UCA getting pounded by Missouri. Down 40 points with 15 minutes left.

Something tells me we would do better but it would still be plus 20

(12-18-2010 10:01 PM)insideualr Wrote:  Something tells me we would do better but it would still be plus 20

The final was Mizzou 116 - UCA 53. What an complete ass kicking. I sure am glad that the Chickenhawg butt licking KATV and the Arkansas Democrat Gazette decided to broadcast and highlight this game! They got what they deserved.

(12-18-2010 11:18 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(12-18-2010 10:01 PM)insideualr Wrote:  Something tells me we would do better but it would still be plus 20

The final was Mizzou 116 - UCA 53. What an complete ass kicking. I sure am glad that the Chickenhawg butt licking KATV and the Arkansas Democrat Gazette decided to broadcast and highlight this game! They got what they deserved.

My feeling was two hours of exposure on Statewide TV (I think KATV covers a lot of the State) can never be a bad thing. I think I may have changed my mind after seeing that score. Anyone who watched it will see UCA basketball as a complete joke. Not sure I've seen a score like that involving two DI men's teams.

(12-18-2010 11:28 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(12-18-2010 11:18 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(12-18-2010 10:01 PM)insideualr Wrote:  Something tells me we would do better but it would still be plus 20

The final was Mizzou 116 - UCA 53. What an complete ass kicking. I sure am glad that the Chickenhawg butt licking KATV and the Arkansas Democrat Gazette decided to broadcast and highlight this game! They got what they deserved.

My feeling was two hours of exposure on Statewide TV (I think KATV covers a lot of the State) can never be a bad thing. I think I may have changed my mind after seeing that score. Anyone who watched it will see UCA basketball as a complete joke. Not sure I've seen a score like that involving two DI men's teams.

I'm sure Rand Chappel is having a good laugh tonight. A good coach, who was put in a no win situation. Then he gets ousted when UCA meets the requirements to be eligible to compete for the Southland title and NCAA berth.

I think they did the right them for them and it will work out for them in the long run but wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round...

Right over the top of some good people at times. You see it in business all the time. Someone that has produced for years is run off when they can no longer produce at the level the new guys can. Business has to go on and you better get that money in the 401k before you get replaced by a younger, cheaper, more productive employee.

(Steps off of soapbox and goes to church to pray he is never that guy)

(12-19-2010 11:06 AM)insideualr Wrote:  I think they did the right them for them and it will work out for them in the long run but wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round...

Right over the top of some good people at times. You see it in business all the time. Someone that has produced for years is run off when they can no longer produce at the level the new guys can. Business has to go on and you better get that money in the 401k before you get replaced by a younger, cheaper, more productive employee.

(Steps off of soapbox and goes to church to pray he is never that guy)

Yes, "right" for them may be correct. Doing the "right" thing in a moral sense it wasn't. But that likely doesn't matter in business or big time athletics.

Somewhat similiar to what happened at UALR 26 or so years ago. Ron Kestenbaum was very good coach and a nice guy. He won 2 straight TAAC regular season championships. He got absolutely no financial support- I believe his budget was reported at $50,000 and I saw him drive some players down to Shreveport, for a TAAC tournament game, in his Pinto. Jerry Reed wrote a big expose on the program in the Democrat, complete with pictures of McDonald's wrappers in the vans they took to away games. His goal was to wake people up and get Ron the financial support he needed. Yes, it woke folks at UALR up, who decided to make a big financial commitment to the basketball program. They decided the best thing to do at that point was to start completely new with a young, charismatic coach. So they fired Kestenbaum and hired Newell. Yes, no doubt it was the "right" thing for the program. It was certainly not the right way to treat a loyal employee who had done nothing but win, with almost no resources.

Brings us to today. Some on here believe that the "right" thing for the program was for Chris to have fired Steve after last year's 8 win season. Maybe, maybe not. But, I think Chris believes that it was not "right" to fire a coach after one bad season who has run a clean program, graduated players, kept us out of the papers (for the wrong reasons), and had a very good winning percentage for his 1st 6 season.

