SL Xpress

I couldn't disagree more. It was an unathletic team with nobody who could take a defender off the dribble consistently and no reliable outside shooting. It's like we agree about the team but then you say it wasn't ever firing at 100% of its potential. I think it was. Beard got them to buy in to a slow down offense with virtually no fast break points and then be tough on defense and win the turnover battle. Given what Beard had when he walked on to campus it was incredible. That's not even counting what he did off the court in starting to create a home court advantage and a robust student section. Tre Mitchell wasn't used effectively. He's averaging 12.6/5.8 per game while hitting almost 40% of his 3 point shots on 56 attempts for West Virginia. Just wasn't a good fit for Beard. You could say something similar about Jaylon Tyson. He's always going to get a lot of those.

Wow, that’s a stretch. There’s not any part of me that thinks we should have kept Beard. There’s also not any part of me that thinks this team is better off on the basketball court with him gone. Last year I felt Beard did a great job of maximizing the pieces he had. This year I felt like he had better pieces. In the future I feel like he was about to create some really special rosters. Rodney Terry doesn’t have that ability. He’s doing the best he can with what he has, and so far it’s been enough to put together a very good record. But the fact is the future isn’t as bright with Terry in charge. That’s not about wanting to keep Beard. That’s about being angry and bitter that Beard made all the choices he did which led to this.

Honestly, I’d question if Texas would give a fuck if the shoe were on the other foot. We don’t know how all this ends up. But if Beard appears to be completely exonerated and he handles the PR aspects better than he has without the consequences of the legal system hanging over his head - which I feel like he will - then there’s going to be a redemptive aspect to all of this that will be very appealing to many. Especially if you’re starved for a future hall of fame coach (my opinion) to take over your basketball program. Which frankly, we are. That’s not to say I’m against firing him. It felt necessary to me. Just that there’s a different standard for the school he’s at when it all transpires, versus the next school after everything has run its course. There’s this impression he’s only going to get his next opportunity at a program that simply doesn’t care about any of this, when I feel like his options are going to be extremely broad. Of course, if the Kentucky job becomes available, then it’s the best of all possible worlds for him.

It's never that fast. This could go on for another year in a worst case scenario. Even best case for Beard it can easily last months. In any case, you won't need to ask, because the thread/board is going to be full of people talking about it when it does happen. Just as an example, Arterio Morris was charged at the beginning of the summer, and we still don't know the disposition of his case. It's not apples to apples, but it is a domestic violence charge where the victim seems likely not to cooperate with the prosecutor, so that's a big similarity.

This is why I refrain from posting for the most part when I start getting really negative. People don't want to hear it, especially when ostensibly the team is doing well. Which they are. The key difference for me in the defense Beard and post Beard, is that Beard's defense simply didn't give up many 3 point opportunities. It often wasn't the percentage of shots the opponent made from beyond the arc. It was the fact they shot so much fewer of them than they were used to. It's funny. They call it the no middle defense, and there are good reasons for that. But when I watch Beard's defense what I think of as his priorities are 1) don't give up transition points. He will sacrifice about anything not to give up transition points. In particular offensive rebounding. But simply the way the guys rotate in and out on offense, there's a focus on getting back in transition even while players are attacking the hoop off the dribble. Beyond that, it's 2) not to give up easy shots from the perimeter. It's a big reason why he recruits the way he does. Sure, a huge part of it is to defense pick and roll and screening action, but it's also to aggressively defend the perimeter. The other thing he emphasized was 3) shutting down half the court and make the the other offense make difficult skip passes to the open man with a guy flying out to his face as soon as the ball rotation came. I don't see the same smoothness nor intensity on defense with Terry as the head coach. Also, the substitution patterns don't make as much sense to me. I just feel one of Beard's huge strengths was managing the roster - from year to year, game to game, and within a game. I'm not saying he was perfect. But Terry doesn't have the same feel for when to go to his bench and why. It's being covered somewhat in my opinion by roster construction. motown makes the comment Derka sounds like someone who has been dumped. It's more like the woman I loved beat a child in front of me with a closed fist, or something equally horrific. I'm the one who did the dumping. But man, I really wish they hadn't done what they did. Anyway, I'm glad for all of you who are getting joy out of this season. The players deserve our support. Heck, Terry and the rest of the staff deserve our support. They didn't ask for any of this. But I have a fear that Terry will be the next head coach, and it prevents me from an unadulterated joy regarding the team's success this year. That's not your problem. That's my problem. In any case, perimeter defense isn't nearly as aggressive or effective. It's not as much about percentage of makes, and more about how many shots on goal from the beyond the arc opponents' are attempting.

