Noah Vonleh

[UCONNfan1]

I think I'm at the head of the line who strongly dissagrees with you. First off due to the timing, they simply couldn't conduct a national search. That option was simply not on the table. Thus the choices were give KO a 7 month or a multi-year deal. By giving him a one season deal, puts UConn in the situation of having to recruit players for next year who simply aren't sure who will be the coach when they arrive. As it stands UConn does not have a head coach under contract for next season.

Regardless to who ends up on the sideline next fall, Ollie or someone else via a national search next spring, that coach might not have the elite talent they could have had if most of the top recruits we're going after simply don't feel they can take the risk of committing to UConn. Now if it looked like the administration had backed KO with a multi-year deal, some of them might have been willing to commit.

Now of course, if KO is able to pull in an excellent class even under these circumstances and they show up next fall, then the 7 month deal might not turn out to be much of an issue. My guess is if Manuel shows KO the door after the season, the recruits that end up signing their LOIs could ask to be released, and those who only verballed could open up their recruitment again. And yes, even if they gave him a mutli-year deal and fired him after the season, the outcome could still end up as just described.

I hope KO can overcome my concern making this a non-issue. For those who like the 7 month deal and don't believe KO will cut it, be prepared for 2 to 3 difficult seasons in a row (this season through the next couple) where the new coach finds himself trying to compete with marginal talent and/or very young players. IMO, the best case scenario was to give KO a multi-year deal, him doing well with what he has this season, and then very well with the returning players who developed under his leadership along with a new crop of very talented recruits as he ushers in the Post-JC era.

I guess, they could go in another direction after the season, find a way to hold onto the recruits that commited and/or pull in some elite 2013 recruits who did not commit early, but if there is a scenario that's least likely to happen, this one IMHO would be it.

No problem Dog. As I said, I 100% emphatically disagree with you. the 1 year contract was perfect for this season. If UCONN misses out on a couple of top notch 2013 kids as a result, it won't be the end of the world. But to give a guy with 2 years experience as an assistant who has never coached a college game in his entire life a 3 year contract is crazy. So we'll just have to agree to disagree!

 

[8893]

Why the debate between one year and three years without considering two years? There is absolutely no downside--zero--to a two-year contract. Even those who support the one-year contract concede that it is likely to hamper recruiting.

The only reason to give a one-year contract is to send a message. It is recognized in the business as a sign of disrespect, a lack of confidence, a slap in the face and the functional equivalent of the "interim" tag. Whether Kevin deserves a longer contract or not is not the issue. Whether Kevin or JC are okay with it is not the issue. The issue is and remains the perception outside the program. And it is clear from every reaction I've read from anyone outside the program who has addressed the issue that the perception is that the school is not sold on Kevin. That's why people from Larry Brown to Donny Marshall to every recruit who has mentioned UConn have all said that they don't like it and that it concerns them.

Again, I agree fully that the school should not be sold on Kevin yet because he has yet to coach a game. But the message it sends to others is the point. Perception is reality, and the reality is that the one-year (err, seven-month) contract issue is going to be mentioned in almost every story written about this team unless and until he is extended. Say what you will about everyone knowing that a two-year, three-year, ten-year, etc. contract can be broken; it doesn't result in the same conversation, and everyone in the business knows it.

 

[upstater]

No problem Dog. As I said, I 100% emphatically disagree with you. the 1 year contract was perfect for this season. If UCONN misses out on a couple of top notch 2013 kids as a result, it won't be the end of the world. But to give a guy with 2 years experience as an assistant who has never coached a college game in his entire life a 3 year contract is crazy. So we'll just have to agree to disagree!

I still can't fathom the logic for the life of me.

Sign him to a 3 year $3 contract. What difference does it make? And if UConn starts missing out on recruits because of this, how does that help? It's not the end of the world, but potentially the end of the program's status.

 

[upstater]

And for the 100th time I will say you should not give anyone a 3 year contract without doing a nationwide search. Would you give him a 3 year contract and then do the nationwide search after this season? so if you find soemone else you can THEN fire him? that would be ridiculous.

Clearly not eveyone is going to agree. many of us feel the 1 year was just fine. many of you feel it was not.

Yes, I would. Why would it be ridiculous to fire him?