Holly has to lead us to the final four next season.

[Manvol]

Firing coaches is contagious in this fanbase.

 

[volcrazy89]

Summitt was great back in the day--but the game passed her by the last decade of her tenure;

The facts do not support your opinion. In the last decade of her tenure, Pat went to five Final Fours and won two NCs. She also won the SEC championship six times and was a #1 seed in the NCAAT seven times.

The lack of success in the post-Parker years had more to do with the staff recruiting very lazy and mentally weak players more than it had to do with actual coaching.

 

[volbabyvol]

The short answer: yes.

One thing that a certain . . . segment . . . of Vols fandom needs to come to terms with is that there is a difference, sometimes vast, between hopes and expectations. They are not one and the same. As a fan, it was my hope that the Lady Vols would win it all. Was it my expectation this year? Honestly, no. I think the Lady Vols as a team were tremendously talented in 2013-14. I think they – and their coach – will be in a better position in 2014-15, and even more so the following year.

Patience is a virtue that many Vols fans don’t seem to possess in great quantities. There is nothing at all wrong with hoping to win (that’s why we are fans). There is nothing wrong with having reasonable expectations of a team. (For example, had this team gone 6-29 instead of 29-6, I would have absolutely questioned both the talent and the coaching. Of course, that isn't even close to what happened, though to hear the whining coming from some, it might as well have.) It’s when people become unreasonable in their expectations that things are said and done that, quite frankly, shouldn’t be said and done . . . and it is very often the people who know the least who complain the most. As much as you think you know this team and all the individual components of it . . . you don’t. You don’t know the dynamics. You don’t know what goes on behind the scenes, or what issues affect game performance beyond the rather ridiculous (and I daresay totally incorrect) assumptions that the players aren’t being taught fundamentals or that they aren’t adequately prepared.

The whole “blame the coach for everything wrong with the team” shtick is really rather old and worn out. It’s not unlike all the arbitrary blaming and bashing of teachers when students are perceived as underperforming. Are teachers sometimes to blame? Of course. Are they ALWAYS to blame? Absolutely not. The same is true of coaches. There are a myriad of reasons why a team may underperform during any given game situation; it isn't all on the coach's shoulders.

Develop some reason and learn to have patience. This team is far from being yesterday’s news, and all the coach-bashing and naysaying simply make you look foolish.

Time and time again we have heard this but it is just not winning games it's how we played during the whole season throughout we never established an identity on defense or offense, a tale of two halfs, the games we struggled in against lower levels opponents illustrated very clearly the job was not getting done. The opportunity was there to be great but we never took advantage how many times did we go into a game not prepared often the evidence is in the game film it is the coaches job to motivate and get the best out of their players!!

 

[Arclight]

If she doesn't make it next year, she never will.

She never will.

 

[ivyleague]

She never will.

After a lengthy absence from her 1-800-Psychics-R-Us service, it appears as if Miss Cleo has finally resurfaced on Volnation to let us know that she has peered into the murky depths of the future and Holly Warlick will never – never, I tell you – coach her team to an NCAA championship.

/sarcasm off

For what it's worth, I think you are wrong.

 

[ivyleague]

Time and time again we have heard this but it is just not winning games it's how we played during the whole season throughout we never established an identity on defense or offense, a tale of two halfs, the games we struggled in against lower levels opponents illustrated very clearly the job was not getting done. The opportunity was there to be great but we never took advantage how many times did we go into a game not prepared often the evidence is in the game film it is the coaches job to motivate and get the best out of their players!!

You've created a nice little semi-hyperbolic rant here. Kudos. I'd ask you if you wanted some cheese with your whine, but that might be overdoing it.