Help me understand how to do that. If the ride is good enough, we're hiring Terry. It's debatable what "good enough" is, but it's not debatable if the season goes well enough, he's our coach for the next few years.

Right. I don't think I've argued anything different. My point is that him acceding to allow Sweden into NATO is not fait accompli. I'm not saying he won't agree. I'm saying he's fully capable of being intransigent on the issue because it serves his purposes. And that's because he's way more aligned with the Muslim world, specifically in the Middle East (with all its complications and shifting "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" alliances), than he is with the Western world. Another illustrative point is the S-400 purchase. It was a big middle finger to NATO and the US, and even after extensive sanctions and a dramatic pullout of the F-35 program that cost Turkiye industry billions, they went forward with it. Then once they get the two systems on their soil, they put them in storage, and have put on hold the delivery of the additional systems and missiles they purchased. He continues to try to play one side against the other in an effort to show his independence from the west, but he also backs down. He's not a reliable partner, but Turkiye is too important geographically not to cater to. I just wish they still had a government completely intent on being secular. But that's gone by the wayside.

For sure. I do not agree with you regarding Erdogan's strategic thought process, however. I feel like you're underestimating him. The main thing here is how does Erdogan and Turkiye respond to events in Ukraine? What is their motivation? What do they seek? And the answer is inevitably, "It's complicated," just as nearly any issue in the middle east is. We all know about the Turkish drones that were used to such effectiveness by the Ukrainians in the early part of the war, and the unabashed support of the manufacturer for Ukraine's cause. We also know about Erdogan negotiating for the transfer of Ukrainian grain, and the subsequent enforcement of that agreement even when the Russians made noises they wouldn't honor it any more. But this idea that Turkiye would like to see the Russians knocked down a peg or two is not true. What they really need is for Iran to be knocked down a peg or two, more than Russia. Russia is not a realistic threat to Erdogan's ambitions for Turkiye to be the leading figure in the Islamic world. Iran is. Yes they're on opposite sides of the conflict in both Syria and Armenia/Azerbaijan (well, Russia is ostensibly neutral there, but Turkiye is Azerbaijan's number one supporter). But Iran's support for proxies in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon is the real danger. Not to mention successes from the Houthis also increases Iran's prestige in the region. My guess is that Erdogan will try to remain as neutral as possible, while being a little equaler towards Ukraine. He'd like to be a central figure in whatever cessation of hostilities eventually occurs. He'd like for his country to be a significant source for legitimate Russian fossil fuel exports after the conflict is over. He'd also find it important that Turkiye have some say over any kind of naval negotiations in the Black Sea and Mediterranean, particularly if Ukraine somehow manages to take control of Sevastopol. As far as Sweden, we'll see what happens. But this idea that Erdogan is just going to roll over regarding letting Sweden into NATO because enough money is thrown at him is not really how he works. If he thinks there's enough mileage in terms of how he's perceived in the Muslim world, and especially among his base in Turkiye, he'll keep the wrench in the spokes. Look at how intransigent he's been on the Cypriot issue. That's not completely an apples to apples comparison - because Sweden to NATO is much much bigger - but the fact remains he's willing to sacrifice economic advantages to prove his points. He'll be seen as a central figure in the international news cycle for as long as this goes on, and that's definitely going to increase his standing among rank and file Muslims. That's important to him. As far as your points regarding collaboration, I couldn't agree more. People get frustrated at the inefficiencies of building coalitions and coming to a common agreement. Rightly so. There's nothing efficient about it. And at a time when we're all watching the conflict in Ukraine with very set opinions about good and evil, it's beyond frustrating to see the delays because of only one or two countries putting the kibosh on things. Ukrainians are dying, the country is being devastated. It's already facing terrible demographic pressures that are going to be exacerbated to virtually unprecedented levels from the mass exodus. We all know the sooner Ukraine can expel the Russian forces, the better the outcome for everyone. Heck, I'd even argue that's the best outcome for Russia, for that matter. But Orban is bad news. That's for sure. I hate seeing him in power. Azerbaijan

You and I have very different conceptions of what is or isn’t a true dictatorship. History is replete with dictators who put on a show of elections as a way of legitimizing their reign in various ways. I’d say the vast majority of them in the last 100 years or so. If there’s no real chance of a peaceful transition of power and one person is ultimately responsible for the whole kit and caboodle, it’s a dictatorship. The reason why there’s a war in Ukraine right now is because the Ukrainian people came out in massive protests for months on end - twice! about a decade apart - when Yanukovych tried the same thing there. That said, Erdogan’s base is within the Muslim community. He can survive protests - and has, massive ones - from the secular part of population. He will have a much tougher time if the Muslims feel like he is betraying them and their faith. I’m not as convinced that Sweden’s path to NATO is as smooth as massive bribes after the May election. Erdogan sees he and his country’s future firmly ensconced as a leader of the Islamic world, not western. Tūrkiye is another lost opportunity for the west to bring a majority Islam country into the Western fold, and has been since Erdogan’s purges of the military and the subsequent failed coup a few years later from an emasculated secular officer corp. It’s a bummer seeing Ataturk’s dream die.

