(03-23-2017 07:38 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  The curiosity sets in because we always talk about the absence of big donors. We don't have a med school, dentistry, law school, etc. Adding a billionaire to the donors is fascinating to me. Not advocating for Miller. I've agreed with your statement that we can do better on this thread, but that is an intriguing wrinkle.

I personally would not have any outrage if Miller were hired. I assume Miller plays a fast-paced offense, similar to Carolina, which is not a complete break from our current system. For sure, it is different, but it isn't the same as considering Caputo. I won't go into the differences, but my point is it isn't an offense that is going to turn players like Bryce, Cacok, Taylor or Whitley away. We can scrap the token press for all that I care. One way or the other, our half-court defense has to improve.

In fairness to Miller, he took over a program that was in pretty bad shape and in a great deal of turmoil with their previous coach being forced out in the middle of a season. He was an extremely young and inexperienced coach on top of that. I give him credit for hanging in there and getting the job done at a school that has no tradition of history of success that I am aware of. But the idea of hiring a coach primarily to secure a large donation from someone is not something I'd ever want to do. I find it a bit hard to believe that this scenario is true. At any rate, too much power/influence in the hands of any booster(s) is not a good thing. From what I understand, that's largely what got us into the mess we were in between Brownell and Keatts. I think the current administration would prevent that from happening today, but administrations can quickly, just like everything else.

(03-23-2017 08:18 AM)seehawk83 Wrote:  But the idea of hiring a coach primarily to secure a large donation from someone is not something I'd ever want to do. I find it a bit hard to believe that this scenario is true. At any rate, too much power/influence in the hands of any booster(s) is not a good thing. From what I understand, that's largely what got us into the mess we were in between Brownell and Keatts. I think the current administration would prevent that from happening today, but administrations can quickly, just like everything else.

I inferred a lot in my initial post, just to clarify. I'm not suggesting that a quid pro quo donation is rumored.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding the coaches between Brownell and Keatts though. I'm certain that doesn't apply to Moss, and Buzz wasn't a bad hire. The results were dismal, but he wasn't an unqualified candidate with Jordan money.

We have big money donors? After looking at our numbers I don't see any money out there that warrants much input. If Mr. Murphy wants to send some cash downstream to thank us for delivering Keatts to State on a silver platter that would be nice.

(03-23-2017 08:22 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:18 AM)seehawk83 Wrote:  But the idea of hiring a coach primarily to secure a large donation from someone is not something I'd ever want to do. I find it a bit hard to believe that this scenario is true. At any rate, too much power/influence in the hands of any booster(s) is not a good thing. From what I understand, that's largely what got us into the mess we were in between Brownell and Keatts. I think the current administration would prevent that from happening today, but administrations can quickly, just like everything else.

I inferred a lot in my initial post, just to clarify. I'm not suggesting that a quid pro quo donation is rumored.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding the coaches between Brownell and Keatts though. I'm certain that doesn't apply to Moss, and Buzz wasn't a bad hire. The results were dismal, but he wasn't an unqualified candidate with Jordan money.

Well really, that's what got us into a mess with Brownell, aside from our dreadful administration, he didn't play well with one of our biggest donors and said F it, i'm out!

The guy at UNCA is closer to being a fit here than Wes Miller-IMO. They have been at or near the top of the Big South for a while now. They also play a uptempo style and score a lot of points.

(03-23-2017 08:09 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  while i agree, let's not get carried away. There are many ways you can live at the mid major level, we had a good level of success with a grinding style with Jerry and Brad. And i don't think Gonzaga presses much.

The style of ball Jerry and Brad played doesn't work as well anymore. The game has shifted. With the rules that are trying to make the game more "free-flowing" and less physical, it makes sense to play at a faster pace to try to wear down your opponent in that way rather than trying to win games 51-50 with hard defense.

Brownell is struggling at Clemson in part for that reason. And Keatts only lost one game to Earl Grant in his tenure here. Obviously the biggest reason for that was the talent level, but they did tend to struggle with our style of ball too.