(12-19-2010 11:49 AM)mjs Wrote:  

(12-19-2010 11:06 AM)insideualr Wrote:  I think they did the right them for them and it will work out for them in the long run but wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round...

Right over the top of some good people at times. You see it in business all the time. Someone that has produced for years is run off when they can no longer produce at the level the new guys can. Business has to go on and you better get that money in the 401k before you get replaced by a younger, cheaper, more productive employee.

(Steps off of soapbox and goes to church to pray he is never that guy)

Yes, "right" for them may be correct. Doing the "right" thing in a moral sense it wasn't. But that likely doesn't matter in business or big time athletics.

Somewhat similiar to what happened at UALR 26 or so years ago. Ron Kestenbaum was very good coach and a nice guy. He won 2 straight TAAC regular season championships. He got absolutely no financial support- I believe his budget was reported at $50,000 and I saw him drive some players down to Shreveport, for a TAAC tournament game, in his Pinto. Jerry Reed wrote a big expose on the program in the Democrat, complete with pictures of McDonald's wrappers in the vans they took to away games. His goal was to wake people up and get Ron the financial support he needed. Yes, it woke folks at UALR up, who decided to make a big financial commitment to the basketball program. They decided the best thing to do at that point was to start completely new with a young, charismatic coach. So they fired Kestenbaum and hired Newell. Yes, no doubt it was the "right" thing for the program. It was certainly not the right way to treat a loyal employee who had done nothing but win, with almost no resources.

Brings us to today. Some on here believe that the "right" thing for the program was for Chris to have fired Steve after last year's 8 win season. Maybe, maybe not. But, I think Chris believes that it was not "right" to fire a coach after one bad season who has run a clean program, graduated players, kept us out of the papers (for the wrong reasons), and had a very good winning percentage for his 1st 6 season.

If you take out the 2 years of Sidney and Porter recruit, that would leave 5 years that Shields has completed with players he totally signed off on. Out of those 5 years we had 3 losing seasons. This season looks like a toss up and we should be able to get over .500 with the Belt down. What is Shields winning percentage for the last 6 years (including this year)?

Over the last 6 years it is:

All games 52%
D1 games only 49%

(12-19-2010 11:49 AM)mjs Wrote:  

(12-19-2010 11:06 AM)insideualr Wrote:  I think they did the right them for them and it will work out for them in the long run but wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round...

Right over the top of some good people at times. You see it in business all the time. Someone that has produced for years is run off when they can no longer produce at the level the new guys can. Business has to go on and you better get that money in the 401k before you get replaced by a younger, cheaper, more productive employee.

(Steps off of soapbox and goes to church to pray he is never that guy)

Yes, "right" for them may be correct. Doing the "right" thing in a moral sense it wasn't. But that likely doesn't matter in business or big time athletics.

Somewhat similiar to what happened at UALR 26 or so years ago. Ron Kestenbaum was very good coach and a nice guy. He won 2 straight TAAC regular season championships. He got absolutely no financial support- I believe his budget was reported at $50,000 and I saw him drive some players down to Shreveport, for a TAAC tournament game, in his Pinto. Jerry Reed wrote a big expose on the program in the Democrat, complete with pictures of McDonald's wrappers in the vans they took to away games. His goal was to wake people up and get Ron the financial support he needed. Yes, it woke folks at UALR up, who decided to make a big financial commitment to the basketball program. They decided the best thing to do at that point was to start completely new with a young, charismatic coach. So they fired Kestenbaum and hired Newell. Yes, no doubt it was the "right" thing for the program. It was certainly not the right way to treat a loyal employee who had done nothing but win, with almost no resources.

Brings us to today. Some on here believe that the "right" thing for the program was for Chris to have fired Steve after last year's 8 win season. Maybe, maybe not. But, I think Chris believes that it was not "right" to fire a coach after one bad season who has run a clean program, graduated players, kept us out of the papers (for the wrong reasons), and had a very good winning percentage for his 1st 6 season.