The constant coach-blaming needs to stop if you truly want to be taken seriously. Can CHW improve as a coach? Sure. She is a second-year head coach replacing a veritable legend, and she's done a pretty damn good job so far. It may not be up to your standards (i.e., "Final Four or ELSE" (with a requisite foot stomp for effect)), but if you are representative of this little ridiculous coach-blaming faction of the fan base, I'm not sure you'd be happy if Jesus Christ (or Ronald Regan) coached the team. *shrug*

I'm not sure where you get that the team was "unprepared" . . . a 29-6 record and SEC tournament championship don't really speak to that. Did they lose focus in some games? Probably. But I don't really see it as a lack of preparation or motivation. Plenty of teams lose games they shouldn't on occasion, and for a vast array of reasons often having little to nothing to do with coaching (or lack thereof). Stanford had a couple of bad losses this year and bowed out to Georgia in the Sweet 16 last year. Connecticut virtually destroyed them twice this year. In fact, Tara VanDerveer hasn't won a title in over 20 years. Yet no one is calling for her head in earnest. And here Tennessee has a new head coach with a 56-14 record, and to hear it from you, they are unprepared, unmotivated, and have a terrible coach. Give me a break.

There are some issues with this team (as there are with all teams) that need to be worked on. Limiting turnovers. Maintaining focus. Developing a stronger perimeter game. Those are all fixable issues, and I have confidence they will be addressed. You have to give this coaching staff a chance. Calling for a new coach after only two years ( during which CHW garnered a .800 winning percentage) is just insanely ridiculous.

 

[Orange_Mamba]

Before Tennessee gets to a Final Four they have to be healthy. When was the last time we had a fully healthy squad 07. When Amass went out we missed here ability to get the ball into the post. The post got their points from put backs and jump shots. The offense back somewhat stagnant there was no offense period look at the Maryland game.

 

[ivyleague]

Before Tennessee gets to a Final Four they have to be healthy. When was the last time we had a fully healthy squad 07. When Amass went out we missed here ability to get the ball into the post. The post got their points from put backs and jump shots. The offense back somewhat stagnant there was no offense period look at the Maryland game.

Agreed. Carter did a good job overall, but I believe this team really missed Massengale down the stretch. Hopefully she will be able to return in full form for her senior season.

 

[ruggy1]

You've created a nice little semi-hyperbolic rant here. Kudos. I'd ask you if you wanted some cheese with your whine, but that might be overdoing it.

The constant coach-blaming needs to stop if you truly want to be taken seriously. Can CHW improve as a coach? Sure. She is a second-year head coach replacing a veritable legend, and she's done a pretty damn good job so far. It may not be up to your standards (i.e., "Final Four or ELSE" (with a requisite foot stomp for effect)), but if you are representative of this little ridiculous coach-blaming faction of the fan base, I'm not sure you'd be happy if Jesus Christ (or Ronald Regan) coached the team. *shrug*

I'm not sure where you get that the team was "unprepared" . . . a 29-6 record and SEC tournament championship don't really speak to that. Did they lose focus in some games? Probably. But I don't really see it as a lack of preparation or motivation. Plenty of teams lose games they shouldn't on occasion, and for a vast array of reasons often having little to nothing to do with coaching (or lack thereof). Stanford had a couple of bad losses this year and bowed out to Georgia in the Sweet 16 last year. Connecticut virtually destroyed them twice this year. In fact, Tara VanDerveer hasn't won a title in over 20 years. Yet no one is calling for her head in earnest. And here Tennessee has a new head coach with a 56-14 record, and to hear it from you, they are unprepared, unmotivated, and have a terrible coach. Give me a break.

There are some issues with this team (as there are with all teams) that need to be worked on. Limiting turnovers. Maintaining focus. Developing a stronger perimeter game. Those are all fixable issues, and I have confidence they will be addressed. You have to give this coaching staff a chance. Calling for a new coach after only two years ( during which CHW garnered a .800 winning percentage) is just insanely ridiculous.

Agreed. :lolabove:

 

[volbabyvol]

You've created a nice little semi-hyperbolic rant here. Kudos. I'd ask you if you wanted some cheese with your whine, but that might be overdoing it.

