http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/...obs_051411

Speaking of Fayetteville: "The Razorbacks have a passionate fanbase that supports its team through thick and thin."

Huh? I thought the reason they got rid of Pelphrey and brought in Anderson was because attendance was down.

And this one: "Anderson’s style of play may be a turnoff to elite recruits."

I thought that was his big draw to get recruits to come in - up-tempo basketball.

Wanna see passionate..? Buy a ticket for a game this season. Or not.

(05-16-2011 07:44 AM)Scotto Wrote:  Wanna see passionate..? Buy a ticket for a game this season. Or not.

Michaelspappy has a very valid point. If Chickenhawg fans actually supported their team through "thick and thin", John Pelphrey would still be their coach. But they are no different that other fans. They don't show up when things aren't going well.

However, I also agree with Scotto that they will be fired up for Anderson, at least as long as he wins.

(05-16-2011 07:26 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/...obs_051411

Speaking of Fayetteville: "The Razorbacks have a passionate fanbase that supports its team through thick and thin."

Huh? I thought the reason they got rid of Pelphrey and brought in Anderson was because attendance was down.

And this one: "Anderson’s style of play may be a turnoff to elite recruits."

I thought that was his big draw to get recruits to come in - up-tempo basketball.

The first quote is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve a rebuttal. With regard to elite recruits, I believe the argument is that Anderson plays Nolan Richardson style ball- using a lot of players in his run and press, street-ball style. Elite players apparently want to be on the court 35+ minutes a game, not play in a platoon system.

I am not a Mike Anderson fan, but I thought the hire made a lot of sense given the situation at Fayetteville. I think it is a given that they thought that he, like Nolan, would be able to bring in big name recruits precisely because Anderson coaches the style of ball that he does.

(05-16-2011 12:01 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  I am not a Mike Anderson fan, but I thought the hire made a lot of sense given the situation at Fayetteville. I think it is a given that they thought that he, like Nolan, would be able to bring in big name recruits precisely because Anderson coaches the style of ball that he does.

I think a lot of the so-called big name recruits have a "me-first" attitude and want to assured they will be on the court for most of the game.

Coach Richardson or Anderson style is not geared for the top recruits. Coach Richardson always said this. You have to be well condition and play good team defense which includes knowing when and where to rotate. Plus they go deep in their bench which would cut into a superstar minutes. Most top players get some type of agreement with the coaches about how many touches they will get if they sign. With Coach Richardson in the past or Anderson in the present that is not gonna go down. Pappy why are you not a fan of Coach Anderson? Is it his style of play? I never seen or heard anything that he was a bad guy or anything. His kids that play/ed ball in college were good high school students, which gives an indication they had a good upbringing. I'm just curious.

I remember hearing that Nolan hated dealing with the AAU coaches who controlled some of the elite players. His system can produce winning teams without superstars. Obviously you need good players, but they can be very good role players. His best teams always had a great point guard. I don't know if Anderson will win a national championship, but they'll be fun to watch, and he'll win his share of games, and he'll fit in perfectly in Fayetteville. It was the right hire at the right time, IMO.

(05-16-2011 05:56 PM)LR Alum Wrote:  Pappy why are you not a fan of Coach Anderson? Is it his style of play?

Nothing against him personally. He obviously is an outstanding coach and seems to run a good program. I am just not a fan of that style. I like Bruiserball (as in Flint of Drexel) a lot more. Just personal preference. I think Anderson was a good choice for Fayetteville on several accounts. I think they will be very happy with him. The style they like. Instant up-tick in attendance. Fan excitement. Good pick for them.

(05-16-2011 08:09 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  I remember hearing that Nolan hated dealing with the AAU coaches who controlled some of the elite players. His system can produce winning teams without superstars. Obviously you need good players, but they can be very good role players. His best teams always had a great point guard. I don't know if Anderson will win a national championship, but they'll be fun to watch, and he'll win his share of games, and he'll fit in perfectly in Fayetteville. It was the right hire at the right time, IMO.

But even Nolan never won big without a Big Nasty or May-Day.

Yes. You have to have good players, but how many players who played for Nolan were ever big stars in the NBA? None. Corliss was a journeyman in the pros. Good but not great at that level. Todd Day was certainly a good player, but not a super star in the pros. When you compare most of the programs who win national championships, they normally have several players drafted early, some of who do very well in the pros. It's sort of like comparing Arkansas with Alabama in football. Generally Alabama has three or four defensive linemen and linebackers drafted in the first round, while Arkansas doesn't have that many drafted in the entire draft. That could change under Petrino, but that's been the scenario for years now. Coaching is important, and as we know, probably the most important part of coaching is recruiting. Whether it be in basketball, football or tiddlywinks. Does UALR have a tiddlywink program? Don't think so. Anway, it will be interesting to see how the Hogs do in basketball this year.