemistry. Holly & the assistant coaches are not the main problem with this iteration of the Lady Vols.
This is not the first time an NCAA team of DeShields led has shown up for some games and not others. Or refused to follow game plans. Or had chemistry issues. She may or may not be The Problem in both of those situations. But the comparisons between the two teams are there.
Her physical gifts & basketball skills could be so very good for women's bball, imo. I want her to develop on & off the court to fulfill that promise & potential. |
You blame everything on DD, someone you do not know personally? How do you know that the entire UNC team was not dysfunctional in some other way, since most of them fled for greener pastures?
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
Skyfan22
Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Posts: 520
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/19/16 11:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| This is what holly should try. These players could not be that bad on the perimeter coming into college. Flip the tables. If your open shoot the 3, crash the boards. Don't feed the post, give it to the post up top to drive or shoot. I bet if the expectation is to shoot, maybe they won't be clanging them off the rim or worse.
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18029
Location: Queens
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/20/16 8:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
| kool-aide wrote: |
Even HOF coaches sometimes have teams that develop interpersonal issues & bad chemistry. Holly & the assistant coaches are not the main problem with this iteration of the Lady Vols.
This is not the first time an NCAA team of DeShields led has shown up for some games and not others. Or refused to follow game plans. Or had chemistry issues. She may or may not be The Problem in both of those situations. But the comparisons between the two teams are there.
Her physical gifts & basketball skills could be so very good for women's bball, imo. I want her to develop on & off the court to fulfill that promise & potential. |
You blame everything on DD, someone you do not know personally? How do you know that the entire UNC team was not dysfunctional in some other way, since most of them fled for greener pastures? |
I... would not be so quick to dismiss the observations of our resident UNC fan.
_________________
Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
|
|
