Vols' 2014 class rated 41st by 247

#26
#26
germanicus said:
They only stayed two years, but you don't sign five stars expecting to get more than two years out of them. They weren't great offensive players, but they were 5 star defenders and they were key players in two straight Sweet 16 teams.

They surely had flaws as people, but - based on basketball ability only - both would be starting on any of Cuonzo's teams and have made them better. He'd love to have a PG and PF who defended like those guys.
Click to expand...

They could have been good players. Sucked to see them chose the paths that they did. Cofer reminds me a lot of Crews. He may not have the same stars by his name but I think he'll have a better career than him.
 
#27
#27
Stoked4Zo said:
How convenient...
Click to expand...

I know what u r implying but I have stated as much several times.... I don't like them for football recruiting either and I'm not a fan of espn insiders......they just hired the old sports talk guys that had no real info but did have an interesting website. I don't see how u can have one top 100 player and be a top 25 class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
volbeast33 said:
I know what u r implying but I have stated as much several times.... I don't like them for football recruiting either and I'm not a fan of espn insiders......they just hired the old sports talk guys that had no real info but did have an interesting website. I don't see how u can have one top 100 player and be a top 25 class.
Click to expand...

ESPN is probably the best for basketball. Rivals is best for football. Scout has fallen off in both places over the last few years imo.

Regardless, watch some film of our commits before you start saying it's a terrible class.
 
#29
#29
CAVol said:
ESPN is probably the best for basketball. Rivals is best for football. Scout has fallen off in both places over the last few years imo.

Regardless, watch some film of our commits before you start saying it's a terrible class.
Click to expand...

This. Only way to get a feel for a prospect is to watch their film for yourself or see them in person. Rankings are only someone else's take on them
 
#30
#30
CAVol said:
ESPN is probably the best for basketball. Rivals is best for football. Scout has fallen off in both places over the last few years imo.

Regardless, watch some film of our commits before you start saying it's a terrible class.
Click to expand...

I have watched film but I dont judge anything based on that......I look decent in highlight films......I have read several articles on all of our players.

I really think P Cofer is a little underrated, and Austin can be a decent PG although not a great scorer....... I dont think too highly of Turman and Cornish( although I love his VFL attitude).

All of these guys may end up being better than their ratings but its hard to be a consistently good program with classes consistently out of the top 25 and middle of the pack SEC. I disagree about ESPN and dont see how anyone rated outside the top 100 could be considered a four star player....In basketball, that is 25 complete starting 5's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#31
#31
clay1551 said:
This. Only way to get a feel for a prospect is to watch their film for yourself or see them in person. Rankings are only someone else's take on them
Click to expand...

People only claim that when their team's rankings arent high.
 
#32
#32
41 is not a terrible class. If ESPN is right then it's a very solid class. If not, then it is still a decent class. I'm a lot more conernced with Cuonzo's floor coaching, offense and game planning, than I am with talent level. Everybody knows there are no excuses this year.
I expect another weak SEC, and there aren't a lot of opportunities on the schedule for big out of conference wins.
Just noticed that every single game is on TV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#33
#33
Roustabout said:
41 is not a terrible class. If ESPN is right then it's a very solid class. If not, then it is still a decent class. I'm a lot more conernced with Cuonzo's floor coaching, offense and game planning, than I am with talent level. Everybody knows there are no excuses this year.
I expect another weak SEC, and there aren't a lot of opportunities on the schedule for big out of conference wins.
Just noticed that every single game is on TV.
Click to expand...

I think we will still make the tournament this yr. Every time I watch us play, it reminds me of the Don Devoe days. I so hope I am wrong.
 
#35
#35
volbeast33 said:
I think we will still make the tournament this yr. Every time I watch us play, it reminds me of the Don Devoe days. I so hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Before the X game, I'd have said that a coach could roll the ball out there with this roster and make the tourney. If only 3 teams make it from the SEC, then UT could be in trouble. Simply because there aren't a lot of resume building opportunities out there. I'd say RPI will be a problem. But, it has to play out.
Devoe was a good half-court coach who simply didn't adapt to the shot clock. I've yet to see a Martin coached team where I felt like the offense looked cohesive and the players looked comfortable and confident executing on the offensive side. It usually looks like a struggle and comes down to someone taking it on themself to win a one on one battle. Xavier isn't a great Offensive team, but you couldn't help but notice the movement with a lot of rub screens, which opened up a lot of points in the paint.
 
#36
#36
What excites you about the incoming class for 2014? For me it appears to have a legit point guard that we can build around in Austin. My concern is in replacing the front court and a go to shooter. Good athleticism, but will need more than Hubbs to provide scoring in 2014.
 
#37
#37
UNAVol89 said:
Idk how many times has Cuonzo coached this team to the tournament?
Click to expand...

He's been on the bubble twice...but I guess if you don't actually make the tourney, you might as well not even have a basketball program, right?
 
#38
#38
volbeast33 said:
I think we will still make the tournament this yr. Every time I watch us play, it reminds me of the Don Devoe days. I so hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought I was the only one that got that feel also. Remember those days all to well. Thanks God for the shot clock that pretty much did Devoe in.
 
#39
#39
VOLywood said:
He's been on the bubble twice...but I guess if you don't actually make the tourney, you might as well not even have a basketball program, right?
Click to expand...

If your program is top 10 in financial resources yet your coach can't field a top 66 team then yea, you've got a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#40
#40
Roustabout said:
7th in a league that is getting 3 teams in the tourney. Future is bright.
Click to expand...

