diggerfoot
Humanity Hiker
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,601
- Reaction Score
- 9,038
We critique games based on what we perceive are the best strategies for the goal of winning each game. Yet that goal is not the highest priority for Auriemma. While acknowledging the audacity of me speaking his mind, by his comments I think there is a hierarchy of goals that Auriemma has for the program that are as follows:
1. Develop people, both as players and their character
2. Have players "Play hard, play smart, have fun."
3. Win championships
4. Win games
If we lose a game but win a championship, that is acceptable to Auriemma. If the team plays the way he wants but loses a championship, that is acceptable. If his players go on to be successful as professionals and citizens but did not always play the way he wants, that is acceptable. The goal of winning games provides a simple means for a fan to evaluate, yet what ultimately matters are the higher goals.
I have mentioned before that, even as people claim that there is more parity and talent, the current four year "downturn" of this program is still more successful than our previous four year downturns, from 1996-1999 and 2005-2008. If the playing field has indeed been more leveled as many claim, yet we are doing much better than our previous downturns, that logically means we actually have improved as a program, even as each lost game is critiqued and causes anguish only in the context of the game itself.
Yet it recently dawns on me that it's not the ridiculous yet oft unappreciated success of our "downturn" that really matters, at least not for the hierarchy of Auriemma's goals. WNBA coaches sing praises about UConn players being ready for the pros. It's one thing to prepare Stewart or Wilson for the pros, or even someone who you will build your team around like Plum. It's quite another thing when a four year bench player like Stokes can go on and do well in the pros. Chong, Swanier and others are example of players in fulfillment of Auriemma's ultimate goal.
I don't think Auriemma is perfect; I don't think anyone is. The perfect coach would be able to develop both players like Tina Charles and Charde Houston and maintain blissful team chemistry equally well (though Houston did go on to do well in the pros). Yet given that no one coach can apply the perfect strategy for all players and all games, we will know that Auriemma needs to alter his strategies not by the outcome of any particular game, but when he no longer consistently sends on pro-ready players, not to mention good citizens.
1. Develop people, both as players and their character
2. Have players "Play hard, play smart, have fun."
3. Win championships
4. Win games
If we lose a game but win a championship, that is acceptable to Auriemma. If the team plays the way he wants but loses a championship, that is acceptable. If his players go on to be successful as professionals and citizens but did not always play the way he wants, that is acceptable. The goal of winning games provides a simple means for a fan to evaluate, yet what ultimately matters are the higher goals.
I have mentioned before that, even as people claim that there is more parity and talent, the current four year "downturn" of this program is still more successful than our previous four year downturns, from 1996-1999 and 2005-2008. If the playing field has indeed been more leveled as many claim, yet we are doing much better than our previous downturns, that logically means we actually have improved as a program, even as each lost game is critiqued and causes anguish only in the context of the game itself.
Yet it recently dawns on me that it's not the ridiculous yet oft unappreciated success of our "downturn" that really matters, at least not for the hierarchy of Auriemma's goals. WNBA coaches sing praises about UConn players being ready for the pros. It's one thing to prepare Stewart or Wilson for the pros, or even someone who you will build your team around like Plum. It's quite another thing when a four year bench player like Stokes can go on and do well in the pros. Chong, Swanier and others are example of players in fulfillment of Auriemma's ultimate goal.
I don't think Auriemma is perfect; I don't think anyone is. The perfect coach would be able to develop both players like Tina Charles and Charde Houston and maintain blissful team chemistry equally well (though Houston did go on to do well in the pros). Yet given that no one coach can apply the perfect strategy for all players and all games, we will know that Auriemma needs to alter his strategies not by the outcome of any particular game, but when he no longer consistently sends on pro-ready players, not to mention good citizens.
