A New Era Begins Tomorrow

[8893]

I think this is an over-statement the way he's pieced together a team this year.

I don't follow. What is an over-statement, and who are you talking about in terms of the "the way he's pieced together a team this year"?

 

[freescooter]

IMO the program would be at greater risk without Calhoun's input. You want Manuel--a football guy, to the extent he brings anything to the table--to pick an outsider from among the big names or up-and-comers du jour, meaning that we get a Miller, Smart or Stevens who wants to remake the program in his own image. I think that's a far greater risk of failure. First, you're gonna have to pay a ton of money and guarantee a lot of years to nab one of these guys. And then what are your options if that doesn't work out? How long of a timeline will you give one of them to start from scratch here? How do you know Stevens's style of play would translate here? What makes you confident that Miller would excel here? In three seasons at Arizona he's had all of one NCAA tournament appearance. Last year was a first round exit in the NIT. Is that okay with you? Do you think Smart's success in the CAA guarantees success here?

Personally, I feel a lot better knowing that our new head coach will inherit the goodwill and wisdom of the program that Calhoun built, and I feel less confident that an outsider could jump into anything close to instant success here.

Please stop with the football guy stuff with Manuel will you? He played college football but come on. He also competed in track & field, so does that make him a track guy? He was hired because he was viewed as an up and coming athletic administrator. He was the assistant AD in charge of the basketball program at Michigan for what its worth. He oversaw the development of a good wrestling program at Buffalo. Does that mean he was a "wrestling guy?" During his tenure the womens tennis program made its first NCAA appearance, so I guess he's a womens tennis guy... He wasn't hired as the football coach, for heaven sakes. Ollie was Calhoun's choice for one reason...he was the only guy who didn't have a track record. As far as other coaches are concerned, there absolutely is no guarantee. But Smart has a damned good track record, as obviously does Stephens. Miller had an impressive run at Xavier and at least one very good year at Arizona. He knows what it takes to compete at this level. I'd take the risk on him because I think it is pretty small. How many elite eights has Ollie coached his team to now?

 

[Waquoit]

A football guy gets the credit for the Calhoun hire.

 

[diggerfoot]

Perhaps slightly better "misfits"? Are you insane? JC had real hoop misfits, like a goalkeeper and a pitcher. I'm not sure UConn had a Top 100 recruit on that team, certainly not after Cliffy got the boot. And Cliff was a soph, he barely played as a frosh until late in the year. I'm not sure he ever started. This year's team has at least 4 Top 50 guys, some with NC rings. No one loved Jeff King more than me, except maybe his mother. He's wasn't as good as Wolf. JC lost his 2nd game to Yale. A year later he wins the NIT. This year's team has bubble talent. That will be my quantitative metric. Would they be on the bubble if they were eligible?

I hope you understand that my use of the term misfits is not serious, I would not consider either group misfits. I'll admit that "Perhaps slightly better" is not completely honest on my part, they could also be "perhaps slightly worse." As far as similar to each other, that's not as "insane" a notion as you claim, though don't you sound convincing by using that descriptor. Take the one comparison you bring up, King v. Wolf. That certainly is open for debate. It would be interesting to look at something like statistics, rather than accept your proclamation void of any criteria. Talent is as talent does. Performance matters, not rankings. It may very well be that Ollie will bring out a different type of performance than what we've seen from these players, but in making the comparison I'm using what we've seen last year in terms of performance.

Let's get at your claim that they have "bubble talent." We have had other bubble teams in the post dream season era. Do you think this team has equal talent to any of those other UConn bubble teams since 1990? Even if you think the answer to that is yes, though I suspect you would be in the minority, do you think Ollie is Calhoun's immediate equal, which must be the case to achieve the same level of "bubble" success with that comparable talent? Only if your answer is "yes" to both questions is it logical to expect bubble type results. Otherwise we may get it, particularly if Ollie brings about better performance than Calhoun from the same players, but it's not logical to expect it.

 

[CTBasketball]

This team is not "bubble-status."

 

[8893]

Please stop with the football guy stuff with Manuel will you? He played college football but come on. He also competed in track & field, so does that make him a track guy? He was hired because he was viewed as an up and coming athletic administrator. He was the assistant AD in charge of the basketball program at Michigan for what its worth. He oversaw the development of a good wrestling program at Buffalo. Does that mean he was a "wrestling guy?" During his tenure the womens tennis program made its first NCAA appearance, so I guess he's a womens tennis guy... He wasn't hired as the football coach, for heaven sakes. Ollie was Calhoun's choice for one reason...he was the only guy who didn't have a track record. As far as other coaches are concerned, there absolutely is no guarantee. But Smart has a damned good track record, as obviously does Stephens. Miller had an impressive run at Xavier and at least one very good year at Arizona. He knows what it takes to compete at this level. I'd take the risk on him because I think it is pretty small. How many elite eights has Ollie coached his team to now?

