(03-09-2015 10:10 PM)insideualr Wrote:  Jim a poor attempt to draw the parallel to drunks judgement in a bar.

You know better but do it anyway.

Both of you know the product has not been good but have been forced to defend the assessment that the program is as good as it can be.

Sorry about the reference if it offended. It has meant as a joke.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

We've just been here long enough to know the program is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. Chasse will improve things, but unfortunately the sky is not the limit.

I think we can field an eye pleasing product that can be in the top 3 seven out of ten years while being 500 plus in ooc againt d1.

Where you are right is the tournament is a crap shoot.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(03-09-2015 10:21 PM)mjs Wrote:  [quote='insideualr' pid='11857365' dateline='1425957045']
Jim a poor attempt to draw the parallel to drunks judgement in a bar.

You know better but do it anyway.

Both of you know the product has not been good but have been forced to defend the assessment that the program is as good as it can be.

Sorry about the reference if it offended. It has meant as a joke.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

We've just been here long enough to know the program is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. Chasse will improve things, but unfortunately the sky is not the limit.
[/quote


As I said, Kerry, no apology necessary, but please don't mischaracterize my position. I believe that are program can improve. It's just this belief that new coach is the answer to improving the program significantly that I disagree with. Been there, done that. You can take a close look at my analysis a couple of days ago of the very difficult challenge facing Chaase and why I always call his the worst job in the country.

(03-09-2015 10:24 PM)insideualr Wrote:  I think we can field an eye pleasing product that can be in the top 3 seven out of ten years while being 500 plus in ooc againt d1.

Where you are right is the tournament is a crap shoot.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think your goal is a great one. Difficult, but something, unlike a Sweet 16 appearance 7 out of 10 years, that, at least, is conceivable if we are able to do the things I referenced a few days ago to change our image from the University of Last Resort. Do those other things, and Steve will be fine.

(03-09-2015 10:21 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:10 PM)insideualr Wrote:  Jim a poor attempt to draw the parallel to drunks judgement in a bar.

You know better but do it anyway.

Both of you know the product has not been good but have been forced to defend the assessment that the program is as good as it can be.

Sorry about the reference if it offended. It has meant as a joke.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

We've just been here long enough to know the program is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. Chasse will improve things, but unfortunately the sky is not the limit.

Conque may be a magician instead of a puppet, but he can't do it without a coach. Even Long couldn't do that.

(03-08-2015 06:56 PM)Jim T Wrote:  

(03-08-2015 01:45 PM)insideualr Wrote:  Jim they are on the national stage. They beat bcs schools on the road.

They host nit games. Listen to the announcers on ESPN in their games and they get credit

It's fun to watch and there are fans in the stands, so it matters.

Ualr could matter too.

Sorry, Kerry. It just isn't true. Nobody ever really thinks of Tech when they are thinking of basketball's prominent programs. Hame announcers compliment every team whose game they are covering. But I'm talking about teams my brother out west would think of when I ask him to list off the top of his head who the nationally prominent teams are. Tech would never ever come to mind. That's why I call them a nice little program. I think it's great, though, that you are high on your alma mater. I'm a big fan of BOTH of mine. That's all good.

I think of New Jersey Tech!

(03-08-2015 08:23 PM)insideualr Wrote:  Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The program was relevant and noteworthy in 1996. Wimp did a great job with that bunch and we had serious talent in Fisher and Dobbins. No reason we can't at least touch that level again with the right leadership.

We were in crappy Barton coliseum back then. Before the paint job.

I know some will be offended by this reference, but it has some merit in this case. When Nolan left Arkansas, they brought in Stan Heath, then John Pelphrey and finally Mike Anderson. The program has made progress to where it's relevant again. Maybe not national championship caliber yet, but back to a respectable program, and will continue to improve. Success breeds success. My point is that they could have stayed with Heath or Pelphrey and things probably would have never improved. Or they could have kept one of the coaches thinking that if he stays there long enough, he'll have some success. But they didn't do that. They gave those coaches a reasonable amount of time to build the program, and when they didn't do it, they made changes. Changes didn't work, so they kept making changes until they found one that did. That's what we need to do. If something isn't working, you don't say you recognize this is the best you can expect. You try something different. Coaches make the difference. You can rationalize all you want, but this program's ultimate success will depend on the coach.