(03-23-2017 10:22 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:09 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  while i agree, let's not get carried away. There are many ways you can live at the mid major level, we had a good level of success with a grinding style with Jerry and Brad. And i don't think Gonzaga presses much.

The style of ball Jerry and Brad played doesn't work as well anymore. The game has shifted. With the rules that are trying to make the game more "free-flowing" and less physical, it makes sense to play at a faster pace to try to wear down your opponent in that way rather than trying to win games 51-50 with hard defense.

Brownell is struggling at Clemson in part for that reason. And Keatts only lost one game to Earl Grant in his tenure here. Obviously the biggest reason for that was the talent level, but they did tend to struggle with our style of ball too.

It does still work, and Brownell struggling at Clemson is comparing apples to oranges. It's much more difficult to make that style work at that level than it is in mids.
Look at this list of the best scoring D's, it's littered with Mids and most made the tourney:
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men...t/team/146

I do agree with you guys, we should continue our current path for continuity, but to state that that style doesn't work anymore simply isn't accurate.

Interestingly, one of our consensus targets is NCCU's coach, and they were 22nd, and a few spots ahead of COC.

(03-23-2017 10:27 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 10:22 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:09 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  while i agree, let's not get carried away. There are many ways you can live at the mid major level, we had a good level of success with a grinding style with Jerry and Brad. And i don't think Gonzaga presses much.

The style of ball Jerry and Brad played doesn't work as well anymore. The game has shifted. With the rules that are trying to make the game more "free-flowing" and less physical, it makes sense to play at a faster pace to try to wear down your opponent in that way rather than trying to win games 51-50 with hard defense.

Brownell is struggling at Clemson in part for that reason. And Keatts only lost one game to Earl Grant in his tenure here. Obviously the biggest reason for that was the talent level, but they did tend to struggle with our style of ball too.

It does still work, and Brownell struggling at Clemson is comparing apples to oranges. It's much more difficult to make that style work at that level than it is in mids.
Look at this list of the best scoring D's, it's littered with Mids and most made the tourney:
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men...t/team/146

I do agree with you guys, we should continue our current path for continuity, but to state that that style doesn't work anymore simply isn't accurate.

Interestingly, one of our consensus targets is NCCU's coach, and they were 22nd, and a few spots ahead of COC.

If it isn't working well at the next level, shouldn't that be the signal for mid-majors not to try it as much anymore? We want to reach the next level. That means better athletes and a faster style of play. We don't want to be content to just win CAA games, no? It's not just us, it's any team that wants to win NCAA Tournament games.

(03-23-2017 10:39 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 10:27 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 10:22 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:09 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  while i agree, let's not get carried away. There are many ways you can live at the mid major level, we had a good level of success with a grinding style with Jerry and Brad. And i don't think Gonzaga presses much.

The style of ball Jerry and Brad played doesn't work as well anymore. The game has shifted. With the rules that are trying to make the game more "free-flowing" and less physical, it makes sense to play at a faster pace to try to wear down your opponent in that way rather than trying to win games 51-50 with hard defense.

Brownell is struggling at Clemson in part for that reason. And Keatts only lost one game to Earl Grant in his tenure here. Obviously the biggest reason for that was the talent level, but they did tend to struggle with our style of ball too.

It does still work, and Brownell struggling at Clemson is comparing apples to oranges. It's much more difficult to make that style work at that level than it is in mids.
Look at this list of the best scoring D's, it's littered with Mids and most made the tourney:
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men...t/team/146

I do agree with you guys, we should continue our current path for continuity, but to state that that style doesn't work anymore simply isn't accurate.

Interestingly, one of our consensus targets is NCCU's coach, and they were 22nd, and a few spots ahead of COC.

If it isn't working well at the next level, shouldn't that be the signal for mid-majors not to try it as much anymore? We want to reach the next level. That means better athletes and a faster style of play. We don't want to be content to just win CAA games, no?

How many pressing teams are still in the tourney? You ignored me when i said that i'm FINE with moving forward and staying consistent. But the other way DOES still work. Hell Gonzaga was 4th. that type of coach CAN win in the right situation. However, i don't think our situation is that.

