Borges: UConn looking to fill two spots

[djct1999]

I never never said it doesn't hurt us. Not at all. Not sure where you got that from.

I'm just saying it may not be the best course of action, in terms of setting a tone for the program, to tell players to take a hike, and clearly Hurley agrees with that and it's worked for him in the past.

UConn's success in the past is based on talent AND culture, and I appreciate that Hurley realizes that and won't take a shortcut to success while sacrificing potential culture issues. A lot of the allure of Hurley to recruits is brotherhood and culture.

Umm, no. Keeping kids who clearly don't belong does not set the tone or culture. Winning does. Getting talent does. I totally understand that Hurley would prefer for these kids to go out on "their own terms", but in the end, he surely wants them out.

 

[kansashusky]

Umm, no. Keeping kids who clearly don't belong does not set the tone or culture. Winning does. Getting talent does. I totally understand that Hurley would prefer for these kids to go out on "their own terms", but in the end, he surely wants them out.

I don't think you realize the hit UConn's national brand has taken over the past four years. Kicking kids out only makes it harder on the recruiting trail.

Winning is the ultimate solver of our problem, but how many wins does a second scholarship get us next year with the players that are available at this stage?

 

[blue93]

It's tough to preach togetherness if you force guys out of your program. I absolutely think Hurley is handling this the right way.

I also think it speaks volumes that players don't want to leave in an age of increasing 'free agency' in college athletics.

We've got a good one, let him do it his way.

 

[RayIsTheGOAT]

You said, "Patience. Two players seeing through their graduations is not going to hurt our future recruiting." I disagree, that's 2 spots that would have subpar players that Hurley would be able to recruit into.

Will Hurley be fine and make do? Of course. But I'd feel a lot better if we had even more Hurley level players/recruits to bring in here

Future recruiting, as in our ability to recruit high level players for many years to come.
Obviously we are in a bind for this season.
In theory, having a senior Isaiah Whaley is not going to hurt us. We will be fine in 2020, with a plethora of young talent (I'm assuming).

 

[RayIsTheGOAT]

Umm, no. Keeping kids who clearly don't belong does not set the tone or culture. Winning does. Getting talent does. I totally understand that Hurley would prefer for these kids to go out on "their own terms", but in the end, he surely wants them out.

How would it sit with the current roster if Hurley told 2 well-liked kids they aren't welcome back?
How does it sit with the people over at Putnam Science?

I'm not saying it would totally ruin the program. Of course not. But I see why Hurley does things the way he does.

 

[businesslawyer]

I respect Hurley's approach here, I just disagree with it wholeheartedly and think it's extremely detrimental to the program.

To say that, you have to conclude that it doesn't hurt us recruiting other players if the other players know that if they can't help us win on the court, they have to be ready to have their schollies pulled.

Does that really sound realistic. If you were an 18 year old, wouldn't you prefer a school who actually told you that they would stand behind you for 4 years as long as you kept your nose clean?

I know you'd like it if we could clear roster space without it coming back to bite us, but we can't have everything we like.

 

[UCDaveD]

To say that, you have to conclude that it doesn't hurt us recruiting other players if the other players know that if they can't help us win on the court, they have to be ready to have their schollies pulled.

Does that really sound realistic. If you were an 18 year old, wouldn't you prefer a school who actually told you that they would stand behind you for 4 years as long as you kept your nose clean?

I know you'd like it if we could clear roster space without it coming back to bite us, but we can't have everything we like.

I believe the perceived impact of ridding the program of dead wood on future recruits is being vastly overstated.

To be consistent, I hated the rule in Little League that every kid had to play too.

 

[djct1999]

How would it sit with the current roster if Hurley told 2 well-liked kids they aren't welcome back?
How does it sit with the people over at Putnam Science?

Hurley is more focused on the future, not the past. How would it sit wit the current roster? It shouldn't matter. Hurley shouldn't care. If any player is upset with an upgrade in talent, then they aren't buying in to the "culture". Hurley has been very clear that the last few years has been unacceptable. Whoever doesn't get that, doesn't belong. I don't know how to even address Putnam Science. We don't owe them any favors. If you recall, HD spurned us to sit out a semester at Kentucky, That showed me that Putnam Science is in it for themselves. This won't impact at all any current relationship we have. If they want to come they will. If they don't, they won't. What we do with our current roster has no bearing.

