The anti-Holly crowd is beyond reason. Appealing to win percentages, conference titles, gritty wins, overcoming massive injury problems and personnel shortfalls, none of that makes any difference. For this crowd, Holly does not deserve the job and can not coach just because of her clothing choices, her accents, her stutters in interviews and on and on.
This crowd of course would have likely been calling for CPS's head had the coach not been such a legend. But under CPS, the LVs offensive execution was never poetry in motion. Even with a player like Candace Parker, the LVs often struggled to find a consistent offensive scheme. And the LVs were often accused of playing down to the competition and many other parallels. The reality is that LVs for all their success have never consistently dominated teams like the Huskies, who seem to be the tacit comparison in many of these anti-Holly rants.
While Holly had been a long time assistant, she also had the longest tutelage imaginable under the coach of the freakin' century and has been loyal beyond belief to the program. Those attributes coupled with her high win % should count for something.
But come the Maryland, we will see that if the LVs lose, the anti-Holly's will be posting their misspelled tirades; and should the LVs win (against the odds really, given the undersized and undermanned state of the team's post position) the critic will be in a "yeah, BUT" mode; BUT the LVs should have been more dominant in getting to the final four; they had the easiest region; they should have been to the Final four more times that one under Holly; and of course with her "superior" talent she should have won the NC; a claim that is always followed by the charge that Holly can't recruit. Logic is not the basis of these anti-Holly rants.