The Future of LV Basketball

#76
#76
Since the title of this thread is "The Future of LV Basketball" which is now securely in the hands of the coaching staff (I'm not sure it ever wasn't but that seems to be the tone this thread has taken so I'll just go with it) What do you guys think is the probability that this entire class stays for 4 years?

Seems as though #1 classes don't much stay together anymore. That can be said for most classes period but when you look at what happened to Baylor's #1 class and then Marylands which I think was actually #4 you see all that talent and think man what will they look like in 2 or 3 years and when 2 or 3 years comes around half of them are gone.

This incoming class is important as well as the next 2 to be completely honest. More than who comes in I think it's almost more important to keep what the staff has already worked so hard to bring in up to this point @ the University.

I don't know what the average numbers look like in terms of the transfers @ Tennessee (I believe they have been historically low) but I think it's important to watch how these great classes do over the next couple of years, they are really the future of LV basketball.
 
#77
#77
1CHATTVOL said:
Holly knows she's responsible. The level of cancerous effect on team chemistry could not reasonably be forseen. But yes, she's ultimately responsible for the mess.

My point: look at Holly's record before DD&TC and then after. Lemme know.

Oh, and thanks for playing the "Pat would've never" ghost of Pat Summitt card. Well,Pat sure let the 2009 team stink it up. Worst team in LV history... with a slew of All Americans... coming off back to back nattys. Sometimes things happen...and we ALL take the FALL.
Click to expand...


I agree, "Sometimes things happen"
I disagree that Holly could not have reasonably foreseen DD's effect on team. I believe there were other coaches who would have turned DD down after she left NC.
Your pointing to the 2009 team just highlights the difference between the two coaches. With Pat, who was coming off of back to back nattys, 2009 was looked at as an aberration.
Are you sure the last 2 years are an aberration for Holly ? Which of Holly's teams (with or without DD) achieved season long results that were greater than predicted and how many of them underachieved their preseason predictions ? On the whole, are you satisfied with how the LV's play ?
All of this is an academic exercise in any case. You agree that what we have here is a mess and that Holly is ultimately responsible for it.
Enough said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#78
#78
volnationnj said:
I agree, "Sometimes things happen"
I disagree that Holly could not have reasonably foreseen DD's effect on team. I believe there were other coaches who would have turned DD down after she left NC.
Your pointing to the 2009 team just highlights the difference between the two coaches. With Pat, who was coming off of back to back nattys, 2009 was looked at as an aberration.
Are you sure the last 2 years are an aberration for Holly ? Which of Holly's teams (with or without DD) achieved season long results that were greater than predicted and how many of them underachieved their preseason predictions ? On the whole, are you satisfied with how the LV's play ?
All of this is an academic exercise in any case. You agree that what we have here is a mess and that Holly is ultimately responsible for it.
Enough said.
Click to expand...

Just not to the level of Holly crucifixion & DD pass that you seem to be indicating.

Yes, I'd say no one really thought HW would do as well as she did her first 3 years (or 4 if including when Pat sat the bench). Key injuries probably kept them at E8 not F4.

Didn't HW win Dixon National Coach of the Year in 2013? Yep.

Did Pat exceed expectations? No. She was expected to get to F4, win nattys. If anything, she probably didn't live up to (unreasonable) expectations.

HW may not have lived up to expectation for Pat, but as a lot smarter folks than us have said, she's done a good job considering.

I was satisfied with LV play prior to DD arriving, yes. I was even satisfied at times since, but it was too Jekyll & Hyde.

NJ, this whole board is just academic. Nothing we write here has that much effect other than on each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#84
#84
Face it. In the past, most recruits came to play for Pat, not for Tennessee. When Pat was hired, Women's BB coaching was a afterthought. There was no money in it. Pat is a good example of that, coaching, washing the uniforms, etc. for peanuts. Not many people were willing to take the coaching job given the responsibility, amount of work, and low pay.

Pat's willingness to take a job no one wanted gave her a huge advantage when Title 9 came along. She was way ahead of the curve at a young age. She was well known and was a superior coach. Good timing and skill put her in a position to do well with recruiting.

As time passed, Title 9 was responsible for increased interest and improved coaching salaries for WBB. The increased salaries attracted more qualified people. Pat still had a big advantage because of her reputation. This enabled her to have the pick of the crop with recruits.

Once Pat was gone, her aura still resonated, but to a lesser degree. Holly's first few years contained Pat's recruits, but other programs, with their improved coaching and better recruiting, edged closer to Tennessee.

The tipping point came with the recruitment of Maya Moore along with the loss of superstar Candace Parker. Uconn became top dog and several other teams steadily improved.

Then, tragedy struck when Pat was diagnosed. She was no longer able to continue and Holly was given the job. A difficult position to be put in, particularly with Pat still in the program as Head Coach Emiritus. She did her best, but it was impossible for her or any other coach to step into Pat's long shadow.

