cncchris33
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 33,735
- Likes
- 50,177
I'm gonna hold off from answering that until after this year. So far, he's done everything right and then some. Honestly, I was not really thrilled when Martin was hired but said I'd give him a chance. He's for sure exceeded my expectations for the first year and has a chance to absolutely kill it this off-season going into his 2nd year. IMO, and not to start a debate, but he's a way better coach than Pearl. He's not nearly as flashy but I love his "business first" swag he's had since day one. I'm looking forward to seeing how the team and players progress with a full year under him.
He may end up being better, but there is nothing to back up this claim right now. Pearl could have me pulling my hair out but the guy won basketball games everywhere he coached.
Can't we all just agree that Pearl was a good coach but blew it. And it appears UT got lucky (or did its homework) and hired a good replacement in Martin. There is really no need to ever compare them. I personally am a Bruce Pearl fan and a Cuonzo Martin fan. People dont need to pick one or the other. Instead embrace the fact that for once in UT basketball, we got good coaches back to back.
Well said. The anti-Pearl crowd mostly wants to forget that era ever existed, and what better way to expedite that process than by convincing yourself in your own mind that his replacement is destined for greatness in spite of the mess left in Pearl's wake.
Pearl was good for Tennessee basketball at a time when Tennessee basketball needed something good. He was one of only a handful of people in the coaching profession who could have lit the spark in a moribund fanbase that was needed to make our program relevant. If that were his only accomplishment, we are better for it and the product is much better to watch as a result.
Will CCM be better? That's a subjective question and his resume is really too incomplete to answer right now. I hope he is, because that would take Tennessee basketball to heights unreached and I think everyone, those who supported Pearl and those who didn't, can agree on that.
As to the OP's question, it's the most overused in sports today. Doesn't mean squat. Martin preaches a style of basketball that can win regardless of personnel. That usually spells out a long tradition of winning basketball. He still has some question marks on the recruiting trail, but from what I've seen and heard he's holding his own and then some.
So to answer your question, zjc, eff the it factor.
As to the OP's question, it's the most overused in sports today. Doesn't mean squat. Martin preaches a style of basketball that can win regardless of personnel. That usually spells out a long tradition of winning basketball. He still has some question marks on the recruiting trail, but from what I've seen and heard he's holding his own and then some.
So to answer your question, zjc, eff the it factor.
He may end up being better, but there is nothing to back up this claim right now. Pearl could have me pulling my hair out but the guy won basketball games everywhere he coached.
Can't we all just agree that Pearl was a good coach but blew it. And it appears UT got lucky (or did its homework) and hired a good replacement in Martin. There is really no need to ever compare them. I personally am a Bruce Pearl fan and a Cuonzo Martin fan. People dont need to pick one or the other. Instead embrace the fact that for once in UT basketball, we got good coaches back to back.
I for sure agree that Pearl was a good coach. I didn't explain myself clearly. I meant that Martin was a different kind of coach than Pearl. Bruce was more animated but I prefer the "no flash all about business" type of attitude. When I said CCM was a better coach, I meant X's and O's. The great thing about Pearl's coaching was he knew how to play to his team's strength. I guess CCM is a little more traditional, which I like. Watching a half court offense being executed gets me more excited than anything. Either way, not turning this into a Pearl -vs- Martin thing. Both are good coaches.....
I really could care less what his style his if he wins basketball games...I f Martin takes us farther than Pearl ever did, than I prefer Martins style.....if Martin fails, than I prefer coach pearls style.....it is all about winning games.
True, but it's not like Bruce was paying players or anything (well, as far as we know).
when have we vacated wins
I didn't say we have, you just said winning is all that matters and I was simply saying as long as its clean.
Winning isn't all that matters if youre doing it dirty, just ask Indiana. If you were talking solely about pearl and Martin ok. I thought you were just makin a general statement that winning is all that matters.
no I dont want to be put on probation o receive any serious penalties......it is the same if he is spotlessly clean amd losing games I wont be happy but I dont want to win and have the university hurt in the process.
my comment was toward particular styles...the guy I responded too was talking about liking more business than flamboyant....and I was saying I could care less as long as the coach wins.