A football guy gets the credit for the Calhoun hire.

True, John Toner was a football guy first. He was also President of the NCAA and our AD for quite a while when he made that hire, and he did so based primarily on the same thing we all saw when Calhoun's Northeastern Huskies played against Perno's UConn Huskies: drive and passion.

My issue with Manuel isn't that he's a football guy; it's that he fumbled (imo) the first major decision he had to make as our AD and looked like anything but an up-and-comer as an AD. To the contrary, I think he looked like an amateur with the seven-month contract.

I know Kevin and trust him enough to give him my full support as our next head coach. I also know Jim Calhoun (and John Toner, too, for that matter). I don't know Warde Manuel from Adam, and so far I'm not too impressed from what I've seen. You keep asking what Ollie has shown; what has Manuel shown you that has already earned your undying loyalty to him and your giddy fervor to throw the man who made UConn hoops what it is under the bus?

 

[Waquoit]

Let's get at your claim that they have "bubble talent." We have had other bubble teams in the post dream season era. Do you think this team has equal talent to any of those other UConn bubble teams since 1990? Even if you think the answer to that is yes, though I suspect you would be in the minority, do you think Ollie is Calhoun's immediate equal, which must be the case to achieve the same level of "bubble" success with that comparable talent? Only if your answer is "yes" to both questions is it logical to expect bubble type results. Otherwise we may get it, particularly if Ollie brings about better performance than Calhoun from the same players, but it's not logical to expect it.

As far as my bubble talent claim goes, if I'm not mistaken, we have four guys that were Top 50 recruits (Bazz, Boat, Calhoun, DD). When JC took over the program hadn't had 4 Top 50 recruits in the previous decade combined. We have two guys that started for a national championship team and another guy who played 24 minutes in the final game. That's not good enough to be considered bubble talent? Thin in the middle I admit, but that's why I said bubble. If we had more strength in the middle we'd be better than bubble.

As far as you second point (in italics), you seem to be saying that it's "not logical" to hold Ollie to a high standard. A standard befitting a blueblood, Top 10 program. Are you sure you want to go there?

 

[selles]

Maybe Ollie will be a good head coach. But we don't know that because Jim Calhoun picked him.

You're right. We don't know that, just because Jim Calhoun picked him, KO will be a good coach. We also don't know that, just because Jim Calhoun picked him, KO will not be a good coach.

I get a sense of irony reading your posts on this freescooter, because you've been on the Shaka Smart bandwagon for a long time and the coach KO most reminds me of so far with his brand of relentless positive energy is...wait for it...Shaka Smart.

Let's at least let the season get going and see what we've got before we start assigning arbitrary win totals to measure KO's worth.

 

[Huskymaniac]

In your opinion he fumbled. You know Ollie and you are too biased to be objective. The rest of us, save freescooter, want you to be right but believe the jury is still out and that Manuel's decision was reasonable.

 

[8893]

In your opinion he fumbled. You know Ollie and you are too biased to be objective. The rest of us, save freescooter, want you to be right but believe the jury is still out and that Manuel's decision was reasonable.

Knowing Ollie has nothing to do with whether the seven-month contract was reasonable. I'm glad that you are speaking for the rest of the experts on the board. Try speaking to anyone with any remote connection to big time college or professional sports and ask them what a seven-month contract means in the business; and ask the college people how that might affect recruiting. It was an amateur move. Embarrassing, really.

 

[Huskies4ever]

IMO the program would be at greater risk without Calhoun's input. You want Manuel--a football guy, to the extent he brings anything to the table--to pick an outsider from among the big names or up-and-comers du jour, meaning that we get a Miller, Smart or Stevens who wants to remake the program in his own image. I think that's a far greater risk of failure. First, you're gonna have to pay a ton of money and guarantee a lot of years to nab one of these guys. And then what are your options if that doesn't work out? How long of a timeline will you give one of them to start from scratch here? How do you know Stevens's style of play would translate here? What makes you confident that Miller would excel here? In three seasons at Arizona he's had all of one NCAA tournament appearance. Last year was a first round exit in the NIT. Is that okay with you? Do you think Smart's success in the CAA guarantees success here?

