volbabyvol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 183
- Likes
- 106
Akhator Commits to Kentucky
- Thread starter Hoya Saxa
- Start date
volbabyvol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 183
- Likes
- 106
LurkerExposed
You have seen me!!
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 451
- Likes
- 465
Well......duhhhh. "In the past" Tennessee was winning 8 NCs and setting the standard for WCBB while programs like UK, USC, and UL were fielding mediocre teams and mediocre successes. That's like saying back in the past when it was 2+2 it equaled 4 but now that it's 2+3 it equals 5. What else would it equal?
And that's not saying that UT has really fallen that much. The landscape has changed: UConn is the big dog these days, like UT was the big dog that chased away LA-Tech. But UT is still a powerhouse program that has only slipped slightly and is still just on the precipice of returning to it's former level. It could happen next season. Y'all have the excellent conference to play in, the excellent history and tradition, and the excellent resources and fan support to keep the program very close to the top. LA Tech was the type of program that once certain head coaches retired or left, everyone said "well that's the end of that". That doesn't have to happen with UT...
In the case of UK and USC, these are 2 programs that has risen in recent seasons to challenge UT for supremacy in the SEC, and sort of look them in the eye. So yes of course now that they can offer the same competitive opportunities that UT can offer prospects, they will have success over UT on the recruiting trail. And yes of course back in the past when they couldn't, they didn't. That's 2+3 = 5 stuff right there. You know, what Sherlock Holmes always told Watson? When Auburn, LSU, and UGA were having their big runs in the 80s and 90s, didn't they "steal" top recruits from UT from time to time? Or keep UT from "stealing" the prospects from them?
Don't forget that South Carolina was also heavily recruiting Akhator at one point, until late in April she dropped them from her list of finalists. Luckily for Staley and the Gamecocks they secured the services of former Hoo Imovbioh for next season. Then they'll go searching for other bigs to recruit in 2016.
Next season UT will have:
6-3 Sr. C Nia Moore
6-6 Jr. C Mercedes Russell
6-2 Sr. F Bashaara Graves
6-2 Sr. F Jasmine Jones
6-2 So. G/F Jamie Nared
6-2 So. G/F Kortney Dunbar
If the 6-2 girls are honestly measured, they can provide depth in the post and help the centers defend the paint and rebound. 6-2 may not be elite height, but it's not bad height at all, and UT has a bunch of them. In the 2013-14 season, South Carolina platooned 6-4 Coates and 6-4 Ibiam at C, and had 6-0 Welch providing assistance at the 4 spot. And they had no one else on the bench after them, and they were a dominant presence in the paint with just those 3 players that season. UT will have much better depth than that next season....
As for UK, they will have:
6-6 Sr. C Ivana Jakubcova
6-3 So. C Alyssa Rice
6-2 So. F/C Alexis Jennings
6-2 Fr. P Batouly Camara
So yes UT has better depth in 6-2 or taller players for next season than UK has. Even adding Akhator doesn't change that. I agree that Akhator choosing UK has more to do with her feeling more comfortable there than any guarantees that were given to her. I doubt very seriously that any program in the SEC or ACC would let a player start or even play substantially even if they didn't practice or prepare as hard as the other girls on the team. So UT telling it's prospects that if they practice hard they will earn playing time isn't exactly a novel approach to just that program....
Last edited:
Sandvol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2010
- Messages
- 12,785
- Likes
- 3,721
Does it have more talent? Are you keeping up with what football people are saying? Do you realize he has not even had his year three record yet? Did you watch the bowl game? Obviously, you are just trying to help your argument which is weak with the one more win. The fact is it is two more wins. If they win six this year, then he will be questioned. However, he is bringing in more revenue to the University than the Lady Vols will ever be able to do. In business, that is what matters. I want Holly and the LV's to win a NC every year. However, to try and compare salaries for the head coaches for two different sports that have a wide gap in revenue stream is too weak for you to use. You are just trying to argue for the sake of it.
Slydell
Pancho
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 53,484
- Likes
- 4,298
That remains to be seen. Perhaps if Butch Jones could control his players' off-field activities a little better, the team might have a chance to focus enough in order to move up to the upper-middle-of-the-pack in the SEC. Maybe.
Yes. Following Pat's illness and subsequent retirement, the women's basketball program could have taken a serious nosedive. No doubt there were any number of competing programs (and sadly, some Vols "fans") who would have delighted in seeing that happen. Instead, Holly has kept the program stable, she has continued to reel-in top-ranked recruits, and she has maintained the program's elite status and expectations. For the first time in a very long time, the women's basketball program has all of the pieces necessary to actually earn a spot in the Final Four and, if not this year than certainly next, to contend for a national title.