The constant coach-blaming needs to stop if you truly want to be taken seriously. Can CHW improve as a coach? Sure. She is a second-year head coach replacing a veritable legend, and she's done a pretty damn good job so far. It may not be up to your standards (i.e., "Final Four or ELSE" (with a requisite foot stomp for effect)), but if you are representative of this little ridiculous coach-blaming faction of the fan base, I'm not sure you'd be happy if Jesus Christ (or Ronald Regan) coached the team. *shrug*

What games have you watched tell me please name one game were we didn't win off talent alone!! Name One Please!
Name one were we won and the team executed on both ends of the floor without 20+ turnovers for 40 minutes i want even throw in the factor against good competition??? I'll wait

I'm not sure where you get that the team was "unprepared" . . . a 29-6 record and SEC tournament championship don't really speak to that. Did they lose focus in some games? Probably. But I don't really see it as a lack of preparation or motivation.

A 29-6 record and SEC tournament is what considering all the teams from the SEC got destroyed in the NCAA tourney and were playing from behind all the SEC tourney game i guess you are going to tell me we are a 2nd half come from behind team lol you jokester you!! Did they LOSE FOCUS in some games are you kidding this was the whole freakin Season lol!! So who job is it to prepare and motivate the players?? Or we are not recruiting the right players please chime in these are just questions.

Plenty of teams lose games they shouldn't on occasion, and for a vast array of reasons often having little to nothing to do with coaching (or lack thereof). Stanford had a couple of bad losses this year and bowed out to Georgia in the Sweet 16 last year. Connecticut virtually destroyed them twice this year. In fact, Tara VanDerveer hasn't won a title in over 20 years.

What's going on out West is not my concern they could lose really for the end of time ONLY the LADY Vols, and you say it like it's a good thing that they had bad losses they have had our number for awhile i guarantee the bad teams they lost to would've had a good chance of beating us. And for you to think UCONN would not have dragged us around is a shame on YOU!
Yet no one is calling for her head in earnest. And here Tennessee has a new head coach with a 56-14 record, and to hear it from you, they are unprepared, unmotivated, and have a terrible coach. Give me a break.

Name one game we won that we shouldn't have?? That record does not make you a good coach when you are winning off talent alone Geesh!! If you don't mind could you post our record versus the top 10 if you want to impress someone.....I'll wait

There are some issues with this team (as there are with all teams) that need to be worked on. Limiting turnovers. Maintaining focus. Developing a stronger perimeter game. Those are all fixable issues, and I have confidence they will be addressed.
These issues that are fixable you say have not been addressed for awhile now are we leaving this one to the coaches or the players to address?

You have to give this coaching staff a chance. Calling for a new coach after only two years ( during which CHW garnered a .800 winning percentage) is just insanely ridiculous.

In not one of my post have heard me say Fire her!! I'm simply asking for change in game plan preferably in game adjustment that gives our team a chance to win!! I'm simply warning her season 3 could make her or break her.

No sugar coating Conzo had to deal with it, there is no exception to the rules

Listen we can disagree but this is nothing more than a debate! Stating only facts!
Please chime in these are only questions

 

[ivyleague]

In not one of my post have heard me say Fire her!! I'm simply asking for change in game plan preferably in game adjustment that gives our team a chance to win!! I'm warning season 3 could make her or break her.

Listen we can disagree but this is nothing more than a debate! Stating only facts!
Please chime in these are only questions

For future reference, I'm not a fan of responding to those who use histrionics to try to convey a point, particularly when they use insufferably bad grammar and sentence construction in doing so.

I watched nearly all Lady Vols games this past season, and fifteen misused exclamation points on your part won't convince me that Holly Warlick is a bad or inadequate coach or that the team won solely on talent. Turnovers were certainly a problem. CHW didn't lose or mishandle the ball a single time the entire season; the team members who, in your estimation, won their games "solely on talent" did that. There is room for both coaches and players to improve. I don't think I have ever insinuated that there isn't room to improve, just as I have never insinuated that I think CHW coached a perfect game every time (she didn't). However, to suggest that the coaching was so egregious that the players won entirely on talent alone is an absolute miscarriage of reason.

