go bears go wrote:
I think it is sad that a couch that never had a losing record before the transition into Division 1 was let go during the transition period. It says a lot about the current administration. It is hard to compete when you are playing Kansas and teams that are CLEARLY money games. Also I imagine it is hard to recruit when players don't have anything to play for.....I do recall the Hervey days...We are much better off with Rand, but it is a bad statement on UCA that we have no faith in our coaching staff!
Are you serious or just seriously ignorant?
Let's break this down...
Rand's Relative wrote:
I think it is sad that a couch that never had a losing record before the transition into Division 1 was let go during the transition period
What does this have to do with furniture?
Okay, seriously, assuming you were talking about a coach ...
The coach had never had a losing record, sure, but it was already on the downtick before making the move to D-I. And sometimes things are about more than just wins and losses.
D. Lusional wrote:
It is hard to compete when you are playing Kansas and teams that are CLEARLY money games.
You don't play 30 money games a year. Whatever hit the record took from those games was equaled by the padding from NAIAs.
Speaking of ... how big a money game was Central Methodist?
How are the Southland games clearly money games? They aren't. And that's the majority of the schedule ... and the losses.
go rand go wrote:
Also I imagine it is hard to recruit when players don't have anything to play for
It's probably harder than it is to recruit without that hanging over your head, but it's not impossible and other coaches have managed just fine. But, I think if you look at the number of four-year players recruited by the other programs in relations to men's basketball ... or maybe even men's basketball programs at other schools compared to ours, you'll find it's a much higher rate. If you're recruiting a bunch of guys with two years, then of course the postseason right away is a higher priority. And it also keeps you from building anything long-term.
Look at how volleyball has fared. They just graduated the Southland's Setter of the Year, but return the two-time Player of the Year and the Libero of the Year. After next year, the Player of the Year is gone but the Libero and another former Freshman of the Year return (that'd be the third of three in a row). By that time they'll have been recruiting toward a conference champion team for a couple years and will be fully eligible. Long-term planning ... interesting concept. Women's basketball seems to be on a similar model. Just went out and won 21 games under the same recruiting restrictions, after winning 13 combined in the last two. And it was with nothing but freshmen and sophomores and one junior who didn't play a ton. Long term.
Football has recruited some pretty good players and had a lot of success, and even attracted two-year guys who had "nothing to play for". Guys like Larry Hart, Tristan Jackson and so forth.
With the current men's roster, with Pouncy (potentially) returning next year in addition to Sheppard, Poellnitz, Rehmel, Qahwash, Dos Santos, Daniels and Williams maybe you've got the makings of a decent team (though they did just go 3-13 in the league with all those but Pouncy, but with Rueter) ... but they're all seniors. That's eight, for those who aren't good at math. Eight seniors. Even if you have a good season next year, you have next to nothing left for the next year and then feel necessary to go recruit a bunch of JUCO guys ("instant help", some like to call it) and the cycle repeats.
There's not a freshman on the roster and only three sophomores. Of those three, one is a walk-on (TK Smith) and another (Chris Henson) played 4.5 minutes per game. Not exactly the nucleus of a bright, bright future.
Flawed Logic wrote:
I do recall the Hervey days...We are much better off with Rand,
And you're much better off having your arm lopped off rather than your head. Just because one thing is bad doesn't mean something less bad is actually good. Driving a 1986 Chevy Celebrity is better than pedaling a unicycle for your 15-mile drive to work, but that doesn't make it a nice car.
Cocaine is a helluva drug wrote:
it is a bad statement on UCA that we have no faith in our coaching staff!
Or is it a bad statement on the coach that almost nobody – including the administration – has faith in him? It's not like a wildly successful, insanely popular coach who was drawing 4,000 folks a night to the gym just got let go. I haven't heard anything yet about the players or students or boosters or anybody picketing outside the Farris Center or the athletic admin. offices or Dr. Teague's or Dr. Meadors' house or anything. That should probably speak volumes.
It's one thing to have faith, it's another to bury your head in the sand. I think more folks would've questioned the administration if something
wasn't done.
Chappell obviously has some idea about what he's doing, based on his previous success. But that was all at lower levels, where the rules are a little different. The academic standards are different and evidently the eligibility requirements are too, because you don't see a lot of 28 year-olds in Division I. He can drop back down and go set the world on fire. Turn Henderson into a D2 power again or something. But it wasn't working out here, or at the very least there was no hope for the UCA basketball community, and that just isn't going to get it done.
So it was a great move for UCA and probably a good move for Chappell as well. Now he can start fresh somewhere else without the pressures of an apathetic/dwindling fanbase, mounting losses and the subsequent need to win right away.
Who loses in this deal?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
