- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 9,343
- Reaction Score
- 23,546
This isn't a ten toes in post. The loss of Montez Mathis to Rutgers should not be minimized as an anecdotal scrawl or assuaged by a chorus of tales about the time we missed Brandon Knight and had to take Shabazz. The ship is taking on water and I do not begrudge anybody who lusts for a scapegoat. This is obviously important to all of us.
The truth is still paramount, though, and even if our scope stops well short of the threshold to obtain such a thing, I still appreciate the value of re-convening, at times like this, of what we do know. One thing I believe but do not know is that Ollie is much further away from the transition to hospice care than it may appear on days like this. Running a college basketball program is about as comprehensive an assignment as any occupation north of D.C. There is a reason many people - not myself, but a considerable portion of this board - campaigned against the idea that a guy with two years of coaching experience could waltz into one of the most powerful jobs in college basketball. Some might feel validated in that belief as questions about his ability to run a program circulate.
And since we're here, let's put a few of them on the table.
Can he install schemes on both ends of the court that consistently maximize the ability of his players?
Can he distinguish - when he is on the trail - between kids with a higher propensity for growing and learning than others? Is he able to recognize which specific skills are most likely to translate to the next level?
If he can, is he able to develop those players into winners, even on a timeline that may be accelerated by a players' desire to reach the next level?
Does he know how to motivate his players without alienating them?
If he can, then can he identify the warning signs during a recruitment that are a predictive of that player being problematic while he's here?
The last one is important to me, because in an era where recruiting is very much synonymous with groveling at the feet of 15, 16, and 17 year old kids, recently retired NBA players - and particularly one that fell in love with Jim Calhoun - might be especially at risk for struggling to adapt to a climate that is incongruent with their core philosophies. Between appeasing family members, pretending to care about AAU coaches, and catering to boosters and sneaker companies, there is a lot more to the craft then we often allow for. In simple terms, does he know how to play the game?
None of this necessarily pertains to the Mathis recruitment, but the anatomy of recruiting - and how coaches learn to leverage their strengths and weaknesses over time - is a lot more involved than people think. The pained exports and failed imports of now have a funny way of organically refining the casting of tomorrow's net. As a young coach, Ollie deserves some leeway on that front.
Baring that in mind, it's important to pay attention to the way we describe people. Bob Huggins is an ornery old guy who won't put up with entitled five star kids so he kicks your ass with hungry, under-the-radar players instead. Frank Martin will kick your teeth in if you forget to call him sir and then entice recruits with aggrandizing phone calls about how he needs a New York City point guard. Cal and K practically let the players recruit them. Kevin Ollie? He just gets outworked, apparently, and is incompetent.
I know that the source (s) propagating these rumors are good ones because the insiders on this board have proven that much. I also know that the source isn't Kevin Ollie.
I know that the information is real. I don't know that the conclusion is the correct one.
I thought Kevin Ollie did a bad job coaching our basketball team last season and I don't think he was particularly sterling in 2015 or 2016 either. Last season, the injuries and the offensive woes threw people off the scent of the real red flag: defense. He stuck to his guns on his defensive schemes even in the face of a fairly convincing sample of data to indicate otherwise and an associate coach who grew tired of his forcing a square peg into a round hole. To a lesser degree, he stuck to his guns on offense and shoehorned players like Brimah into roles they were not qualified for.
Great coaches - especially at the college level - are supposed to be stubborn, though. They're supposed to be arrogant. They're supposed to believe that the way they teach the game is the only way it should be played, and if that sometimes means marching a line of checkers players onto a chess board, then so be it.
They might have won more games last season with a different head coach. In fact, the man who took the fall, Glen Miller, might have been one of them. Instead, he found himself looking for work as soon as March, all because - and I don't buy that this was entirely due to recruiting - the head coach refused to swallow his pride and concede defeat on the schemes that facilitated arguably the worst three year stretch in recent UConn history.
All of that can be a good as much as it can be bad. It can be good that Mamadou Diarra signals a diametric contrast to Amida Brimah, who - much as I defended him while he was here - is more equipped to handle the sort of blitzing schemes that won us a title just three years ago. It can also be a good thing that angry players are now playing for an angry coach. There's less fluff than there was last year, when the shine from a top ten recruiting class was at its brightest on first night, or when guys showed up to camp out of shape, or when Wagner turned a pep rally into a fight.
Sure, some of that is whimsical rationalization, but some of it might not be. Now, we're left with the star point guard who played the last five games of the season on a busted wheel, a freshman point guard who led a public school to the prep championship, an NBA prospect whose first reaction upon tearing his ACL was to inspire his teammates, and a 23-year-old who crawled through every sewer in the universe for his opportunity to play D-1 ball.
If we continue to lose on the recruiting trail, we are screwed. There are no two ways about it. My hope is that the consistency in the way we are losing these battles foreshadows an epiphany down the road.
There is a lot of writing on the wall that suggests Kevin Ollie is on borrowed time. I am not here to dispute that. I am here to point to all of the writing that suggests he will be here for many years to come. And there is a lot of it.