Personally, I feel a lot better knowing that our new head coach will inherit the goodwill and wisdom of the program that Calhoun built, and I feel less confident that an outsider could jump into anything close to instant success here.

This is the post of the year reguarding the coaching situation.

+100000000000000000

 

[Huskies4ever]

It is not "his program." It is the University of Connecticut's program. He knew that KO and only KO among his associates could get the job. And quite frankly that was because KO was an unknown quantity. Maybe Ollie will be a good head coach. But we don't know that because Jim Calhoun picked him.

Your logic terrifies me. And yes it is "his program". He built it and the University of Connecticut owes him that respect.

 

[Huskies4ever]

Please stop with the football guy stuff with Manuel will you? He played college football but come on. He also competed in track & field, so does that make him a track guy? He was hired because he was viewed as an up and coming athletic administrator. He was the assistant AD in charge of the basketball program at Michigan for what its worth. He oversaw the development of a good wrestling program at Buffalo. Does that mean he was a "wrestling guy?" During his tenure the womens tennis program made its first NCAA appearance, so I guess he's a womens tennis guy... He wasn't hired as the football coach, for heaven sakes. Ollie was Calhoun's choice for one reason...he was the only guy who didn't have a track record. As far as other coaches are concerned, there absolutely is no guarantee. But Smart has a damned good track record, as obviously does Stephens. Miller had an impressive run at Xavier and at least one very good year at Arizona. He knows what it takes to compete at this level. I'd take the risk on him because I think it is pretty small. How many elite eights has Ollie coached his team to now?

Manuel hasn't proven himself as an AD (at this level), KO hasn't proven himself as a head coach. What's the difference?

 

[Huskymaniac]

Knowing Ollie has nothing to do with whether the seven-month contract was reasonable. I'm glad that you are speaking for the rest of the experts on the board. Try speaking to anyone with any remote connection to big time college or professional sports and ask them what a seven-month contract means in the business; and ask the college people how that might affect recruiting. It was an amateur move. Embarrassing, really.

This horse has been beaten to death and I don't know why people refuse to accept that they might not be rational about this. Look, what was he supposed to do given the timing? You may not agree with it but, if he had given Ollie a multi-year contract, a lot of people would have thought it was unreasonable and irresponsible to give such a contract to a coach with zero head coaching experience. Add to that fact that we are UConn, not Northwest Arkansas State. Many people would have viewed that as risking taxpayer money and the future of the program, at least short term. Not everyone believes Ollie is a lock to succeed. Not everyone believes such a risk should have been taken. You may not like it but that is the reality. We don't all see things the same way.

Given that, if Calhoun had retired in the spring or early summer, yeah, there probably would have been a coaching search and, yeah, Ollie probably wouldn't have been the guy chosen for, again, the same reasons given above. If this were the situation, Manuel would have looked for a coach that he felt more comfortable giving a multi-year deal to. I understand some people believe that Ollie should have been considered low enough risk for such a contract. But the fact that people disagree tells you all you really need to know. It would have been viewed by enough people as irresponsible and risky.

But since this went down at a time a coaching search couldn't be done and since many people would have thought a multi-year deal for an unproven coach would have been irrational and irresponsible, Manuel did the best he could. If Calhoun waited as long as he did to intentionally force this situation then he is just as responsible for whatever impact it has on recruiting as Manuel is.

So here we are. Maybe our recruiting is being impacted. But it is what it is and NO AMOUNT OF CONTINUED WHINING AND BACK STABBING will change it. The best we can hope for is that Ollie does a decent job, wins some games, presents a team that improves over time and that Manuel gives him a quick contract extension based on that performance. If there is damage to recruiting, that is the only way to minimize it. And Manuel will be able to say that there was sufficient data to justify the extension so as to appease people who believe such data is necessary. Again, it appears that we have an imperfect situation and it appears as though Calhoun is partly to blame. But instead of arguing how much blame to place where, let's move on and hope for the best. To say the situation is dynamic is an understatement.

 

[freescooter]

True, John Toner was a football guy first. He was also President of the NCAA and our AD for quite a while when he made that hire, and he did so based primarily on the same thing we all saw when Calhoun's Northeastern Huskies played against Perno's UConn Huskies: drive and passion.

My issue with Manuel isn't that he's a football guy; it's that he fumbled (imo) the first major decision he had to make as our AD and looked like anything but an up-and-comer as an AD. To the contrary, I think he looked like an amateur with the seven-month contract.