Oh, and you asked for one game in which the team executed on both ends of the court without 20+ turnovers? Texas A&M #1. Vanderbilt #2. South Carolina. Florida. Auburn. There's five for you to stew on. And just remember, at the end of the day, Holly still has her 56-14 record, and you just threw a temper tantrum for nothing.

 

[volbabyvol]

For future reference, I'm not a fan of responding to those who use histrionics to try to convey a point, particularly when they use insufferably bad grammar and sentence construction in doing so.

You may think that's a insult it usually goes that way when folks are losing ground but stay on task if there was something u did not understand i will go into further detail.
Shrugs i'm simply typing out might words as i speak and not proof reading no of this it's a message board who cares lol
I watched nearly all Lady Vols games this past season, and fifteen misused exclamation points on your part won't convince me that Holly Warlick is a bad or inadequate coach or that the team won solely on talent. Turnovers were certainly a problem.

What decent coach allows this reoccuring problem to happen for not 3 or 9 but 30+ games??

CHW didn't lose or mishandle the ball a single time the entire season;
Question??
Are we recruiting the wrong ALL AMERICANS tell me??
the team members who, in your estimation, won their games "solely on talent" did that.

There is room for both coaches and players to improve.
AGREED AGREED AGREED but it's got to start somewhere and it...???

I don't think I have ever insinuated that there isn't room to improve, just as I have never insinuated that I think CHW coached a perfect game every time (she didn't). However, to suggest that the coaching was so egregious that the players won entirely on talent alone is an absolute miscarriage of reason.

Oh, and you asked for one game in which the team executed on both ends of the court without 20+ turnovers? Texas A&M #1. Vanderbilt #2. South Carolina. Florida. Auburn.
Texas A&M NO, Which Vandy game they beat us once you no never should have happen cancels that out NO, I'll give you the South Carolina game that was a decent ball game for the club, and we should beat FLA and Aub. running away is my point to even throw these games in the convo is a insult baby!! 1 out of 5 There's five for you to stew on. And just remember, at the end of the day, Holly still has her 56-14 record, and you just threw a temper tantrum for nothing.

If you don't mind would you be so kind to post the record versus the top 10 opponents??
It's only a debate!!

 

[ivyleague]

If you don't mind would you be so kind to post the record versus the top 10 opponents??
It's only a debate!!

I have little patience for people who are too lazy or too ignorant to form a properly constructed sentence, even on a discussion forum. It has nothing to do with my “losing ground” in an argument and everything to do with the impression it imparts that you are not mentally prepared to engage in any kind of intelligent discussion with me. It is a signal to me that you are a waste of my time.

You are still exercising histrionics. Again, that is a signal that you are a waste of my time.

I did not join this board to "debate" anything; I joined to discuss a topic that I find tremendously compelling in the same way I find a beloved hobby to be compelling. If I want to debate, there are plenty of political discussion boards and debate forums populated by individuals who offer far more of an intellectual challenge than you likely ever could.

Here’s a bit of advice, though, for what it’s worth. If you ever want to actually debate someone, don’t engage in moving goalposts. If you don’t know what that is, and if you cannot identify how you just did that in your prior response to me, then you aren’t even capable of debating me about the weather.

If you want to know why I have failed to acquiesce to your demands of a "debate" on CHW's relative coaching abilities, read the above . . . and then read it again for good measure.

 

[governmentmule]

We will not smell another title until we get a great coach. UT has not had good coaching for a long time. Summitt was great back in the day--but the game passed her by the last decade of her tenure; that was quite obvious, and we still have serious coaching issues. The fact that we haven't been to a final four in six or seven years is evidence of our decline, but some diehards still want to hang onto the PS era. It is over. Time to find our next great coach.

CPS last decade ?
you mean the NCAA Championships in 2007,2008 were a bad thing ?

 

[governmentmule]

I have little patience for people who are too lazy or too ignorant to form a properly constructed sentence, even on a discussion forum. It has nothing to do with my “losing ground” in an argument and everything to do with the impression it imparts that you are not mentally prepared to engage in any kind of intelligent discussion with me. It is a signal to me that you are a waste of my time.