Yea, I know we probably need another dynamic scorer, but that list looks like hogwash. Someone will have to explain to me how a team like Northwestern or Utah or Virginia is ahead of us in the rankings.

I think we are more in line with being Top 25-30 and probably 3-5 in the SEC. I am wondering if we will regret not pushing for London.
 
#42
#42
walkenvol said:
If your program is top 10 in financial resources yet your coach can't field a top 66 team then yea, you've got a problem.
Click to expand...

Then blame the administration for hiring him; not the coach. UT will not pay big money for a basketball coach, so we get what they pay.
 
#43
#43
I love everyone in our class except Cornish, who I still think will be solid. Austin and Cofer are both underrated.
 
#45
#45
VolGee4 said:
Then blame the administration for hiring him; not the coach. UT will not pay big money for a basketball coach, so we get what they pay.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your logic?

Regardless of the salary of the UT BB coach, he's still got a top 10 recruiting budget, top 10 sized arena, and top 10 athletic facilities to attract top 10 talent. Obviously UT administration keeps trying to hire someone on the rise and allow them the opportunity to have the level of success that would support being a top paid coach. While that wouldn't be my or BTO's way of making the coaching hire, it still doesn't deminish the resources available to the current coach for success.

I recall CBP being paid well before his fall so I do think UT will pay big $ for a proven success.

A quick search revealed Pearl was to make $12.5 million over four seasons before his firing in 2010. That's over $3 million a year. In a 2012 Forbes article it lists the tope 5 paid coaches as Calipari $4m, Izzo $3.5m, Donovan $3.5m, Self $3m, Pitino $2.5m so looks like Bruce would have been in 4th place? CCM's at $1.3m. Guess UT does pay for results.
 
Last edited:
#46
#46
walkenvol said:
I don't understand your logic?

Regardless of the salary of the UT BB coach, he's still got a top 10 recruiting budget, top 10 sized arena, and top 10 athletic facilities to attract top 10 talent. Obviously UT administration keeps trying to hire someone on the rise and allow them the opportunity to have the level of success that would support being a top paid coach. While that wouldn't be my or BTO's way of making the coaching hire, it still doesn't deminish the resources available to the current coach for success.

I recall CBP being paid well before his fall so I do think UT will pay big $ for a proven success.
Click to expand...

I understand the resources, but the logic is simple. When you hire an unproven mid-major coach, then there will be some bumps in the road and expectations won't be all that high. Because the way basketball recruiting is set up, coaches have to develop relationships over a couple of years. That takes time, especially at a place like UT, where the tradition is not all that great. Martin has been on the job for 2 and a half years.

In comparison, when UK hired (and paid for) Cal, they have instant credibility because Cal was already recruiting at a high level. They didn't have to wait, and in fact, he took the elite prospects that he was recruiting at Memphis.

So, just because we have a top 10 "budget," or top 10 "facilities," it still matters WHO you hire. People are assets, too, and I will tell you that people are the most important assets. In this day of instant gratification, people are quick to judge, and people don't realize that Martin was destined to be a slow recruiter because of his lack of major level experience (as a head coach). On top of that, he was put into a situation where he had to recruit half of his first roster. Again, you get what you pay for.

And if you want to bring up Pearl, well, that just doesn't happen everyday. We went through Green and Peterson before Pearl, so we hit 1 out of 3. You have a much better chance at success when you hire a proven high level head coach. When you are hiring "up and comers," they don't all pan out, but you take that chance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#47
#47
VolGee4 said:
I understand the resources, but the logic is simple. When you hire an unproven mid-major coach, then there will be some bumps in the road and expectations won't be all that high. Because the way basketball recruiting is set up, coaches have to develop relationships over a couple of years. That takes time, especially at a place like UT, where the tradition is not all that great. Martin has been on the job for 2 and a half years.

In comparison, when UK hired (and paid for) Cal, they have instant credibility because Cal was already recruiting at a high level. They didn't have to wait, and in fact, he took the elite prospects that he was recruiting at Memphis.

So, just because we have a top 10 "budget," or top 10 "facilities," it still matters WHO you hire. People are assets, too, and I will tell you that people are the most important assets. In this day of instant gratification, people are quick to judge, and people don't realize that Martin was destined to be a slow recruiter because of his lack of major level experience (as a head coach). On top of that, he was put into a situation where he had to recruit half of his first roster. Again, you get what you pay for.

And if you want to bring up Pearl, well, that just doesn't happen everyday. We went through Green and Peterson before Pearl, so we hit 1 out of 3. You have a much better chance at success when you hire a proven high level head coach. When you are hiring "up and comers," they don't all pan out, but you take that chance.
Click to expand...

This is a great post
 
#48
#48
VolGee4 said:
Again, you get what you pay for.

You have a much better chance at success when you hire a proven high level head coach.
Click to expand...

Or you pay for results.

We sure as hell didn't get our money's worth out of Kiffen and Dooley.

I agree with you on increasing the odds of success, just like recruiting 5* players.
 
#49
#49
walkenvol said:
Or you pay for results.

We sure as hell didn't get our money's worth out of Kiffen and Dooley.

I agree with you on increasing the odds of success, just like recruiting 5* players.
Click to expand...

Kiffin and Dooley were both in the bottom half of SEC pay I believe.
 
#50
#50
zjcvols said:
Kiffin and Dooley were both in the bottom half of SEC pay I believe.
Click to expand...

Dooley...yes but Kiffin was just a different way of doing things....coach was paid decent but funneled money out to the assistants to have a "super staff".....we had one of the highest paid coaching staffs in the SEC.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top