This isn't why. Butch Jones is paid more because football is UT's cash cow. I am far from convinced (in fact, I am not at all convinced) that he is a better coach than Holly (inasmuch as the two can be compared). His job is simply valued more, which is a symptom of the misplaced priorities affecting our society. At an academic institution (which, believe it or not, UT is first and foremost), highly educated professors should earn far more than coaches of any sport. (And yes, I am fully aware that that is not going to happen any time in the foreseeable future.)
Last edited:
I have a child about to make a college choice. It is a business. It is about an education to the people who professors. However, it is a business that is concerned with producing income. This is why football is held in such high regard at major universities because like you said it is a cash cow. Does it make it right? However, it is the way it is. The football program did go into a nose dive. You should be glad it appears it is coming back. The perspective with sports in this country is not where is should be. However, neither you or I can change it. Butch Jones has put life back into UT. He has 100 plus kids he is responsible for instead of 14-15. They will do things and he has done well in getting rid of those who at this point have been accused of things. If guilty, I hope they rot in a hole so I am not taking up for them.
Back to the original point, the LV's were in a much better position for success when Pat left. She left it in great shape than where the program was after Kiff and Dooley. If you read my other posts, the reason Butch is getting paid more is because it is a cash cow as you said as well. Even Dooley was getting more than Pat ever did. Again, it is a business and football has more opportunity to bring in more funds to the UT than any other sport including women's basketball.
Back to the original point, the LV's were in a much better position for success when Pat left. She left it in great shape than where the program was after Kiff and Dooley. If you read my other posts, the reason Butch is getting paid more is because it is a cash cow as you said as well. Even Dooley was getting more than Pat ever did. Again, it is a business and football has more opportunity to bring in more funds to the UT than any other sport including women's basketball.
Got it. Trolling is never helpful for discussion. I am not sold on Holly nor am I thinking she should be fired. She has a tough job and she is not Pat. Not her fault but she is going to have to produce and recruit. Same thing with CBJ. He has it headed to a good place but still has to get it there. He has shown that he should get five years to do it. Holly should have that much time as well. The only time a coach should not is when you have a Dooley. He was an obvious idiot on and off the field. What he did off was worse than on field. And on the field, was horrific.
:hi:
Actually, colleges and universities should be about education to everyone associated with them. That is their number one, primary purpose -- to provide students with an education. When a university places more emphasis on athletics than on academics, it loses its fundamental purpose and its respectability. My degree from Harvard will open doors that a degree from UT would immediately slam shut. That is the way it is.
To be perfectly frank, I'm really not all that concerned with UT's football program.
You are absolutely right.
I'm not a defeatist. Hopefully one day Americans will grow up.
Butch Jones is not in any way personally responsible for his players' actions off the field and I'm not blaming him. I don't care for football, but he seems like a great guy and I think he is certainly a better football coach than UT's other recent football coaches. That said, if this sort of thing continues to be a problem for his teams, some sort of culture shift is in order.
You underestimate the reality of what could have happened BECAUSE she left. The mere fact that she left could have been the kiss of death for the program (no matter what kind of shape it was in at the moment of her departure). Over the course of the past three years, the program could started a descent into oblivion. Holly has prevented that from happening, and the program continues to be very strong under her leadership. Holly was put in a tremendously difficult position and she has handled it expertly (despite what some of her detractors want to think). She isn't Pat, but then, no one is.
Which is unfortunate on so many levels.
A publicly funded research university isn't a business regardless of how much funding the football program brings in. Of course, those who place little to no value in the university's true purpose may not see it that way.
Colleges as a whole are a business and care about rankings and how students perform. This is one reason why UT has focused on getting kids with higher ACT's ect. I know exactly what you are saying about a public funded research University. We probably agree on more things than we can post on a message board about what it should be. Problem is between what it should be and reality.
We disagree on football. I love it as well as basketball. I have a daughter who played basketball but loved music and focused and has done great with academics. Her first year of college is paid for and not from sports. My son loves playing basketball and baseball but we put academics above it all. With that said, Holly has done well not to let the program sink. Hopefully, she will have continued success. It is a different dynamic in women's basketball than ten years ago and it is harder to get on top
Just like CBJ, they will both be judged on their results. The last point is the culture shift you mentioned with what is going on with possible rapes. This is a major problem on ALL college campuses. The shift needs to start in the homes with families teaching young men and women how to treat each other with respect and some values and morals. In my opinion, the more we lead our value system to be what is a selfish perspective and our choices are what we want for ourselves without consideration of others, we will continue along a path where lives and people don't matter. We have much larger problems than what we are talking about with coaches and sports.