You are still exercising histrionics. Again, that is a signal that you are a waste of my time.

I did not join this board to "debate" anything; I joined to discuss a topic that I find tremendously compelling in the same way I find a beloved hobby to be compelling. If I want to debate, there are plenty of political discussion boards and debate forums populated by individuals who offer far more of an intellectual challenge than you likely ever could.

Here’s a bit of advice, though, for what it’s worth. If you ever want to actually debate someone, don’t engage in moving goalposts. If you don’t know what that is, and if you cannot identify how you just did that in your prior response to me, then you aren’t even capable of debating me about the weather.

If you want to know why I have failed to acquiesce to your demands of a "debate" on CHW's relative coaching abilities, read the above . . . and then read it again for good measure.

maybe you should find an ivy league board then :hi:

 

[ivyleague]

maybe you should find an ivy league board then :hi:

And you made this irrelevant comment why, exactly? I'm an avid Lady Vols fan and have been since childhood. That I refuse to engage in pointless debate with those who are only interested in coach bashing doesn't make me any less so. And I'm sorry if standard English offends you.

 

[ruggy1]

For future reference, I'm not a fan of responding to those who use histrionics to try to convey a point, particularly when they use insufferably bad grammar and sentence construction in doing so.

I watched nearly all Lady Vols games this past season, and fifteen misused exclamation points on your part won't convince me that Holly Warlick is a bad or inadequate coach or that the team won solely on talent. Turnovers were certainly a problem. CHW didn't lose or mishandle the ball a single time the entire season; the team members who, in your estimation, won their games "solely on talent" did that. There is room for both coaches and players to improve. I don't think I have ever insinuated that there isn't room to improve, just as I have never insinuated that I think CHW coached a perfect game every time (she didn't). However, to suggest that the coaching was so egregious that the players won entirely on talent alone is an absolute miscarriage of reason.

Oh, and you asked for one game in which the team executed on both ends of the court without 20+ turnovers? Texas A&M #1. Vanderbilt #2. South Carolina. Florida. Auburn. There's five for you to stew on. And just remember, at the end of the day, Holly still has her 56-14 record, and you just threw a temper tantrum for nothing.

wow ,this is something else indeed For future reference, I'm not a fan of responding to those who use histrionics to try to convey a point, particularly when they use insufferably bad grammar and sentence construction in doing so. now we got a professor .some here are not,,,,,,,,,, IMO I am probably the worst ,,,,so what? I still know what others post,so do you.ease up This not be an English class ..

 

[volbabyvol]

I have little patience for people who are too lazy or too ignorant to form a properly constructed sentence, even on a discussion forum. It has nothing to do with my “losing ground” in an argument and everything to do with the impression it imparts that you are not mentally prepared to engage in any kind of intelligent discussion with me. It is a signal to me that you are a waste of my time.

You are still exercising histrionics. Again, that is a signal that you are a waste of my time.

I did not join this board to "debate" anything; I joined to discuss a topic that I find tremendously compelling in the same way I find a beloved hobby to be compelling. If I want to debate, there are plenty of political discussion boards and debate forums populated by individuals who offer far more of an intellectual challenge than you likely ever could.

Here’s a bit of advice, though, for what it’s worth. If you ever want to actually debate someone, don’t engage in moving goalposts. If you don’t know what that is, and if you cannot identify how you just did that in your prior response to me, then you aren’t even capable of debating me about the weather.

If you want to know why I have failed to acquiesce to your demands of a "debate" on CHW's relative coaching abilities, read the above . . . and then read it again for good measure.

What!! What!! Well that explains it your a politician(wait did i spell that right) LOL LOL
I'm here to debate or discuss BASKETBALL with the LADY VOL fans You WIN:mf_surrender: I wave the white flag.

Let's be friends, I'm sorry, let's not get personal i take every true statement i said back!! What you got for lunch?