Well, Europe only has itself to blame. Back when Erdogan was trying to get into the EU the leaders there said Turkey has too many coups. You have to reform the military so it no longer interferes in domestic politics. Erdogan was only too happy to do so, purging the Turkish military of virtually all senior officers, and thus cleaving the military's historic responsibility as handed to it by Ataturk to ensure the government remains secular. Now they have a ruler for life, and the secular forces in Turkey have been on the defensive ever since. To me it's similar to Carter's approach with the Shah of Iran, the entire Arab Spring fiasco (have you seen what's happening in Libya these days?), and of course most spectacularly, installing a democratic government of all things in Iraq and Afghanistan. To "spread democracy." Unintended consequences. Now we've got Erdogan gumming up the works in all kinds of ways as his number one foreign policy objective is to restore the Ottoman Caliphate to whatever extent he can. Which is limited, for sure, but it's far more important to him to be seen as the most important leader in the Muslim world than to increase his prestige in the West. We're just fortunate it didn't work in Egypt.

I hope it's not a Leopard. Or they got permission from Germany before using it.

Literally the only reason to give the Ukrainians the gas guzzling, high maintenance, expensive logistics nightmare Abrams is to compel Germany to give permission on the Leopards. That's it. Germany doesn't even have that many Leopards themselves, so they'd be a minor direct exporter at best. The manufacturer isn't prepared to build Leopards either for Ukraine or to backfill other countries supplying them with any kind of alacrity. It's literally just compelling the German government to give foreign governments the go ahead to do what they want to do already. Several of them such as Poland already indicating they're going to do it anyway with or without permission.

I thought for sure Russia was going to roll over Ukraine like they did back in 2014 when the Ukraine government did manage to put together an armed force to go deal with the separatists. The UAF was doing really well until the Russian army crossed the border and completely annihilated them. Add in air support by what I thought would be a first world air force, I thought Ukraine's best chance was an elongated guerilla warfare that exacted too big a price on Russia for them to stick around. I completely overestimated Russia getting results over the past dozen years by modernizing their core armed force units into extremely well equipped, well trained, highly mobile force multipliers. I underestimated the insidious effect of putting a higher priority on loyalty and not being a potential threat to the "emperor" which was first made clear to me in Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Same kind of dynamics at work. The corruption is endemic, starting at the top. The internal security is valued more highly than the military. And people who don't parrot the orthodoxy according to Putin can have their lives ruined or ended. Now I just want Ukraine to get a chance to finish this thing. I'm very hopeful we'll see some breakthroughs versus the Russian defensive lines if the UAF has access to enough armor, and then we'll see how the demoralized Russian troops respond. There are a bunch of countries all willing to give 14 Leopard 2's apiece to Ukraine. Enough to just about add up to 100 or more. It's not the 300 they're asking for, but that's a good start in any case. Boy, this thing is going to be a logistics nightmare this spring and summer with all these various western systems coming into the theater. I don't see how they can feasibly maintain and repair all these different systems effectively.

There has never been the investment in men's basketball that exists today. Never. What you see as a lack of greatness, I see as a steady rise in improvement. From Abe Lemons, and then the horrible stretch under Bob Wetlich, to Tom Penders, to Rick Barnes, to the horrible stretch under Smart, to what looked like it was going to be the golden fairy land of basketball Valhalla under Beard. It didn't work out that way, but it's not because of incompetence with the hiring process or the support given. I have no idea if the next guy will be the right guy. It's a fucking roulette wheel in many respects, especially when all that's going to be satisfying ultimately is a Hall of Fame level, top ten in the country type of guy. What I can say is that the program has never been in a better position to hire that guy than they are right now, nor have they ever been in a better position to give him the support necessary to win at the highest level. What I can tell you is that if he doesn't work out, they try someone new. Same as everyone else. Same as North Carolina with Doherty. Same as Kentucky with the end of Hall's reign, the firing of Sutton, the dismissal of Smith, and the disaster of Gillispie. Same as UCLA with their list. It's hard to find the right guy. The only ones with the secret sauce right now is Kansas, who is now on their third Hall of Fame hire in a row. There's no magic eight ball. You do the best you can and hope for the best. But UT has done an outstanding job of putting an infrastructure in place in virtually every way that matters to help the men's basketball team to succeed. Let's see who they get, and how they do. I'm not ready to write the next guy off until I see what kind of product he puts on the court. I remember last year on this board there were a multitude of complaints about Beard's team, his approach, and the results. All I saw was a crazy bright future. I'd like to have that feeling again. Without a doubt it's possible, regardless of how likely or unlikely it remains.