I know Kevin and trust him enough to give him my full support as our next head coach. I also know Jim Calhoun (and John Toner, too, for that matter). I don't know Warde Manuel from Adam, and so far I'm not too impressed from what I've seen. You keep asking what Ollie has shown; what has Manuel shown you that has already earned your undying loyalty to him and your giddy fervor to throw the man who made UConn hoops what it is under the bus?

and the fact that Calhoun had taken a lesser program to back to back NCAA tournaments and upset one higher ranked team and pushed another to the limit...almost like Shaka Smart perhaps. Jeez, to compare Ollie's non-record to Calhoun's Northeastern record, you know where he took a program from Division 2 to Division 1, then 6 league titles leading to 5 NCAA tournament bids in 6 years... and 6 New England coach of the year honors.And a 75-19 record in his last 3 seasons at Northeastern, 248-137 in his D1 career to that point. Those were the things that caused Toner to consider and ultimately hire him. Not his "drive and passion." That is a lot of poppycock and part of the myth perhaps. It was his performance that won him the job. Not some intangible bs.

 

[freescooter]

Manuel hasn't proven himself as an AD (at this level), KO hasn't proven himself as a head coach. What's the difference?

How about Manuel has been an AD before. He was extremely highly regarded in his tenure at Buffalo. Ollie hasn't been a head coach at this or any other level...he's barely coached long enough to have proven himself to be a competent assistant.

 

[8893]

and the fact that Calhoun had taken a lesser program to back to back NCAA tournaments and upset one higher ranked team and pushed another to the limit...almost like Shaka Smart perhaps. Jeez, to compare Ollie's non-record to Calhoun's Northeastern record, you know where he took a program from Division 2 to Division 1, then 6 league titles leading to 5 NCAA tournament bids in 6 years... and 6 New England coach of the year honors.And a 75-19 record in his last 3 seasons at Northeastern, 248-137 in his D1 career to that point. Those were the things that caused Toner to consider and ultimately hire him. Not his "drive and passion." That is a lot of poppycock and part of the myth perhaps. It was his performance that won him the job. Not some intangible bs.

Of course he had the credentials, too. But so did other potential candidates. The intangibles separated him and attracted Toner. Unlike the crap you spew on this board, that's not myth, poppycock or bs. I know it to be fact and I'll leave it at that.

Listen, we get it: you are 100% anti-Ollie and the only way you can be redeemed is if he fails. Unlike those here who are okay with the stupid contract, or those who don't like the way it happened but are rooting for him and the team nonetheless, you are actively rooting against him so your hero Warde "Big Time" Manuel can hire a big name coach to make you happy.

Just do me one favor: please don't ever hold yourself out as a fan when Ollie succeeds.

 

[8893]

This horse has been beaten to death and I don't know why people refuse to accept that they might not be rational about this.

Yes, I am having a hard time trying to figure out the same thing. As best as I can tell, those who like the seven-month contract have absolutely no clue about big time college or professional sports, which explains why they are not rational when discussing it.

 

[AJC88]

Yes, I am having a hard time trying to figure out the same thing. As best as I can tell, those who like the seven-month contract have absolutely no clue about big time college or professional sports, which explains why they are not rational when discussing it.

I wish Ollie had gotten a longer contract, I really like the guy and am excited to see him coach this team. But at the same point, you can't call people irrational when they have a perfectly sensible view on the contract. So what if we miss out on a few top line recruits we probably wouldn't have gotten anyways. Will that set the program back more than a year? No. But (and God forbid this being true because I will be upset) imagine if Ollie gets a 5 years contract, and BOMBS as a coach. That sets the program back WAY longer than potentially losing out on a years worth of POTENTIAL recruits.
I wish everyone would just see the other sides argument, then shut the hell up about it and stop making 3 new threads a week rehashing the same arguments.

 

[8893]

I wish Ollie had gotten a longer contract, I really like the guy and am excited to see him coach this team. But at the same point, you can't call people irrational when they have a perfectly sensible view on the contract. So what if we miss out on a few top line recruits we probably wouldn't have gotten anyways. Will that set the program back more than a year? No. But (and God forbid this being true because I will be upset) imagine if Ollie gets a 5 years contract, and BOMBS as a coach. That sets the program back WAY longer than potentially losing out on a years worth of POTENTIAL recruits.
I wish everyone would just see the other sides argument, then shut the hell up about it and stop making 3 new threads a week rehashing the same arguments.