Anybody want to talk about off season workouts, drills, recruits, or etc..Anybody anything basketball related

I feel like i just took a test LOL

 

[armchair]

One can debate whether Warlick is a "bad" coach or not. However, I have no trouble saying that she is /not a good coach./ For one thing, she clearly doesn't have the personality for the job; if she did, she would have become a head coach during her 30-year coaching career. She didn't--and that is telling. She is not going to "get better" as a coach now. That is laughable. She is close to retirement--she is who is she: an assistant trying to run a major program with a major pedigree that has been losing ground for a decade to better-coached teams--and coaching includes talent evaluation and recruiting.

The Tennessee offense has been sloppy and prone to turnovers for more than a decade--and the problem hasn't been fixed. Team offense was PS's major weakness as a coach--and Warlick has continued that team bad habit. We remain a bad passing team--and teams with lots of top recruits who commit a lot of turnovers and make a lot of bad decisions and who do not know how to move the ball well are not well coached. Period. Double Period. Triple Period. Turnover to assist ratio: Ever heard of it? It is a signal stat for assessing whether a team is well-coached or not--the canary in the coal mine, if you will. Why? Because you can score baskets in basketball with only moderate talent if you know how to pass and move the ball smartly--and well-coached teams do. What any team, male or female, that has achieved success with modest talent. You can be sure that they either play great defense or pass the ball well, and often both. That is how ND and Ct. got to where they are today. UT, by contrast, has been a poor passing and poor turnover-to-assist ratio team for a LONG time. And it is why we are where we are now.

Talent and basketball fundamentals are two different things--and if a team wins consistently if can be difficult to see that it is not, actually, a sound team fundamentally--high turnover number, low assist number. That is UT, by and large. We see the difference when we play teams line Northwestern State in the NCAA tournament--not Northwestern, Northwestern State. We were lucky to have a 2 point lead at the half. Tennessee has almost always won games on talent as opposed to coaching--that's certainly been true for much of the last 20 years. We have lost our talent advantage over prominent teams like ND, Stanford (and Ct.)--and that is why they've been waxing us for a few years. Without a talent advantage, we lose to equally talented teams. We still have FAR more raw talent than other SEC teams, which is why we still win the SEC (though Kentucky and USC and LSU have been gaining ground) and why we of course still have a good overall record. Warlick's record doesn't mean a lot. Besides, the W-L record has never been the UT standard. Some may wish to lower the standard for their purposes, but that has not been the UT standard.

Last year, we had only to beat one decent/good team in the NCAA to get to the final four. We came against Louisville and fell to pieces before the game was 10 minutes old--full panic mode. A well-coached team? Against Maryland this year, we have 14 turnovers in the first half. Well-coached? Maryland was manhandling us inside--and yet Warlick played Russell only 14 minutes. Well-coached? Maryland went on a tear early in the game and kept building its lead. 99 percent of the coaches in America would have called a TO to stop Maryland's momentum. Did HW? Nope. She was asked directly after the game why she didn't call a TO, and she replied that she didn't think it was necessary! Please. Would playing Russell more or calling an early TO have changed the outcome of the game? Probably not-- but you have to manage games smartly or you most certainly will lose to good teams. We have lost nearly every game we've played against good teams for about four years--and we're lucky we haven't played Ct. for a while.

This is a program that needs and demands an excellent coach--like all programs in all sports with great traditions. I don't mean to bash Warlick constantly--I'm sure she's a fine person. I go on about this because UT fans have been delusional about our coaching for at least a decade or more. The bottom line is this: If we want to start competing with UConn, ND, Stanford and a growing number of programs on the rise, then UT will need to upgrade its coaching (and, yes, its talent). If we want merely to keep winning more games than we lose, if we are suddenly happy just to make the Sweet 16 (and making the Sweet 16 is very easy to achieve), fine, stay the course. But UT's standards have been quite high for a long time--and IMO they should remain so.

 

[TennFan]

The Lady Vols should have gotten by Maryland and made the "Elite 8" just like the men should have done against Michigan. Are te Lady Vols a Final 4 next season? Remains to be seen. I go along with Kentucky and South Carolina and maybe Texas A&M being the teams to beat! UGA now has taken a back seat. They used to be the 4th best team for the women in the SEC. Need more determination and better shot selection on the 3's!