Tennessee fans, not use to being other than on top, made Holly's job more difficult. Plus, Holly's analytical skills were not up to picking the right players for the team, a task that was made more difficult given most recruits came to play for a Tennessee that was coached by Pat. If She was born elsewhere, a different school would have benefited. The 2016 recruiting strike out probably occurred because Tennessee was use to getting most of the kids that Pat wanted, and Holly held out expecting to get the top players. At that point, it was too late.

The incoming recruiting class is highly ranked. That's what often happens when playing time is abundant after a year of short bench and players leaving. Good recruiting years are often followed up by bad years. Teams really want a steady stream of recruits, not a feast or famine scenario.

Yes, Holly is not a great coach. But great coaches are not commonly available, and at a school that is highly biased toward home cooking, coaches from elsewhere will be less attracted. This bias is obvious when so many fans enthusiastically recommend people who are part of the Tennessee system as a replacement for Holly, even if the recommended people have no coaching experience, interest in coaching, or are former star players.

To me, star players do not, in general, make great coaches. They tend to have the opinion that everyone should intuitively know how to do things and are not good teachers.

I think Tennessee fans are not doing themselves or the team any favors by thinking the team should be final four/NC candidate. With Pat gone, it's really not fair.

For those wanting to replace Holly NOW, keep in mind that you're probably not going to get another Pat. In fact, they will probably have a difficult time succeeding with the fans and are likely to be shown the door if success isn't immediate.

There are just too many good teams out there to expect instant success. I believe Tennessee's future is a big question mark. The most likely scenario is trending downward. Competition is too strong to expect more. This year will be critical, and Tennessee must perform well just to maintain the results of the last couple of years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#85
#85
1CHATTVOL said:
Just not to the level of Holly crucifixion & DD pass that you seem to be indicating.

Yes, I'd say no one really thought HW would do as well as she did her first 3 years (or 4 if including when Pat sat the bench). Key injuries probably kept them at E8 not F4.

Didn't HW win Dixon National Coach of the Year in 2013? Yep.

Did Pat exceed expectations? No. She was expected to get to F4, win nattys. If anything, she probably didn't live up to (unreasonable) expectations.

HW may not have lived up to expectation for Pat, but as a lot smarter folks than us have said, she's done a good job considering.

I was satisfied with LV play prior to DD arriving, yes. I was even satisfied at times since, but it was too Jekyll & Hyde.

NJ, this whole board is just academic. Nothing we write here has that much effect other than on each other.
Click to expand...

I don't give DD a pass at all. I wasn't thrilled when she made her announcement that she was attemding Tennessee. I watched her do things as a player for NC that created more than a few doubts for me as to what DD was really all about.
I also don't crucify Holly. Her teams have had their share of injuries since she's been head coach.
But her teams also play without cohesion on offense and with spotty effort (the effort part especially the last few years). Regardless of what generated such substandard play (substandard for the high quality of players they have), as we have already agreed, it's the head coach who is held accountable.
How far would the LV's have to fall before you said enough is enough ?
 
#88
#88
Besti said:
Face it. In the past, most recruits came to play for Pat, not for Tennessee.....

Pat's willingness to take a job no one wanted gave her a huge advantage when Title 9 came along. She was way ahead of the curve at a young age. She was well known and was a superior coach. Good timing and skill put her in a position to do well with recruiting.

As time passed, Title 9 was responsible for increased interest and improved coaching salaries for WBB. The increased salaries attracted more qualified people. Pat still had a big advantage because of her reputation. This enabled her to have the pick of the crop with recruits.

Once Pat was gone, her aura still resonated, but to a lesser degree. Holly's first few years contained Pat's recruits, but other programs, with their improved coaching and better recruiting, edged closer to Tennessee.

The tipping point came with the recruitment of Maya Moore along with the loss of superstar Candace Parker. Uconn became top dog and several other teams steadily improved.
Click to expand...

All history is revisionist but this summary leaves out quite a bit. in the early days, the LVs were at parity with teams like Old Dominion and LA Tech. And in the conference, Georgia often got the better of the LVs (defeating them in the NCCA title game in Before the NCAA, in the AIAW days, the LVs were light years behind USC led by Cheryl Miller. The Lvs broke through for their first NC in 1987, led by Tanya Edwards and Bridgette Gordon.

Then there was the 10 year championship drought between the Meek era and the arrival of CP3 and the supporting cast needed to win an NC during Candaces's redshirt sophomore season (and academic junior year).

In that drought period, UConn won 4 NCs and many were saying that the game had pass Pat by and that Uconn/ Geno were the top dogs. The CP3's last two seasons were a disruption to the Uconn ascendancy trend which resumed when Maya Moore made her controversial decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#92
#92
madtownvol said:
Then there was the 10 year championship drought between the Meek era and the arrival of CP3 and the supporting cast needed to win an NC during Candaces's redshirt sophomore season (and academic junior year).