I understand the other side's argument. It is not a winning one in the world of big-time college sports. And with every recruit who professes love for Ollie and then drops us after sniffing around the program this is going to be rehashed. I haven't raised the issue in weeks, but I will continue to respond when another ostrich claims that the interim contract is not an impediment to recruiting.

 

[AJC88]

I understand the other side's argument. It is not a winning one in the world of big-time college sports. And with every recruit who professes love for Ollie and then drops us after sniffing around the program this is going to be rehashed. I haven't raised the issue in weeks, but I will continue to respond when another ostrich claims that the interim contract is not an impediment to recruiting.

We agree that it's an impediment to recruiting. There isn't any denying that. But you know what a real impediment to recruiting would be? A head coach.
I wish we could just table this discussion until February when we will have seen Ollie coach a good number of games. It's just tiresome reading these arguments over and over and over and over...

 

[upstater]

This entire post is nonsense. The two best players were ineligible for that St. Peter's game. Try again.

ADD: This post is even dumber upon more reflection. Tate and Pikell were freshmen in a time when freshman had to be really good to get regular PT. Nobody in their right mind at the time considered King and Besselink "big men who can score in the post." In fact, it was proof of how good Calhoun was that Bessilink ended up 3rd in the Big East in rebounding, but he was no scorer. Everybody on the team is comparable to Cliff in the 2nd half of the season, because they can actually play in a game. Giffey is better than Spider by a factor of 2, at a minimum. On that team, a soccer player and a baseball player got regular PT because the cupboard was left so bare! This could be the most pull-BS-out-of-your-ass post in the history of the Boneyard.

I just looked up the schedule, didn't check the boxscore.

But for you to go over the top because I didn't remember that two players were ineligible? That's the real nonsense.

Jeff King couldn't score in the post? Were you blind back then or are you blind now?

 

[upstater]

I will if you'll just admit that if Calhoun had recommended they name a plant as the new head coach, you'd want it to get a long term deal.

Kevin Ollie = stupid plant

according to freescooter.

 

[diggerfoot]

As far as my bubble talent claim goes, if I'm not mistaken, we have four guys that were Top 50 recruits (Bazz, Boat, Calhoun, DD). When JC took over the program hadn't had 4 Top 50 recruits in the previous decade combined. We have two guys that started for a national championship team and another guy who played 24 minutes in the final game. That's not good enough to be considered bubble talent? Thin in the middle I admit, but that's why I said bubble. If we had more strength in the middle we'd be better than bubble.

As far as you second point (in italics), you seem to be saying that it's "not logical" to hold Ollie to a high standard. A standard befitting a blueblood, Top 10 program. Are you sure you want to go there?

1. Performance matters more than rankings. Top 50? Why sell your case short? Daniels was top 10, making your case even stronger based on rankings. But he did not perform as top 10 while playing for a Hall of Fame coach. Last year we had "bubble talent" in performance, with four of the top six pieces now gone. Some might say that's addition by subtraction, and that might even be right, but it's not logical to assume that replacing those losses with newbies plus a Holy Cross transfer creates equal value.

2. Nor is it logical to assume Ollie is Calhoun's equal out of the gate. The emphasis is on logical. You know what? I actually think he will be, but it's not logical to think that any new coach will equal a Hall of Fame coach. The odds are against it, despite the encouraging signs we are witnessing.

So personally I actually hope that freescooter's standard is met. I'm hoping for at least 16 wins. Perhaps I even expect it, though I know that expectation is not logical. That will mean that Ollie is a better coach for these current players than Calhoun was, something we should not be logically expecting. Also, while it is logical to dampen people's expectations based on the notion that the "misfits" are what they are, it is then illogical to adopt a standard of evaluation that requires Ollie to be better than Calhoun, unless you just like being miserable.

I "will go there" in addressing your last point. I actually expect Ollie will be a better coach than Calhoun, though I will be the first to admit that is a "hopeful" expectation, not a logical one. Sixteen wins with these "misfits" indicates he might be better. We won't get there on the new talent alone so Ollie would have done a better job than Calhoun with the existing talent. He yet may be Calhoun's equal even with fewer wins, with less than a "bubble" record for this year.

 

[Waquoit]

I just looked up the schedule, didn't check the boxscore.

But for you to go over the top because I didn't remember that two players were ineligible? That's the real nonsense.

Jeff King couldn't score in the post? Were you blind back then or are you blind now?

Everything you said or implied in that post was wrong. It was impossible to go over the top in response. Jeff was huge against VCU in that epic NIT game. The rest of his career as a scorer, not so much. You are doubling down on your inaccuracy.