MBB vs UCONN

[CousinRicky]

9 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

I've always had realistic yet high expectations. I measure success in wins and losses, graduation rates and (lack of) NCAA infractions.

You have to look really hard to find any improvement under Bartow. This team is 0-6 under him and have lost by an average of 15.2 points over that timeframe. Scoring is slightly improved under Bartow but again its has had no material impact.

So is the improvement that nobody has transferred out in the last 3 weeks and that there are no new allegations of academic fraud? Because there is no tangible improvement under Bartow outside of that.

What exactly would you expect from any coach that took over after FCOA was fired?  Think Coach K would have won any games with these players?  Calipari?  The talent we have at the moment is what it is.  I don't blame one loss on Bartow. Not saying he should be hired but if you had Calipari coaching and losing with these kids you wouldn't preclude him from the job.

[CousinRicky]

2 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

If you want to argue that Bartow can coach but the current players are either uncoachable or not D1 talent then let's have that conversation.

OK, I don't think they are talented enough to win games in our conference.  I believe Bartow, from what I saw in practice, can coach.  I think the kids are coachable. I think the talent and experience are lacking.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Bourbon Bull

[Brad]

20 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

I've always had realistic yet high expectations. I measure success in wins and losses

That's not a good measure, out of the gate, in this messy interim situation.  Stop the bleeding. Start building.  

[Triple B]

6 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

My requirements might lead to a short list of candidates, but for me it would be:

• Prior head coaching experience at the major or mid-major level, with NCAAT appearance within the last 5 years on the resume.
• No more than 3 years removed from last HC job
• No significant NCAA rules infractions during HC tenure
• Excellent communicator

Anthony Grant meets the criteria at least in the first three and would be open to interviewing anyone else who has as well.

So Anthony Grant is your home run hire?

[CousinRicky]

1 minute ago, brybull1970 said:

I can't argue with that.

Well, that was a short discussion.  

[TarHeel_Bull]

1 minute ago, brybull1970 said:

I never said we needed a home run hire. Those were your words, not mine. 

Your previous comment made it seem like you wanted one, even if you didn't mean it. I would love to get Anthony Grant, but I'm not opposed to keeping Bartow either.

[Triple B]

4 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

I never said we needed a home run hire. Those were your words, not mine. 

Then you need to start making clearer points because that's exactly what this infers:

47 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

Reading this thread saddens me to see how far some of you have lowered the bar for this program ... We don't need a home run hire?

 

[Brad]

We need a turnaround specialist like the coach we had in football.  

Not some joker accustomed to coaching the talent level at their current school. 

[Triple B]

32 minutes ago, Brad said:

We need a turnaround specialist like the coach we had in football.  

Not some joker accustomed to coaching the talent level at their current school. 

Is that a shot at my awesome high school coach suggestion??

[Triple B]

31 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

I was challenging why a home run hire would be ruled out of hand as an example of expectations being too low. I wasn't advocating that a home run hire was the only way to go, just making the point that ruling it out is dumb.

Maybe people should read the question asked along with the question answered so they can gain "clarity".

Now who's twisting words. Where did anybody rule out a home run hire?