 

[McLovin]

Umm, no. Keeping kids who clearly don't belong does not set the tone or culture. Winning does. Getting talent does. I totally understand that Hurley would prefer for these kids to go out on "their own terms", but in the end, he surely wants them out.

To take this outside of sports so we can all relate better.

Company A has a boss who fires employees who aren't top performers, even though they are competent at their job.

Company B has a boss who is honest with employees about their shortcomings, and works with them to help them improve so they can maybe become a top performer.

No one wants to work for Company A, the culture sucks becuase everyone is worried they could be the next one fired. Company B is much better because the boss shows they truly care about their employees - this motivates everyone to perform at a higher level.

Companies with good culture and high employee morale consistently outperform companies with poor culture and low employee morale.

Much like business, basketball is a team game. If the team is not bought into the culture, then no matter how talented they are they will almost always come-up short of expectations in the end. And the team / future recruits won't buy into the culture if the coach consistently says one thing and then does the other.

 

[CTGoonie]

Since UConn self-imposed the scholarship reduction can they just say "eph it, we're taking it back"?

 

[djct1999]

I believe the perceived impact of ridding the program of dead wood on future recruits is being vastly overstated.

To be consistent, I hated the rule in Little League that every kid had to play too.

Even more true if the current coach inherited the dead wood and not recruited it himself. Again, I totally understand Hurley would prefer for the kids to decide themselves, but in the end, he needs to do whatever it takes to get this program back to the tourney. I promise you that if March becomes important again around here, no one will care about the one or two kids who had to leave.

 

[djct1999]

To take this outside of sports so we can all relate better.

Company A has a boss who fires employees who aren't top performers, even though they are competent at their job.

Company B has a boss who is honest with employees about their shortcomings, and works with them to help them improve so they can maybe become a top performer.

No one wants to work for Company A, the culture sucks becuase everyone is worried they could be the next one fired. Company B is much better because the boss shows they truly care about their employees - this motivates everyone to perform at a higher level.

Companies with good culture and high employee morale consistently outperform companies with poor culture and low employee morale.

Much like business, basketball is a team game. If the team is not bought into the culture, then no matter how talented they are they will almost always come-up short of expectations in the end. And the team / future recruits won't buy into the culture if the coach consistently says one thing and then does the other.

This analogy is silly. Every current player will benefit immensely if UConn becomes more relevant. The most obvious way to become more relevant is to replace players who are incapable of contributing with kids that can.

Fwiw, this isn't exclusive to UConn, It happens at every top program.

 

[Slick]

I really hope we have two spots. This roster is still constructed really poorly. If we only have 1 scholarship, it hurts us for the next 2-3 years.

Kind of a silly post. We have 2 athletic guards coming in and Akok so we are in much better place then we were.

 

[bill6319]

On a more positive note, this says a lot about Hurley and the staff's quick change of the program's environment. I don't want to downsize the issue of not having scholarships available but the fact that players who know they won't get much playing time and still want to stay are a positive sign.

 

[McLovin]

This analogy is silly. Every current player will benefit immensely if UConn becomes more relevant. The most obvious way to become more relevant is to replace players who are incapable of contributing with kids that can.

I don't think it is silly - sports and business are very similar. Here are the "5 Pillars" Tony Bennett used to set his culture at UVA. #3 and #4 very relevant to what Hurley is trying to establish with his culture - niether pillar can stand by kicking weak links to the curb.

Culture and a wining program take more than 1 off season to build, but it can all come crumbling down in 1 off season if you're not careful.

The FIVE Pillars: The FIVE Pillars by UVa Men's Basketball

Here is Darden (UVA business school) professors explaining how the "5 Pillars" are relevant to business culture: Teamwork: UVA Basketball Coach Tony Bennett’s 5 Pillars of Success | Darden Ideas to Action

 

[kansashusky]

This analogy is silly. Every current player will benefit immensely if UConn becomes more relevant. The most obvious way to become more relevant is to replace players who are incapable of contributing with kids that can.

Fwiw, this isn't exclusive to UConn, It happens at every top program.

I am just curious. Who is this big upgrade that will be way better than what we have?

 

[djct1999]

I don't think it is silly - sports and business are very similar. Here are the "5 Pillars" Tony Bennett used to set his culture at UVA. #3 and #4 very relevant to what Hurley is trying to establish with his culture - niether pillar can stand by kicking weak links to the curb.

Culture and a wining program take more than 1 off season to build, but it can all come crumbling down in 1 off season if you're not careful.

The FIVE Pillars: The FIVE Pillars by UVa Men's Basketball

Here is Darden (UVA business school) professors explaining how the "5 Pillars" are relevant to business culture: Teamwork: UVA Basketball Coach Tony Bennett’s 5 Pillars of Success | Darden Ideas to Action

This is more applicable and relevant to the team Hurley creates, not inherits. He isn't looking to replace guys he brought in but more so guys he identified as part of the problem from the previous regime. Big difference.

 

[McLovin]

This is more applicable and relevant to the team Hurley creates, not inherits. He isn't looking to replace guys he brought in but more so guys he identified as part of the problem from the previous regime. Big difference.

Not really. He can't talk the talk and not walk the walk. This isn't a mess he created, but he was brought in to fix it in the same way he has rebuilt programs in the past. Building long term culture >>>> short term "winning". These first couple years are about setting the cultural tone for the program and over time restocking the pond with "big fish".

I want UConn to be relevant again as much as anyone on here, but in order to do it right it is going to take some time and patience.

 

[djct1999]

Not really. He can't talk the talk and not walk the walk. This isn't a mess he created, but he was brought in to fix it in the same way he has rebuilt programs in the past. Building long term culture >>>> short term "winning". These first couple years are about setting the cultural tone for the program and over time restocking the pond with "big fish".

I want UConn to be relevant again as much as anyone on here, but in order to do it right it is going to take some time and patience.

In any type of reorganization, the dead weight is the first to go. That, in essence, is the start of this new culture. Go back to your initial analogy. No top performer would be upset if the guy who wasnt holding his weight was let go and the top performer would now earn more as a result.

This idea that the addition of two scholarships, no matter how attained, is anything but a positive is simply silly and deaf to the current landscape.

 

[mauconnfan]

Kind of a silly post. We have 2 athletic guards coming in and Akok so we are in much better place then we were.

Not silly at all. Not blaming anyone who now resides in a recruiting post at UConn but for now besides the freshman who you hate to depend on, we have no one who knows what it's like to win more than they lose. That in itself isn't good. And besides guard again, an improved big we have question marks galore still. Hopefully the likes of Polley, Wilson, Whaley and B.Adams can improve but no guarantee there. For now it's messy, it needs experience and size or plain ability.

 

[LBird33]

Boy did this string derail

 

[kemba]

This is more applicable and relevant to the team Hurley creates, not inherits. He isn't looking to replace guys he brought in but more so guys he identified as part of the problem from the previous regime. Big difference.

Well if he isn't running guys off than clearly he hasn't identified them as part of the problem.

And it's not really different. Pretty much all of Calhoun's classes had at least 1 guy who after a year or 2 showed he probably wasn't going to have a major role here. Or at the very least, their scholarship could be better used for a freshmen with more talent and potential. Some, like a Doug Wiggins, showed he couldn't live up to the culture of the program and was pushed out. Some he was honest about their role going forward and they chose to leave. Some chose to stick around. Regardless of whether its a previous coaches recruits or their own it always happens.

Hurley isn't doing anything super crazy

 

[Edward Sargent]

I am just curious. Who is this big upgrade that will be way better than what we have?

Don’t you already know? Any HS kid with more than 3 stars after his name.

 

[Lynyrd]

The reduction is self-imposed ... impose a change to an educational scholarship only

 

[McLovin]

In any type of reorganization, the dead weight is the first to go. That, in essence, is the start of this new culture. Go back to your initial analogy. No top performer would be upset if the guy who wasnt holding his weight was let go and the top performer would now earn more as a result.

This idea that the addition of two scholarships, no matter how attained, is anything but a positive is simply silly and deaf to the current landscape.

You are viewing these players are robots, not human beings. This isn't a video game where you just try to assemble a team of players with the highest rating. The pieces have to fit together off the court as much as they do on the court.

All of the kids on this team are friends and have a special bond. They have been teammates for 2+ years, gone through a coaching change and multiple losing seasons. They have been through a lot of crap together, which has definitely strengthened that bond.

We have had winning teams with serious deficiencies on the roster. The 2012-2013 team is a perfect example. They had great season, not because of their talent, but because of the bond they had off the court. They played with and for each other each and every game.

Forcing a kid out, regardless of his talent level, will have a negative impact on the rest of the team and the culture Hurley is trying to build. The players you are speaking about kicking out are not standing in the way of any "top performer" getting minutes, Hurley has made that clear. I don't think a single player on the team would be happy if Hurley kicked someone out purely because of their talent between the lines.

Edit: BTW, I'm not arguing that 2 scholarships would be bad by any means. I'd love if we had more scholarships open-up. I'm just saying if we open another scholarship it needs to come about organically and from the players choice, not by throwing "dead wight" to the wolves.

 

[Towney007]

You are viewing these players are robots, not human beings. This isn't a video game where you just try to assemble a team of players with the highest rating. The pieces have to fit together off the court as much as they do on the court.

All of the kids on this team are friends and have a special bond. They have been teammates for 2+ years, gone through a coaching change and multiple losing seasons. They have been through a lot of crap together, which has definitely strengthened that bond.

We have had winning teams with serious deficiencies on the roster. The 2012-2013 team is a perfect example. They had great season, not because of their talent, but because of the bond they had off the court. They played with and for each other each and every game.

Forcing a kid out, regardless of his talent level, will have a negative impact on the rest of the team and the culture Hurley is trying to build. The players you are speaking about kicking out are not standing in the way of any "top performer" getting minutes, Hurley has made that clear. I don't think a single player on the team would be happy if Hurley kicked someone out purely because of their talent between the lines.

Edit: BTW, I'm not arguing that 2 scholarships would be bad by any means. I'd love if we had more scholarships open-up. I'm just saying if we open another scholarship it needs to come about organically and from the players choice, not by throwing "dead wight" to the wolves.

This is my point.

Also - it's extremely likely we take a pretty good jump next year as-is. That's all i'm looking for at least. Destabilizing your culture to win a few extra games in a year where you're at-best a tournament team is really short-sighted, I think.

 

[djct1999]

This is my point.

Also - it's extremely likely we take a pretty good jump next year as-is. That's all i'm looking for at least. Destabilizing your culture to win a few extra games in a year where you're at-best a tournament team is really short-sighted, I think.

We lose our best player in Jalen Adams. We get three unproven freshmen. Exactly how are we going to get better? I applaud the optimism but with things currently as they are, explain how we are going to have this big jump. This is based on a ton of "ifs" and not all that realistic.

 

[djct1999]

You are viewing these players are robots, not human beings. This isn't a video game where you just try to assemble a team of players with the highest rating. The pieces have to fit together off the court as much as they do on the court.

All of the kids on this team are friends and have a special bond. They have been teammates for 2+ years, gone through a coaching change and multiple losing seasons. They have been through a lot of crap together, which has definitely strengthened that bond.

We have had winning teams with serious deficiencies on the roster. The 2012-2013 team is a perfect example. They had great season, not because of their talent, but because of the bond they had off the court. They played with and for each other each and every game.

Forcing a kid out, regardless of his talent level, will have a negative impact on the rest of the team and the culture Hurley is trying to build. The players you are speaking about kicking out are not standing in the way of any "top performer" getting minutes, Hurley has made that clear. I don't think a single player on the team would be happy if Hurley kicked someone out purely because of their talent between the lines.

Edit: BTW, I'm not arguing that 2 scholarships would be bad by any means. I'd love if we had more scholarships open-up. I'm just saying if we open another scholarship it needs to come about organically and from the players choice, not by throwing "dead wight" to the wolves.

I wish I had what you are smoking. This hypothetical sounds so nice I wish it were true.

P.S. The talent on that 2012-13 was vastly different than this team..

 

[J187Money]

I think it is fine if he sits with kids and tells them they may not end up with playing time, etc. And it might be better for them to move on. I just have a problem with yanking a scholarship from a kid who got recruited and is working his ass off. But if a kid says he wants to stay and fight for a spot/PT, I say you have to let him.

 

[UconnU]

So the article is headlined ‘Uconn looking to fill 2 spots’ yet offers no explanation of how they are planning on opening up a second scholarship. It even implies that no spots will be opening up because no one wants to leave, something that we’ve been speculating.