Just remember, the greatest basketball team ever assembled took a page from Kevin Ollie's book. Steve Kerr was there, in Dallas, watching him re-invent the game.
The truth is still paramount, though, and even if our scope stops well short of the threshold to obtain such a thing, I still appreciate the value of re-convening, at times like this, of what we do know. One thing I believe but do not know is that Ollie is much further away from the transition to hospice care than it may appear on days like this. Running a college basketball program is about as comprehensive an assignment as any occupation north of D.C. There is a reason many people - not myself, but a considerable portion of this board - campaigned against the idea that a guy with two years of coaching experience could waltz into one of the most powerful jobs in college basketball. Some might feel validated in that belief as questions about his ability to run a program circulate.
And since we're here, let's put a few of them on the table.
Can he install schemes on both ends of the court that consistently maximize the ability of his players?
Can he distinguish - when he is on the trail - between kids with a higher propensity for growing and learning than others? Is he able to recognize which specific skills are most likely to translate to the next level?
If he can, is he able to develop those players into winners, even on a timeline that may be accelerated by a players' desire to reach the next level?
Does he know how to motivate his players without alienating them?
If he can, then can he identify the warning signs during a recruitment that are a predictive of that player being problematic while he's here?
The last one is important to me, because in an era where recruiting is very much synonymous with groveling at the feet of 15, 16, and 17 year old kids, recently retired NBA players - and particularly one that fell in love with Jim Calhoun - might be especially at risk for struggling to adapt to a climate that is incongruent with their core philosophies. Between appeasing family members, pretending to care about AAU coaches, and catering to boosters and sneaker companies, there is a lot more to the craft then we often allow for. In simple terms, does he know how to play the game?
None of this necessarily pertains to the Mathis recruitment, but the anatomy of recruiting - and how coaches learn to leverage their strengths and weaknesses over time - is a lot more involved than people think. The pained exports and failed imports of now have a funny way of organically refining the casting of tomorrow's net. As a young coach, Ollie deserves some leeway on that front.
Baring that in mind, it's important to pay attention to the way we describe people. Bob Huggins is an ornery old guy who won't put up with entitled five star kids so he kicks your ass with hungry, under-the-radar players instead. Frank Martin will kick your teeth in if you forget to call him sir and then entice recruits with aggrandizing phone calls about how he needs a New York City point guard. Cal and K practically let the players recruit them. Kevin Ollie? He just gets outworked, apparently, and is incompetent.
I know that the source (s) propagating these rumors are good ones because the insiders on this board have proven that much. I also know that the source isn't Kevin Ollie.
I know that the information is real. I don't know that the conclusion is the correct one.
I thought Kevin Ollie did a bad job coaching our basketball team last season and I don't think he was particularly sterling in 2015 or 2016 either. Last season, the injuries and the offensive woes threw people off the scent of the real red flag: defense. He stuck to his guns on his defensive schemes even in the face of a fairly convincing sample of data to indicate otherwise and an associate coach who grew tired of his forcing a square peg into a round hole. To a lesser degree, he stuck to his guns on offense and shoehorned players like Brimah into roles they were not qualified for.
Great coaches - especially at the college level - are supposed to be stubborn, though. They're supposed to be arrogant. They're supposed to believe that the way they teach the game is the only way it should be played, and if that sometimes means marching a line of checkers players onto a chess board, then so be it.
They might have won more games last season with a different head coach. In fact, the man who took the fall, Glen Miller, might have been one of them. Instead, he found himself looking for work as soon as March, all because - and I don't buy that this was entirely due to recruiting - the head coach refused to swallow his pride and concede defeat on the schemes that facilitated arguably the worst three year stretch in recent UConn history.
All of that can be a good as much as it can be bad. It can be good that Mamadou Diarra signals a diametric contrast to Amida Brimah, who - much as I defended him while he was here - is more equipped to handle the sort of blitzing schemes that won us a title just three years ago. It can also be a good thing that angry players are now playing for an angry coach. There's less fluff than there was last year, when the shine from a top ten recruiting class was at its brightest on first night, or when guys showed up to camp out of shape, or when Wagner turned a pep rally into a fight.
Sure, some of that is whimsical rationalization, but some of it might not be. Now, we're left with the star point guard who played the last five games of the season on a busted wheel, a freshman point guard who led a public school to the prep championship, an NBA prospect whose first reaction upon tearing his ACL was to inspire his teammates, and a 23-year-old who crawled through every sewer in the universe for his opportunity to play D-1 ball.
If we continue to lose on the recruiting trail, we are screwed. There are no two ways about it. My hope is that the consistency in the way we are losing these battles foreshadows an epiphany down the road.
There is a lot of writing on the wall that suggests Kevin Ollie is on borrowed time. I am not here to dispute that. I am here to point to all of the writing that suggests he will be here for many years to come. And there is a lot of it.
Just remember, the greatest basketball team ever assembled took a page from Kevin Ollie's book. Steve Kerr was there, in Dallas, watching him re-invent the game.
