Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="JordyG, post: 2493493, member: 6819"] I don't disagree at all that recruting is a skill. But a players greatness in college and the pros is defined by championships. In the pros as well, and in every sport. But for WCBB we need to grade on a curve.? Why should WCBB be any diffferent? Yeah, you have to have horses to run the courses, but I've seen Bruno do so much more with less, and Mulkey do so much less with more, and just last year. If positions were reversed does anyone really think Doug would have won only one title with Briner? Do you really believe that Baylor and Texas' location isn't just as important a reason as the coaches for keeping homegrown talent in Texas? Or UCLA or California, or SCar, or Walz? Yeah coaches cast a wide net. But the standards at Stanford are so rigid it keeps more local talent out than lets them in. Yet much of theirs is still homegrown. Depaul, UConn, ND, and yes Frese, have to work, pitch and babysit harder and longer. No one discounts what Vic did in TAand M, or what Walz did at Maryland. In my view Blair and Frese should share their championships with them. Which lowers my view of Blair and Frese as coaches and raises my opinion of Walz and Vic as assistants. But it's a whole new world when you're the coach,. Yeah, I'm sorry, but like players I think coaches should be held to the same standard and be defined by championshps, not effort, likability, a new relevancy, recruiting prowess or their choice of assistants. All this stuff is part of being head coach. Head coach is a juggler, always seeking to strike a balance that assistants never have to. Again, as I've said, I think Vic, Walz, Mulkey, Aston (whom I've long touted), Dawn (whom I love), Rueck (whom I love), Close, Graves and many others are very good coaches, but after my top goup of Geno, Muffet, Tara and Bruno there is the field. Get back to me after some of them do more with far less or win their first championship. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach