Tennessee drops from AP Top 25

[th2421]

How were we lucky to make the E8? We beat the region's #2 seed and #3 seed to get there.

And the #2 seed on its home court.

 

[Darth_Vol]

I freely admit to all reading I have no answers and know very little. I log onto this board daily looking for knowledge and new information.

One day I just might find it.

Good for you, you keep up that fruitless chase for the TRUTH.

My new theory is aliens kidnapped Holly and replaced her with this crap coach look-a-like. Does that explanation suit your "mystery" better?

 

[Nute Gunray]

In tonights UCONN - ND game, UCONN in a close game

UCONN by 9!

 

[LVJeff]

There's a difference between a good college player and a WNBA-caliber player. There's no secret to that. There have been plenty of college AAs who didn't make the pros because they basically came into college at a college-ready level, and finished at the same level. Then you have players that get pushed to the next level because they have coaches that know what they're doing. Clearly not Holly.

But you can go ahead and believe that she's not that bad. Hey, maybe Sweet 16 can become the new standard.

If you want knowledge, try the library.

I never said she wasn't that bad. I never said she was good. Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm curious why her first teams were similar to Pat's last teams and why the current teams are so much worse.

Record-wise, Pat’s last teams weren’t significantly different than Holly’s first teams. Similar won-lost records, similar performances in the tournaments. Some of those same players, Massengale in particular, played for both coaches. Some of the players on Pat’s last teams were better than the players Holly had, Glory Johnson in particular. Yet the results were similar. If Pat was as affected by her illness as early as some suggest – 2007 or 2008 (and I’m inclined to agree based on my experiences with friends and family) – then I see no substance to the claim Holly’s first teams performed better than her most recent teams due to Pat’s influence. If so, why weren’t Pat’s own last teams (with better players) performing better? If it wasn’t Pat’s influence but the influence of Pat’s holdover players, then why didn’t those same players do the same when playing for Pat? If posters just want to bash Holly, I’m not standing in their way. But these are to me interesting questions with no pat (pun intended) answers.

 

[LVJeff]

You have to recognize it to be able to find it. You're arguing with a poster who has a hell of a lot more knowledge than most on here. Will you find it that way?

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Nute Gunray]

Everyone always hopes for a Connecticut loss, but in the last few years, them losing is nearly as rare as spotting a bald eagle in the shoe department at J.C. Penney. UC players are simply too well coached and too willing to put in as many extra hours at the gym as necessary to be the best.

But if any team can pull it off, it's usually a Muffett McGraw-coached Notre Dame that can do it. She really is a fine coach, and Notre Dame is lucky to have her.

As rare as spotting a bald eagle selling shoes in the shoe department at J.C. Penney

 

[LVJeff]

Since then the record has notably gone the other direction.

Holly Warlick has coached her team out of two consecutive seasons out of the Top 25. Steadily worse is an apt description.

No, SUDDENLY worse is a better description. Holly's teams had slightly better records for three consecutive seasons before the bottom fell out.

 

[LVJeff]

Good for you, you keep up that fruitless chase for the TRUTH.

My new theory is aliens kidnapped Holly and replaced her with this crap coach look-a-like. Does that explanation suit your "mystery" better?

What has life done to you to make such an *******? (7 letter word with hole at the end)

 

[volnationnj]

No, SUDDENLY worse is a better description. Holly's teams had slightly better records for three consecutive seasons before the bottom fell out.

I agree, suddenly worse is a better description.
What else coincided with the bottom falling out ?

 

[lvocd]

I agree, suddenly worse is a better description.
What else coincided with the bottom falling out ?

Polar ice caps are melting at a more rapid pace.
There's been an increase in solar flare activity. Beef prices have certainly skyrocketed. The Atlanta zoo welcomed more baby pandas. Pope Benedict XVI resigned. The Volkswagen emission scandal. Britain exited the European Union.

There are others.

 

[T.J.]

If you want to say that after her third season, yes. Last year wasn't very good and this year isn't starting any better.

But the claim I was referencing was after her first season and not her third. To claim that it was getting steadily worse after her first season when the record was improving is simply foolish.

That was then this is now. What has Holly done for the Lady Vols lately other than get fans to question her coaching?

 

[T.J.]

No, SUDDENLY worse is a better description. Holly's teams had slightly better records for three consecutive seasons before the bottom fell out.

NO there wasn't anything sudden about it. The very first clue on how Holly would coach was in her very first game at the helm.

Remember Chattanooga? After that loss Holly had the audacity to mention Pat lost her first game, too.:crazy:

Fast forward to today and Holly is still a loser of a coach.

 

[clkou]

How were we lucky to make the E8? We beat the region's #2 seed and #3 seed to get there.

I'm not sure how that refutes my point. If you get to the Elite 8, you're going to beat some teams ranked #2 or #3. No one is disputing the results. I'm saying we were lucky or fortunate because we were ranked #7 in our bracket which translates to an overall ranking of #25, #26, #27, or #28. That was the lowest or worst seed we've ever got coincidentally or not occurring during Holly's first year with all her players.

So, to get to the final 8 when we were projected to lose in the round of 32 was overachieving relative to our poor ranking. In the year's past, getting Elite 8 was usually underachieving. That's a HUGE discrepancy even though the result is technically the same. If this trend continues, we WILL be bounced before the Elite 8 because we were supposed to.

We only won the first game in the tournament by 6. If the ball bounces a little better for Green Bay, we could have ended up underachieving again but this time with a low bar. Had we run into Syracuse or South Carolina earlier, we most likely wouldn't have made the Elite 8, so we had some "luck" there due to the draw of the tournament.

And, again, there's just no reason with the players we have to be losing games against Penn State and Virginia Tech OR to not even be competitive against a top 10 team like Baylor.

 

[LVJeff]

NO there wasn't anything sudden about it. The very first clue on how Holly would coach was in her very first game at the helm.

Remember Chattanooga? After that loss Holly had the audacity to mention Pat lost her first game, too.:crazy:

Fast forward to today and Holly is still a loser of a coach.

A valid point. Which does nothing to explain how Holly had better records for three consecutive seasons than did Pat in her last.

Lest some of you misinterpret my question that I believe Holly is a great coach, you're mistaken. I don't. But I asked a question and haven't gotten an answer that sounds plausible.

 

[LVJeff]

NO there wasn't anything sudden about it. The very first clue on how Holly would coach was in her very first game at the helm.

Remember Chattanooga? After that loss Holly had the audacity to mention Pat lost her first game, too.:crazy:

Fast forward to today and Holly is still a loser of a coach.

And another thought, the first thought I had about Holly as head coach wasn't UTC, it was the fact she spent all those years as an assistant in the first place. Her temperament seems ill-suited for the job as HC.

 

[Darth_Vol]

Polar ice caps are melting at a more rapid pace.
There's been an increase in solar flare activity. Beef prices have certainly skyrocketed. The Atlanta zoo welcomed more baby pandas. Pope Benedict XVI resigned. The Volkswagen emission scandal. Britain exited the European Union.

There are others.

And the rabbit hole of this mystery just keeps getting deeper....

 

[volman128]

What has life done to you to make such an *******? (7 letter word with hole at the end)

Lighten up, Francis.

 

[LVJeff]

Lighten up, Francis.

Yes sir Mr. Stirling.

 

[armchair]

UConn has been on one of the biggest runs in collegiate sports history--Anson Dorrance's 21 (or whatever the number) UNC soccer championships would be even better--while we've floundered embarrassingly for a decade and have a staff that on its best days is probably a 4 on a 1-10 scale. And people still want to give Warlick the benefit of the doubt.

 

[T.J.]

A valid point. Which does nothing to explain how Holly had better records for three consecutive seasons than did Pat in her last.