We disagree on football. I love it as well as basketball. I have a daughter who played basketball but loved music and focused and has done great with academics. Her first year of college is paid for and not from sports. My son loves playing basketball and baseball but we put academics above it all. With that said, Holly has done well not to let the program sink. Hopefully, she will have continued success. It is a different dynamic in women's basketball than ten years ago and it is harder to get on top
Just like CBJ, they will both be judged on their results. The last point is the culture shift you mentioned with what is going on with possible rapes. This is a major problem on ALL college campuses. The shift needs to start in the homes with families teaching young men and women how to treat each other with respect and some values and morals. In my opinion, the more we lead our value system to be what is a selfish perspective and our choices are what we want for ourselves without consideration of others, we will continue along a path where lives and people don't matter. We have much larger problems than what we are talking about with coaches and sports.
bowlinggreenvol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2009
- Messages
- 10,123
- Likes
- 3,912
armchair
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 10,948
- Likes
- 7,608
Programs are usually bigger than coaches, believe it or not, so I don't agree with this notion that UT could have fallen apart when PS retired. First, PS didn't exactly leave the program in great shape. We hadn't been to a Final Four in several years when she was running the show--there were obvious problems--and we still haven't. She left some talent, but not great talent.
Programs have traditions--and if ADs make good coaching hires the tradition of winning continues. Kansas has been a great men's program for a LONG time--through multiple coaches. UNC survived the retirement of Dean Smith and has won national titles (2, I think) since his departure. UCLA has fallen off a bit but won a national title after Wooden retired. Kentucky has been a top program for decades, with multiple coaches. Warlick hasn't been bad but she hasn't been good either--that's the bottom line. She's had two good chances to get UT into the Final Four--first playing Louisville after we had an easy run leading up to that game, and the last year when we had an easy run leading up the Maryland game (a team that wasn't great), and we choked both games away. It wasn't simply that we got beat--Maryland whipped us two years ago and that was acceptable because they were better. But this past year and the Louisville game we just choked and played pathetically, and that's not acceptable. In any case, the next UT women's BB hire will be huge. People talk about Warlick like she's 33 years old--"Oh, she's only been a head coach for three years," blah, blah: She's in her mid-50s, she's been coaching for more some 30 years. I don't know when she was in her coaching prime, but I'm quite sure it isn't now--it's in the past. We have a chance to be a very good team this year, but we'll see. I hope she and the staff can mold a championship team, but I'm skeptical. She has been unlucky with some of our injuries. Let us hope for good health this year, great coaching and great playing. We need to put ourselves in the title mix again--badly--for the sake of recruiting going forward.
Programs have traditions--and if ADs make good coaching hires the tradition of winning continues. Kansas has been a great men's program for a LONG time--through multiple coaches. UNC survived the retirement of Dean Smith and has won national titles (2, I think) since his departure. UCLA has fallen off a bit but won a national title after Wooden retired. Kentucky has been a top program for decades, with multiple coaches. Warlick hasn't been bad but she hasn't been good either--that's the bottom line. She's had two good chances to get UT into the Final Four--first playing Louisville after we had an easy run leading up to that game, and the last year when we had an easy run leading up the Maryland game (a team that wasn't great), and we choked both games away. It wasn't simply that we got beat--Maryland whipped us two years ago and that was acceptable because they were better. But this past year and the Louisville game we just choked and played pathetically, and that's not acceptable. In any case, the next UT women's BB hire will be huge. People talk about Warlick like she's 33 years old--"Oh, she's only been a head coach for three years," blah, blah: She's in her mid-50s, she's been coaching for more some 30 years. I don't know when she was in her coaching prime, but I'm quite sure it isn't now--it's in the past. We have a chance to be a very good team this year, but we'll see. I hope she and the staff can mold a championship team, but I'm skeptical. She has been unlucky with some of our injuries. Let us hope for good health this year, great coaching and great playing. We need to put ourselves in the title mix again--badly--for the sake of recruiting going forward.
Eric Viesturs
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2012
- Messages
- 120
- Likes
- 109
How delightfully naive.
I was with you when you said "colleges and universities should be about education" (emphasis added) but that isn't close to accurate. Colleges and universities are about providing places for professors to do publishable research. If they could get all their funding from governments and corporations, they might eschew the annoying need to deal with those pesky students, although the cover of providing an education might be important to some funding sources.
If you do not believe me, identify two roughly comparable professors, one who loves to teach, gets great mark from the students, but has minimal published research and a second who gets so-so marks on the teaching, but has a great h-index, and tell me how their respective careers progress.
Professors conducting and publishing original research is an immense part of the educational process. I never once said it isn't. However, you have a very negative and completely unsupportable view of university professors if you think most of them don't also enjoy teaching. While I'm sure you could find some who don't enjoy that aspect of their careers, most actually do. It is imperative that they conduct and publish research in order to remain credible in their field, however. Those who can't/won't do that are better off teaching high school or at a community college.
VN Store