Big difference. If Ron won two league championships with the resources he had, that's pretty darn good. And his luck was just like Wimp's when it came to getting to the tournament. The first UALR game I ever witnessed was the one where we lost the championship game to Georgia Southern on a last second shot that I'd bet $100 a thousand times that that guy couldn't make that shot under the same circumstances and I'd be a rich man today. Anyway, Newell came in and moved the program along to an even higher level, like him or not. I don't think the comparison between our current regime and Kestenbaums is accurate at all. I agree he got a raw deal. If he had had these facilities and could recruit comparable players to those he had then, we'd be doing better than we are. The surprising thing was that I think he ended up coaching a high school in the New York area. There were probably some other things that came into play we don't know about. Anyway, that's all history. It's time we move on, one way or another.

(12-19-2010 01:10 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(12-19-2010 11:49 AM)mjs Wrote:  

(12-19-2010 11:06 AM)insideualr Wrote:  I think they did the right them for them and it will work out for them in the long run but wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round...

Right over the top of some good people at times. You see it in business all the time. Someone that has produced for years is run off when they can no longer produce at the level the new guys can. Business has to go on and you better get that money in the 401k before you get replaced by a younger, cheaper, more productive employee.

(Steps off of soapbox and goes to church to pray he is never that guy)

Yes, "right" for them may be correct. Doing the "right" thing in a moral sense it wasn't. But that likely doesn't matter in business or big time athletics.

Somewhat similiar to what happened at UALR 26 or so years ago. Ron Kestenbaum was very good coach and a nice guy. He won 2 straight TAAC regular season championships. He got absolutely no financial support- I believe his budget was reported at $50,000 and I saw him drive some players down to Shreveport, for a TAAC tournament game, in his Pinto. Jerry Reed wrote a big expose on the program in the Democrat, complete with pictures of McDonald's wrappers in the vans they took to away games. His goal was to wake people up and get Ron the financial support he needed. Yes, it woke folks at UALR up, who decided to make a big financial commitment to the basketball program. They decided the best thing to do at that point was to start completely new with a young, charismatic coach. So they fired Kestenbaum and hired Newell. Yes, no doubt it was the "right" thing for the program. It was certainly not the right way to treat a loyal employee who had done nothing but win, with almost no resources.

Brings us to today. Some on here believe that the "right" thing for the program was for Chris to have fired Steve after last year's 8 win season. Maybe, maybe not. But, I think Chris believes that it was not "right" to fire a coach after one bad season who has run a clean program, graduated players, kept us out of the papers (for the wrong reasons), and had a very good winning percentage for his 1st 6 season.

Big difference. If Ron won two league championships with the resources he had, that's pretty darn good. And his luck was just like Wimp's when it came to getting to the tournament. The first UALR game I ever witnessed was the one where we lost the championship game to Georgia Southern on a last second shot that I'd bet $100 a thousand times that that guy couldn't make that shot under the same circumstances and I'd be a rich man today. Anyway, Newell came in and moved the program along to an even higher level, like him or not. I don't think the comparison between our current regime and Kestenbaums is accurate at all. I agree he got a raw deal. If he had had these facilities and could recruit comparable players to those he had then, we'd be doing better than we are. The surprising thing was that I think he ended up coaching a high school in the New York area. There were probably some other things that came into play we don't know about. Anyway, that's all history. It's time we move on, one way or another.

He coached Brooklyn College after he left here. Then they dropped basketball. He was a good coach, but his luck wasn't very good.

I see a similarity. Kestenbaum won 2 TAAC regular season titles, but couldn't win the tournament. Has a losing season and gets fired. Shields wins 2 Division titles, couldn't win the tournament. Then has a losing season and some want him fired. I think our current AD has more class than that. I don't have a man crush on Steve. At the end of this season I'll reassess the situation. I'm sure Chris will as well.