 

[Amb3096]

The Lady Vols should have gotten by Maryland and made the "Elite 8" just like the men should have done against Michigan. Are te Lady Vols a Final 4 next season? Remains to be seen. I go along with Kentucky and South Carolina and maybe Texas A&M being the teams to beat! UGA now has taken a back seat. They used to be the 4th best team for the women in the SEC. Need more determination and better shot selection on the 3's!

Tennessee should be the 2nd best team in the SEC behind SC. UK lost their starting frontcourt, and TAMU lost their main inside presence.

If Tennessee can't finish at least 2nd in the SEC and make the FF next year, they really are in a rut.

 

[volbabyvol]

Not so fast I say we are still the number 1 team in the SEC, but now SC is moving in but I like our head to head match up with them at every position. They need consistent shooters we don't well with heavy guard teams.

 

[ivyleague]

One can debate whether Warlick is a "bad" coach or not. However, I have no trouble saying that she is /not a good coach./ For one thing, she clearly doesn't have the personality for the job; if she did, she would have become a head coach during her 30-year coaching career. She didn't--and that is telling. She is not going to "get better" as a coach now. That is laughable. She is close to retirement--she is who is she: an assistant trying to run a major program with a major pedigree that has been losing ground for a decade to better-coached teams--and coaching includes talent evaluation and recruiting.

The Tennessee offense has been sloppy and prone to turnovers for more than a decade--and the problem hasn't been fixed. Team offense was PS's major weakness as a coach--and Warlick has continued that team bad habit. We remain a bad passing team--and teams with lots of top recruits who commit a lot of turnovers and make a lot of bad decisions and who do not know how to move the ball well are not well coached. Period. Double Period. Triple Period. Turnover to assist ratio: Ever heard of it? It is a signal stat for assessing whether a team is well-coached or not--the canary in the coal mine, if you will. Why? Because you can score baskets in basketball with only moderate talent if you know how to pass and move the ball smartly--and well-coached teams do. What any team, male or female, that has achieved success with modest talent. You can be sure that they either play great defense or pass the ball well, and often both. That is how ND and Ct. got to where they are today. UT, by contrast, has been a poor passing and poor turnover-to-assist ratio team for a LONG time. And it is why we are where we are now.

Talent and basketball fundamentals are two different things--and if a team wins consistently if can be difficult to see that it is not, actually, a sound team fundamentally--high turnover number, low assist number. That is UT, by and large. We see the difference when we play teams line Northwestern State in the NCAA tournament--not Northwestern, Northwestern State. We were lucky to have a 2 point lead at the half. Tennessee has almost always won games on talent as opposed to coaching--that's certainly been true for much of the last 20 years. We have lost our talent advantage over prominent teams like ND, Stanford (and Ct.)--and that is why they've been waxing us for a few years. Without a talent advantage, we lose to equally talented teams. We still have FAR more raw talent than other SEC teams, which is why we still win the SEC (though Kentucky and USC and LSU have been gaining ground) and why we of course still have a good overall record. Warlick's record doesn't mean a lot. Besides, the W-L record has never been the UT standard. Some may wish to lower the standard for their purposes, but that has not been the UT standard.

Last year, we had only to beat one decent/good team in the NCAA to get to the final four. We came against Louisville and fell to pieces before the game was 10 minutes old--full panic mode. A well-coached team? Against Maryland this year, we have 14 turnovers in the first half. Well-coached? Maryland was manhandling us inside--and yet Warlick played Russell only 14 minutes. Well-coached? Maryland went on a tear early in the game and kept building its lead. 99 percent of the coaches in America would have called a TO to stop Maryland's momentum. Did HW? Nope. She was asked directly after the game why she didn't call a TO, and she replied that she didn't think it was necessary! Please. Would playing Russell more or calling an early TO have changed the outcome of the game? Probably not-- but you have to manage games smartly or you most certainly will lose to good teams. We have lost nearly every game we've played against good teams for about four years--and we're lucky we haven't played Ct. for a while.