Depends on who they get. One thing I know is that Shaka Smart is gone. If the next guy performs at that level, he'll be gone, too. Hopefully he doesn't perform at that level. It could go either way. I'm excited to see who we get.

Is Marquette falling upwards? Because I don't think it is. It's still a pretty impressive job given his resume over the past 6 years, that's for sure.

It's definitely a decent job. But they won't pay what Texas will, and they'll have some limitations on who the head coach can recruit academically. Transfers will be tougher to get in, too, and the NIL program for basketball isn't as robust. I'm not arguing with you. You already said, "I don't know that we will be competing with Notre Dame for a coach...." Just clarifying in basic ways why the Texas job is better. Regardless of history or anything else, Notre Dame hasn't been willing to compromise as much to compete in sports overall as much as Texas has been willing to.

My overwhelming feeling after the ACU loss was similar to how I felt when Charlie Strong lost to Kansas. Relief. Finally it's over and we can get someone else. Surely the next person won't be able to kick my fandom nuts with their tenure any harder than Smart did over his 6 years. Surely.

I love that this thread stays active. I follow sports for entertainment, and it's entertaining for me to root against every former coach from Texas. I will always hope and expect Shaka Smart to fail. The truth is there haven't been a bunch of coaches leave Texas and then go on to enjoy spectacular success. Richard Quick for women's swimming, and Mick Haley for volleyball. I can't recall any others in my lifetime. Rick Barnes has done well in the regular season, but unfortunately for him that's not how coaches are measured career wise. Mack Brown is having mixed results at North Carolina, but he's not doing poorly. In any case, I'd love to see Shaka Smart completely flame out at Marquette. I'm expecting it. And I'm never getting past it. Don't want to.

Here's a pretty comprehensive deep dive into infantry fighting vehicles (IFV) and armored personnel carriers (APC) being utilized in the Ukraine war. It's an hour and eight minute narrated powerpoint basically, that talks a little about the history of these vehicles, the number each side ostensibly had at the beginning of the conflict, the number destroyed during the war (he admits it's not exact, but he still feels like extrapolations can be made from the data available), the importance of these vehicles, future supplies and where they'll come from. One of the things he leaves off, possibly because it's not that pertinent, is that prior to 2014 Ukraine was a decent sized producer of BMP-2s. The ties between the Russian and Ukrainian defense manufacturers were still very close after the fall of the USSR. However, they were almost exclusively for export only, so not many made it into service in the actual Ukrainian army, especially since Yanukovych was deliberately sabotaging the effectiveness/budget of the military in favor of the internal police. I feel like it's an outstanding overview. A lot of basic information many of you are already well aware of, but he does a great job of setting the stage for his later conclusions. Start at the timestamp 50:19 to bypass a lot of the background.

I have always found it fascinating that the two biggest countries engaged in territorial conquest in WWII ostensibly chose peace afterwards, but shifted their predatory cultural tendencies into export driven economies.

He's made two Elite Eights in a row after they've been wandering in a really dry desert for a long long time. Much longer than us. Before Musselman, the last time they made the Sweet 16 was in '96 (and that was as a #12 seed). That was 5 coaches ago. As Charlton Heston would say, we'll have to pry Musselman from their cold dead hands. I'm not ruling anything out, whether I'm surprised in a good way or a bad way. But it won't be because Arkansas fans suddenly become less enamored with their head coach. They know they've struck gold. I'll patiently wait until after the season. We're going to hear so many bullshit rumors until then, with no one knowing what the fuck is going on. Kirk Bohls' article being the latest. What a fucking tool.

On the other hand, John Prine was pretty good. I mean, he's still alive, but not performing any more.

Hopefully only that long.

There's talk of him shuffling his cabinet and putting a man in charge from one of the other ministries. A specific name was floated but I can't recall it right now. That's only one of the possibilities being floated. It's still a dumb policy.