Lest some of you misinterpret my question that I believe Holly is a great coach, you're mistaken. I don't. But I asked a question and haven't gotten an answer that sounds plausible.

armchair, Amb & others explained quite well of what you mentioned. You'll have to go back and research.

In all sincerity I wanted Holly to succeed and thought she was a great pick at first hire. As a fan outside looking in I just assumed she was a good choice since coach Summitt wanted her to take over. But, the product that is on the court is horrible to watch. The most oft putting is Holly's lack of confidence and I don't know attitude when talking about her team. She conveys a defeatist persona. Not a good look.

 

[gule]

100% correct

 

[ladyvosl23]

I'm not sure how that refutes my point. If you get to the Elite 8, you're going to beat some teams ranked #2 or #3. No one is disputing the results. I'm saying we were lucky or fortunate because we were ranked #7 in our bracket which translates to an overall ranking of #25, #26, #27, or #28. That was the lowest or worst seed we've ever got coincidentally or not occurring during Holly's first year with all her players.

So, to get to the final 8 when we were projected to lose in the round of 32 was overachieving relative to our poor ranking. In the year's past, getting Elite 8 was usually underachieving. That's a HUGE discrepancy even though the result is technically the same. If this trend continues, we WILL be bounced before the Elite 8 because we were supposed to.

We only won the first game in the tournament by 6. If the ball bounces a little better for Green Bay, we could have ended up underachieving again but this time with a low bar. Had we run into Syracuse or South Carolina earlier, we most likely wouldn't have made the Elite 8, so we had some "luck" there due to the draw of the tournament.

And, again, there's just no reason with the players we have to be losing games against Penn State and Virginia Tech OR to not even be competitive against a top 10 team like Baylor.

What If UConn Lost to notre Dame then we would have cake and Ice Cream. All of these What if's . we Beat green bay period . We beat the number 2 seed on there floor Period. We beat the the # 3 seed Period./ IT is not our fault of the Bracket We had. I hear know one asking for Dawn Staley job because they were projected to be i the title game, but they lost in the Sweet 16. Regardless of regular season. HOLLY WARLICK WAS THE LAST COACH STANDING FROM THE SEC PERIOD> WHAT IF'S DOES NOTHING

 

[LVJeff]

armchair, Amb & others explained quite well of what you mentioned. You'll have to go back and research...

Perhaps they explained it to your satisfaction, they didn't to mine. There is something going on with these last two teams that didn't go on with Holly's first three. I'm not sure what it is, and I haven't seen an explanation that satisfies me. As far as research I have a feeling I've done more research than most on this board.

 

[volnationnj]

Perhaps they explained it to your satisfaction, they didn't to mine. There is something going on with these last two teams that didn't go on with Holly's first three. I'm not sure what it is, and I haven't seen an explanation that satisfies me. As far as research I have a feeling I've done more research than most on this board.

Jeff. You've answered your own question in a way.
What's different between Holly's last two teams compared to her first three ?
Only some of the players are different.

 

[Coach Jumper]

Perhaps they explained it to your satisfaction, they didn't to mine. There is something going on with these last two teams that didn't go on with Holly's first three. I'm not sure what it is, and I haven't seen an explanation that satisfies me. As far as research I have a feeling I've done more research than most on this board.

It isn't what is missing, it is who is missing.
Pat Summitt.

Even in her dwindling condition, there was a sense of urgency in the girls to perform at their highest for their Alpha role model. With Pat gone, and no Alpha role model on staff, the influence, that didn't have to even open her mouth to get a response, is not on staff. This team must have an Alpha coach on staff to control these elite athletes.

It is the same thing when parents are weak, (I do not wish to imply that HW and staff is weak, rather, they're like the parents that are strondg in every way, except one.) the kids control the household...The household goes down quickly!

I would volunteer my services to Holly without initial compensation, just to show her, and the UT administration I am right....The influence of an Alpha can turn this team around.

Case in point is the athlete I worked with this summer.
Yes, she is slumping in shooting percentage, but there is never a moment that A\M isn't giving her all. I can get this out of any player!