This is a program that needs and demands an excellent coach--like all programs in all sports with great traditions. I don't mean to bash Warlick constantly--I'm sure she's a fine person. I go on about this because UT fans have been delusional about our coaching for at least a decade or more. The bottom line is this: If we want to start competing with UConn, ND, Stanford and a growing number of programs on the rise, then UT will need to upgrade its coaching (and, yes, its talent). If we want merely to keep winning more games than we lose, if we are suddenly happy just to make the Sweet 16 (and making the Sweet 16 is very easy to achieve), fine, stay the course. But UT's standards have been quite high for a long time--and IMO they should remain so.

Wouldn't it have been easier and less time consuming to have simply written, "I have an irrational dislike of Holly Warlick (even though I say I don't) and I really get my rocks off writing vast diatribes about why I think she is not a very good coach"? Heads up, Skippy. Everybody knows what you think. The word salad isn't necessary.

Oh, and malcontent pricks aren't really the best judges of other people's personalities, so, well . . .

 

[Amb3096]

Not so fast I say we are still the number 1 team in the SEC, but now SC is moving in but I like our head to head match up with them at every position. They need consistent shooters we don't well with heavy guard teams.

Tennesee has one proven outside shooter going into next season: Massengale

Player by player matchup:

Massengale/Carter > Sessoms (Bianca Cuevas may even things out though)

Mitchell > whoever Tennessee has at SG

Wilson>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Burdick

Welch > Graves

Harrison > Ibiam

Bench:

Coates > Russell

I'll call it right now...SC is gonna kill Tennessee unless Bashaara Gets Her Groove Back, Nared sends Burdick to the end of the bench, Russell learns how to play, and Tucker/Middleton are lights out shooters.

 

[volbabyvol]

Tennesee has one proven outside shooter going into next season: Massengale

Player by player matchup:

Massengale/Carter > Sessoms (Bianca Cuevas may even things out though)

Mitchell > whoever Tennessee has at SG

Wilson>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Burdick

Welch > Graves

Harrison > Ibiam

Bench:

Coates > Russell

I'll call it right now...SC is gonna kill Tennessee unless Bashaara Gets Her Groove Back, Nared sends Burdick to the end of the bench, Russell learns how to play, and Tucker/Middleton are lights out shooters.

Let's have some fun with this Coach Amb vs Coach Volbaby!! lol

My starters and why? DEFENSE ALONE

Carter > Sessions Win I don't need a pg that can score if she is surrounded by all-americans just some drawn up plays that put them in position (cough Coaching)

Tucker = Mitchell I have not been impressed by Mitchell i know she will get better but the game plan going into the game will be go under screens make her become a jump shooter sag off on defense if she gets hit then we will adjust. I say JT is probably our best option here along with A.Mass/Carter/Reynolds rotating. I just need to see more of Tucker before i can determine her role in the offense but with MItchell guarding her i'm going to use her size advantage!!

If Wilson starts at the 3 they will have to play zone because if not keeping i'll start Jones i need her atheletism to take advantage of Wilson lateral movement ISO drive to the basket creating a mismatch it might be a problem on the other if they pound the ball inside but i don't think thats her game she is more finesse. I just need Jones to understand that get physical and contest every shot without fouling we will work on it in practice. Let's remember Wilson has done zero at the college level so she will have to prove she is great
(I see Welch starting at the 3 but will see)

Graves/Harrison/Burdick < Welch she was there best player last season in my eyes every time i watched them she took it to the opposition.
I think Graves comes back to life next season, Welch excels driving to the basket as well make her become a jump shooter.
I think this 3-headed monster can take a toll on her.
(i see Coates at the 4)

Harrison > Ibiam We have to take advantage of this matchup when it's there

This is my defensive lineup which means we are trapping and pressing half court make them use the shot clock.

Bottom line SC wil have to make jump shots to win the game as seen watch the match against UNC it's still unproven.

I'm faxing over the gameplan now Amb3096 i'll will the send the invoice too LOL!!
Your Turn Counter!