I won't hide the fact that I think Billy Gillispie has done a sub par job with this UK team, but I do realize why certain things get done the way they do. I've posted this on the boards before, but I I just feel like everyone may need a simple reminder that, just because a big program has a few down years, that does NOT mean the man in charge cannot or will not correct things.
Over time, many programs have had their setbacks and let downs. It happens. UK is not immune to down years (despite what a large majority of fans want to think). It happens in all sports to all teams. I'm going to try and shed some light on various coaches who have had trouble in the past to start out at new programs... big programs... programs that "should not" have had to deal with sub standard play.
When Jim Calhoun was announced as Connecticut's basketball coach in 1986, I'm sure he didn't think he'd see three straight seasons of less than stellar records. It happened. In his first 3 years, he posted records of 9-19, 20-14, and 18-13 with conference records of 3-13, 4-12, and 6-10. In that time, he missed the post season altogether once, won the NIT, and then made it to the NIT quarterfinals the next season.
In '89-90, he coached his way to a 31-6 record, tied for 1st in the Big East, and made the NCAA Elite 8. Even after that, he had three more seasons of 10+ losses including a Sweet 16, NCAA 2nd round loss, and losing in the NIT before FINALLY stabilizing his roster and putting together some impressive teams that led to the NCAA championship in 1999 (but not before he was forced to go to the NIT again in 1997).
Kansas fans were calling for Bill Self's head in 2006. He was introduced as the new head coach in 2003 and led that team to a 24-9 (12-4) record and Elite 8 finish in the NCAA. But he followed that up with two straight years losing to far less talented teams in the 1st round of the NCAAT, despite putting together records of 23-7 (12-4) and 25-8 (13-3).
They were saying how Bill couldn't win when it mattered. He couldn't coach when he had to. He didn't belong at Kansas. What do the best coaches do when they're getting scrutinized? They recruit like madmen and coach their way to a 37-3 (14-2) record to go with an NCAA Championship trophy 2 years later.
Coach K became Duke's head coach in 1980. That's a long time ago. I wasn't born yet. Anyway... looking back, who would've ever thought that he would end up being one of the greatest coaches in NCAA history, Hall of Famer, and possible heir to the throne of most wins by a coach ever? I mean his 1st five years were terrible. 17-13 (6-8), 10-17 (4-10), 11-17 (3-11), 24-10 (7-7), 23-8 (8-6).
Those records don't strike anyone as impressive. But alas... like all great coaches, Coach K recruited and continued to teach. He reached the Final Four in 1988, went again in 1989, and rode Christian Laettner, Bobby Hurley, and Grant Hill to two straight NCAA Championships in '91 and '92. I'm sure he had his doubters way back when disco was still popular and Van Halen was just gaining national fame. He probably laughs at those people now.
Finally, I turn to Benjamin Howland (he should use that name formally). UCLA. Most titles in NCAA history. Storied program. John Wooden, Lew Alcindor, Bill Walton, Sam Gilbert (haha). They don't have down years. They're among the elite of the elite. Yeah right.
Howland landed in Los Angeles after coaching Pitt to a couple Sweet 16's and having some of the thoughest, most fundamentally sound teams in the country (sound familiar?) Well... I'm sure he thought he could get off to a great start. His first year, 2003-04, he led UCLA to an 11-17 (7-11) record and followed that up with 18-11 (11-7). As little as it may seem, that's an improvement. Again, and like a broken record, he recruited to fit his system.
Josh Shipp, Aaron Afflalo, and Jordan Farmar among others... those guys helped lead UCLA to a 32-7 (14-4) record and an NCAA title game. Howland didn't stop there. He then went to two more Final Fours on the efforts of his coaching and recruiting combined in 2007 and 2008. Three straight Final Fours after having two poor seasons to start his tenure. Folks at UCLA weren't happy and for good reason. They gave him time and now have incredible results to show from their patience.
I'm not saying Billy Gillispie will have a similar career as these guys. I'm not saying UK will have some magical 3rd year under him where he leads the team to a 30-5 record, Elite 8 or better, and an SEC title. I don't know. But what I do know is that calling for his firing after two seasons without giving him the chance to allow his recruiting efforts to pay off is stupid. It just is. Bottom line.
Orton, Hood, Vilarino, Pilgrim, and possibly (hopefully) Bledsoe or Smith will come in next season and help overhaul the talent on the roster. If Patterson comes back along with Meeks to add to Miller and everyone else, UK will have the talent to do some damage and get things back on the right track.
But UK fans have to be patient... as hard as that might be.
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (21)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
...
Orton, Hood, Vilarino, Pilgrim and possibly Bledsoe and Smith not to mention Ferguson and Ross-Miler coming in next year.
No one can tell me that we aren't on the right track recruiting wise and recruiting is 90% or maybe more of what it takes to win. Its 100% of what it takes to win year in year out.
-
- +0
-
-
...
-
- +0
-
-
...
-
- +0
-
-
...
-
- +0
-
-
...
-
- +0
-
-
...
-
- +0
-
-
...
-
- +0
-
-
...
Those are isolated incidents and are not typical. BTW, a 20 win season in 1982 was a BIG DEAL. A 23-8 record in 1984 is similar to a 28 or 29 win record nowadays, for the record.
It's not the losing, it's the losing AND the attitude. Billy is consistently givign the program a black-eye and his handling of his players is atrocious. He is one choking incident away from becoming our version of Bobby Knight, except Bobby Knight won games - especially the ones he was supposed to win.
-
- -3
-
-
...
-
- +0
-
-
...
We now have a lineup of PP, Harris & Stevenson, along with Meeks and Porter. IF PP and Jodie come back, we'll have a lineup presumably of Pilgrim, Orton, PP, Meeks and whomever wins out at point. Of these four, all are scorers. Right now? We have two, with only Miller capable of stepping up occasionally.
How can we not improve and get better as the season goes on?
-
- +1
-
-
...
Now to Pilgrim and the incoming freshmen. Pilgrim has the advantage of having been in the program for a year which should help him immensely. BUT that means not having any in-game competition for a year as well. He also is stepping up in the level of competition he will be facing when the season starts. In addition, he'll be competing against an incumbent, actually 2 for playing time. Orton is coming off a serious injury, a missed season, and into an environment he has never experienced before, both on the court and off, as are the rest of the freshmen. The point I'm making is absolutely not a disparagement to any of the newcomers, but a caution against assuming a significant contribution from any or all of them during the first part of the season. To pencil in Pilgrim and Orton as starters is premature IMO. How many at the beginning of the season expected the current line up and minute distribution to be as it is now? I know I didn't.
-
- +0
-
-
...
-
- +0
-
-
...
I don't understand the collapse this year, but I know there have been many coaches who the fans were wanting to hang in effigy, who ended up being National Championship Coaches in Football and Basketball. Go Cats!
-
- +0
-
-