In that drought period, UConn won 4 NCs and many were saying that the game had pass Pat by and that Uconn/ Geno were the top dogs. The CP3's last two seasons were a disruption to the Uconn ascendancy trend which resumed when Maya Moore made her controversial decision.
Click to expand...

The big difference is during that NC drought, Tennessee also made the 3 NC games (2000, 2003, 2004) and an additional 2 FF appearances (2002, 2005). They were right in the thick of things. They should have won that 2003 NC game vs. UConn, and choked away a huge lead vs. MSU in the 2005 FF. The only ones who were saying the game passed Pat by were deluded UConn fans crowing that any season short of a NC was a failure (of course, only because they were winning). Tennessee was still highly regarded enough that the E8 losses in 1999 and 2006 were considered shockers, and the S16 loss in 2001 was practically the end of the world...results which are now celebrated as some kind of success today.

CP3's recruitment had less to do with UConn's fall from grace as the fact that they were a just pretty mediocre team until Tina Charles got going. Maya Moore be damned, UConn wasn't winning titles without Tina. Also during those years before CP3's first NC, Purdue, Maryland, Baylor and ND all scored NCs, so it's not like UConn was winning everything. They didn't really start steamrolling everyone until Baylor choked in the S16 vs. Louisville and Breanna Stewart came into her own during the tournament her freshman year.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#93
#93
Amb3096 said:
The big difference is during that NC drought, Tennessee also made the 3 NC games (2000, 2003, 2004) and an additional 2 FF appearances (2002, 2005). They were right in the thick of things. They should have won that 2003 NC game vs. UConn, and choked away a huge lead vs. MSU in the 2005 FF. The only ones who were saying the game passed Pat by were deluded UConn fans crowing that any season short of a NC was a failure (of course, only because they were winning). Tennessee was still highly regarded enough that the E8 losses in 1999 and 2006 were considered shockers, and the S16 loss in 2001 was practically the end of the world...results which are now celebrated as some kind of success today.

CP3's recruitment had less to do with UConn's fall from grace as the fact that they were a just pretty mediocre team until Tina Charles got going. Maya Moore be damned, UConn wasn't winning titles without Tina. Also during those years before CP3's first NC, Purdue, Maryland, Baylor and ND all scored NCs, so it's not like UConn was winning everything. They didn't really start steamrolling everyone until Baylor choked in the S16 vs. Louisville and Breanna Stewart came into her own during the tournament her freshman year.
Click to expand...

You seem to be forgetting about the Swin Cash, Tamika Williams, Sue Bird, Asjha Jones Sue Bird and a bit later Diana Taurasi years:

1999–2000 36–1 16–0 NCAA Champions

2000–01 32–3 15–1 NCAA Final Four

2001–02 39–0 16–0 NCAA Champions

2002–03 37–1 16–0 NCAA Champions

2003–04 31–4 14–2 NCAA Champions


But, my post/response was really not about Uconn but I was countering the narrative that LVs had a long period of dominance owing to the fact that they were the first program to emphasize women's basketball and that gave Pat Summitt an enduring competitive advantages that we can't expect Holly to sustain.

The fact is that UT was one of several programs that sought to have strong programs - ODU, Latech, Texas, USC, and Georgia all being early rivals; and one most seasons one of that set tended to get the better of the LVs. What set Pat and the Lvs apart, as you note, was the incredible consistency of being final four contenders year in and year out and eventually winning a substantial number of NCs.
 
#94
#94
Amb3096 said:
The big difference is during that NC drought, Tennessee also made the 3 NC games (2000, 2003, 2004) and an additional 2 FF appearances (2002, 2005). They were right in the thick of things. They should have won that 2003 NC game vs. UConn, and choked away a huge lead vs. MSU in the 2005 FF. The only ones who were saying the game passed Pat by were deluded UConn fans crowing that any season short of a NC was a failure (of course, only because they were winning). Tennessee was still highly regarded enough that the E8 losses in 1999 and 2006 were considered shockers, and the S16 loss in 2001 was practically the end of the world...results which are now celebrated as some kind of success today.

CP3's recruitment had less to do with UConn's fall from grace as the fact that they were a just pretty mediocre team until Tina Charles got going. Maya Moore be damned, UConn wasn't winning titles without Tina. Also during those years before CP3's first NC, Purdue, Maryland, Baylor and ND all scored NCs, so it's not like UConn was winning everything. They didn't really start steamrolling everyone until Baylor choked in the S16 vs. Louisville and Breanna Stewart came into her own during the tournament her freshman year.
Click to expand...
It's amusing to hear the "should have won" proclamations as though they count of actual wins.

All Tennessee has to do to reclaim their title as "the Best" is to win 4 more championships to take the all time lead. It would also be good for the program if Tenn could stop the losing streak and finally beat uconn in a championship game.

It's hard to win a championship. Only 15 teams have achieved that goal. Even though uconn is considered dominant, they have only won 30.5% of the championships.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top