(12-19-2010 11:06 AM)insideualr Wrote:  Someone that has produced for years is run off when they can no longer produce at the level the new guys can.

But Rand never got the chance. They let him do the dirty work, then canned him and brought in the Porker star with not a day of D1 coaching experience.

I hope UCA loses every game.

(12-19-2010 01:43 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  

(12-19-2010 11:06 AM)insideualr Wrote:  Someone that has produced for years is run off when they can no longer produce at the level the new guys can.

But Rand never got the chance. They let him do the dirty work, then canned him and brought in the Porker star with not a day of D1 coaching experience.

I hope UCA loses every game.

I totally disagree with you on this one. I don't know Rand Chappell, and I know he was a pretty good coach, but if you're moving to D1, recruiting is the only way you're going to be able to compete, and to get a coach with Corliss's background you have a chance. I think he'll do well if he stays there a few years. I still believe, even though we had a disastrous season, that we would have moved up the ladder under Sidney had he stayed four or five years. I believe his persona would have continued to recruit good players and he would have improved as a coach with experience. Or we would have won 20 games over a five year period. We'll never know.

The up side to Corliss was to great not to go with. He will get some kids that can play the 40 minutes of hell over there and they will be at the top of the southland soon enough. They have the resources to do it.

(12-19-2010 03:59 PM)insideualr Wrote:  The up side to Corliss was to great not to go with. He will get some kids that can play the 40 minutes of hell over there and they will be at the top of the southland soon enough. They have the resources to do it.

I agree. They'll pass us up soon if we don't make some changes.

(12-19-2010 12:34 PM)LR Alum Wrote:  Over the last 6 years it is:

All games 52%
D1 games only 49%

I think the truer tell here is the last 5 years on SBC conference play: 43 - 43
So, we are .500 in league play over that period of time on Steve's players.

Are we a program that should expect to be better than .500 most years?

I do expect better than .500 ball.

(12-19-2010 03:59 PM)insideualr Wrote:  The up side to Corliss was to great not to go with. He will get some kids that can play the 40 minutes of hell over there and they will be at the top of the southland soon enough. They have the resources to do it.

Just because Corliss played in that system doesn't necessarily mean that he can coach that type of system or anything else. It doesn't mean that he can't either. But Sidney Moncrief played under a great coach, Eddie Sutton, and didn't know how to coach. Time will tell with Corliss and UCA.

(12-18-2010 11:28 PM)mjs Wrote:  My feeling was two hours of exposure on Statewide TV (I think KATV covers a lot of the State) can never be a bad thing. I think I may have changed my mind after seeing that score. Anyone who watched it will see UCA basketball as a complete joke. Not sure I've seen a score like that involving two DI men's teams.

Then we should get some of UCA next year to go along with Philander Smith and St. Gregory, and the UCA game would even count as a D-1 game. I'd almost be willing to bet that UCA would give us all we wanted. Our team was a pretty big joke last year, and has been in several games this year.

(12-19-2010 07:11 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(12-18-2010 11:28 PM)mjs Wrote:  My feeling was two hours of exposure on Statewide TV (I think KATV covers a lot of the State) can never be a bad thing. I think I may have changed my mind after seeing that score. Anyone who watched it will see UCA basketball as a complete joke. Not sure I've seen a score like that involving two DI men's teams.

Then we should get some of UCA next year to go along with Philander Smith and St. Gregory, and the UCA game would even count as a D-1 game. I'd almost be willing to bet that UCA would give us all we wanted. Our team was a pretty big joke last year, and has been in several games this year.

I think we are a lot better then them. However, it may be close because that's always the risk you take when you play a rivalry game.

(12-19-2010 07:15 PM)mjs Wrote:  I think we are a lot better then them. However, it may be close because that's always the risk you take when you play a rivalry game.

I know you can't really compare scores, but Missouri State only beat UCA four points worse than they beat us. I'm not willing to say that "we're a lot better than them."