The press we ran, and the press VCU was most successful with, were very different. There were occasions where we got after it, but for the most part, it was doubling the inbound pass and retreating to man-to-man. I'm not going to criticize Keatts because the results were great, but there are areas where we can improve.

Keatts was not through building his system. This incoming class was supposed to help iron out the kinks.

(03-23-2017 08:32 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:22 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:18 AM)seehawk83 Wrote:  But the idea of hiring a coach primarily to secure a large donation from someone is not something I'd ever want to do. I find it a bit hard to believe that this scenario is true. At any rate, too much power/influence in the hands of any booster(s) is not a good thing. From what I understand, that's largely what got us into the mess we were in between Brownell and Keatts. I think the current administration would prevent that from happening today, but administrations can quickly, just like everything else.

I inferred a lot in my initial post, just to clarify. I'm not suggesting that a quid pro quo donation is rumored.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding the coaches between Brownell and Keatts though. I'm certain that doesn't apply to Moss, and Buzz wasn't a bad hire. The results were dismal, but he wasn't an unqualified candidate with Jordan money.

Well really, that's what got us into a mess with Brownell, aside from our dreadful administration, he didn't play well with one of our biggest donors and said F it, i'm out!

Just meant that we had a number of down years after Brad left, and that he appeared to leave in part because a booster or two didn't seem to care for him and how he ran the program.

I may not have read the initial post that closely. Whatever the case, I'd love to have someone pour big money into UNCW. Wish I could do it. Hopefully I would be careful about how I used my influence, but money often changes people, so who knows?

(03-23-2017 11:44 AM)seehawk83 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:32 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:22 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:18 AM)seehawk83 Wrote:  But the idea of hiring a coach primarily to secure a large donation from someone is not something I'd ever want to do. I find it a bit hard to believe that this scenario is true. At any rate, too much power/influence in the hands of any booster(s) is not a good thing. From what I understand, that's largely what got us into the mess we were in between Brownell and Keatts. I think the current administration would prevent that from happening today, but administrations can quickly, just like everything else.

I inferred a lot in my initial post, just to clarify. I'm not suggesting that a quid pro quo donation is rumored.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding the coaches between Brownell and Keatts though. I'm certain that doesn't apply to Moss, and Buzz wasn't a bad hire. The results were dismal, but he wasn't an unqualified candidate with Jordan money.

Well really, that's what got us into a mess with Brownell, aside from our dreadful administration, he didn't play well with one of our biggest donors and said F it, i'm out!

Just meant that we had a number of down years after Brad left, and that he appeared to leave in part because a booster or two didn't seem to care for him and how he ran the program.

I may not have read the initial post that closely. Whatever the case, I'd love to have someone pour big money into UNCW. Wish I could do it. Hopefully I would be careful about how I used my influence, but money often changes people, so who knows?

Don't know if it changes people, as much as it gives their opinion more weight during a discussion.

Question.... Who says Eshelman hasn't given?

(03-23-2017 12:19 PM)SEA33HAWK Wrote:  Question.... Who says Eshelman hasn't given?

No one. The conversation started by building bridges without pillars of support. The assumption was that he would give, or give more, if his son-in-law were to become the next coach.

Everything stated was hypothetical.

(03-23-2017 12:19 PM)SEA33HAWK Wrote:  Question.... Who says Eshelman hasn't given?

Not sure anyone did, but if he has done so it's been quietly. And that's not typically how he does things.

I can certainly see Eshelman giving money to the Clinical Research department, but I wouldn't expect him to be a big donor to athletics. All speculation on my part.

Continue to make the right hires and have success and the money will flow in, little by little.

Damn, JTIII just fired from G'town. Wonder if Keatts would have been interested and vice versa. Always seemed like the ideal fit for him to me.

(03-23-2017 01:45 PM)bricksnivy Wrote:  Damn, JTIII just fired from G'town. Wonder if Keatts would have been interested and vice versa. Always seemed like the ideal fit for him to me.

JT3 a good fit here?