This thread is a bummer, but let's be realistic for a second.
1.) This was a program coming off a loss of scholarships. Even with that, they somehow salvaged a national title AND landed some big recruiting classes rankings-wise. These guys have had a lot of obstacles and it's clear they can GET talented guys. Now coaching/developing, sure - we can talk all day about that, but they can get those guys.
2.) I don't care who you are or who you come up under or what program you have. Recruiting is hard and for a lot of coaches, it can take 4-5 years just to get some sort of idea of what you CAN get, what you SHOULD get and what you can and should get that you can get the most out of. Ollie's had some huge hits (Hamilton, Gilbert probably ends up being that, grad transfers have been useful almost across the board) and has had some embarrassing misses (name one).
But for him and every coach - it's finding a balance between reality and what actually, really works - and the kind of style you want to play. I think Ollie's getting closer to that. He's brought in some guys with the TALENT to play his style, but in terms of their mental makeup and Uconn-y ness... they weren't there. He's found some kids with bigtime UConn-y ness, but short on talent. This is the closest he's come in any year to finding a better balance throughout his roster. This is a dramatically better team than a year ago. World's better.
But
3.) This year, Ollie seems to have a team that, well - he likes and thinks he can coach - and so far - has done well with. He wants to play a style where guards can create. I'm not sure how effective that style will ultimately be - but it's clear that's what he's looking for. And he's got that. He's got older, rock solid players who he's either cultivated or grabbed as grad transfers/transfers that are good pieces. He did a good job making us serviceable up front this year - it's clearly an area we need to get better in. Defensively, you really can't argue with the results sans last year - Ollie's passed with flying colors in getting guys who can play D.
All things considered, this is the first year i've sat back, watched games and said - 'ok, I don't love everything, but there's a foundation here and an actual road map to what we need to get to take that next step.' These are UConn style kids - maybe not the talent level we had with Callhoun - but the opportunity to build back towards that is clearly there this year in a way it just hasn't been in the past few years. So a whopping four games into a season, I feel better now about the program than I have in a long, long time and where it's overall trajectory could be.
What's better is business/Dollars and cents aside, the AAC seems to be committed to getting better at hoops. Wichita will help. SMU has maintained in spite of challenges. Cincinnati is good. Houston is building to something, and even though Temple and Memphis are solid/unspectacular programs, they're not less offensive than say - a St John's in the Big East. The competition will be good and if we can keep our non-conference schedule challenging, we'll get the looks we need to keep the program's profile in an OK spot for a few more years.
We need bigs. And a Thabeet, Okafor kind of big... we need a shooter, maybe two. But all the other pieces are kind of there.
My question mark is whether Ollie's NBA style one on one, guards have the freedom to create individually philosophy can translate at the college level. I'm skeptical for a few reasons - but first and foremost because college kids aren't NBA kids and you need a very specific kind of kid to be able to run in that system. The second thing, is that you have to keep your recruiting at an incredibly high level at the guard position to do that - and expecting Gilberts and Adams type players every year isn't realistic. The third problem is that if you're a big or a scoring wing, i'm not sure how excited i'd be about coming to a program where everything is going to depend on someone else's creativity. The other part of me says that the one and done type kids might see some success here and say - 'hey, this guy is running a system that's going to help me at the next level' and might be tempted. Who knows. I'm more skeptical than I am optimistic, but nowhere near to the degree that i'd dismiss it outright. I'm willing to give it a shot.
So I dunno - I think we'll ultimately be OK - but we're a gun slinging, fun team... we'll probably play over our heads. We'll win some games we have no business winning. We'll lose some that'll be total head scratchers... all for the same reasons. We'll see.
But what I do know - is there's a road map. It's really, really, really clear what we do well. It's really clear what we've got a chance to do better. It's clear we've got a chance to get a lot better and turn a few heads in March... it's also clear we're really flawed and the wrong match ups will spell long nights. Plain and simple.
But i'm ok with that. That's a big step forward considering 2 of the last 3 years.
