Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="CL82, post: 2973424, member: 44"] I think we are saying similar things. We are both struggling to understand how Kevin could be so successful his first two years but then struggle so mightily when things should have been very favorable to him. You believe it was that the kids on the team suddenly weren't motivated. I guess that could be it. Just bad luck. I suspect, but do not know that the difference is simply that our HOF coach may have been better at developing kids. Kevin had the skill set to coach kids who had already developed leadership skills but he hadn't learned how to instill those skills at this point in relatively young coaching careers. I base that guess on a few things. It seems to me that the post Calhoun kids' development seems to be flat. Think about how Kevin's alleged summer development plan for Vance was "get in the gym." Consider how Purvis was more successful before and after his UConn tenure. I guess it all could be bad luck, but I suspect that it was a skill set that KO hadn't developed yet. Note that you can reach that conclusion without the sophistry of liking/disliking KO. It makes sense of the facts, though I fully admit that are likely other ways to put the pieces together. But it could be that KO just got all lazy or unmotivated kids too, I guess. That seems less likely to me. That may be my natural bias against 'throwing kids under the bus.' At that age most young men are pretty malleable in the hands of a skilled teacher. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach