Point and laugh at Shaka Smart

[shadow_operative 15932]

7 minutes ago, Satchel said:

You don’t think players get a sense that they’re better than most in the conference by virtue of being at Texas? If not, how have they managed not to be influenced by that kind of thinking when it’s part and parcel of the Texas brand?

dude listen to yourself. you're essentially claiming that entitlement and laziness is a virus that you contract the moment you step on campus. so uh, no, i don't believe that. 

i believe that the entire team from top to bottom are all playing roles with new teammates and new coaches in a new system in a new conference and they're struggling to jell and become a well oiled machine in what little time they've had together.

Edited January 20, 2022 by shadow_operative

[Satchel 6938]

Just now, shadow_operative said:

dude listen to yourself. your essentially claiming that entitlement and laziness is a virus that you contract the moment you step on campus. so uh, no, i don't believe that. 

i believe that the entire team from top to bottom are all playing roles with new teammates and new coaches in a new system in a new conference and they're struggling to jell and become a well oiled machine in what little time they've had together.

Oh okay.

[Slacks 6819]

On 1/16/2022 at 7:35 PM, JimmyJames said:

Yeah but he’s always dressed really sharp on and off the court.

In all seriousness, it’s been my experience that guys who always constantly dress that well means they have something to hide.

We wear gray slacks for a reason.

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

13 minutes ago, Satchel said:

You don’t think players get a sense that they’re better than most in the conference by virtue of being at Texas? If not, how have they managed not to be influenced by that kind of thinking when it’s part and parcel of the Texas brand?

I've been hearing this same old song since about 1984.  Shame we haven't done anything in any sport since then.

[shadow_operative 15932]

i explain this team's results the same way i explain a big EPL soccer club losing or playing like shit when they rotate their squad for one of their smaller cup competitions (don't stop reading, i promise this is going somewhere). for example, the League Cup isn't super important to the biggest clubs, so in the early rounds of the competition they rotate their squad, and play a team full of guys who don't normally play together every week. all still top flight professionals, but guys who aren't used to playing in real live games together.

well, it's not uncommon for clubs like Chelsea, or Man U, or Arsenal to go play someone like Nottingham Forest and just totally struggle. why does that happen? because the Nottingham players have been training and playing together for years. they have defined roles which they have earned and carved out for themselves, and they have chemistry and understanding on the pitch. yes, the players for the big club are paid more, and are more famous, and are no doubt individually better than the players for the small club, but they lack the chemistry and cohesion of the smaller club, and often times they have players who aren't playing in their natural, preferred position. 

thats us right now, only x10, because this entire team was just thrown together over the summer, from the head coach on down to the film guy who ended up making the team. this team has talent, sure, but it does not have the chemistry, cohesion, and experience needed to win in this league- not yet anyway. and that's not some wild guess- that's obvious when you watch us play. give it time, and let's hope that we improve enough this year to win some big games, including/especially in March. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by shadow_operative

[Satchel 6938]

Texas Tech basketball is similarly situated and yet it has not found its forced need to adapt as challenging. I’m not sure any of s knows why that seems to be the case.

[Slacks 6819]

5 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

I've been hearing this same old song since about 1984.  Shame we haven't done anything in any sport since then.

We've underachieved on football during that time for sure... Basketball since Rick...  Baseball is on par.

[shadow_operative 15932]

Just now, Satchel said:

Texas Tech basketball is similarly situated and yet it has not found its forced need to adapt as challenging. I’m not sure any of s knows why that seems to be the case.

TTU doesn't have a roster full of guys who major conference studs last year, now being asked to play totally different roles which may be outside of their comfort zone. again this isn't some mystery- just watch our team play. the hesitance and indecisiveness are palpable. the team has simply yet to come together and find concrete roles and rotations. 

[Satchel 6938]

1 minute ago, shadow_operative said:

TTU doesn't have a roster full of guys who major conference studs last year, now being asked to play totally different roles which may be outside of their comfort zone. again this isn't some mystery- just watch our team play. the hesitance and indecisiveness are palpable. the team has simply yet to come together and find concrete roles and rotations. 

As I understand it, Tech has a roster full of new role players that has been crafted into a two platoon team that is playing some of the best basketball in the best conference. That is after losing very talented players who are flourishing at other schools. Again, it’s not clear why that is at this point.

[Herpa Derpa 6125]

4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

As I understand it, Tech has a roster full of new role players that has been crafted into a two platoon team that is playing some of the best basketball in the best conference. That is after losing very talented players who are flourishing at other schools. Again, it’s not clear why that is at this point.

Could be they just had an outstanding start to conference play with some highly notable wins. Which might foreshadow a deep March run. Or it might foreshadow shit. Texas and Tech both have new coaches, but the programs were at drastically different levels. Beard arrived to a broken program with only scraps on the table and had to quickly cobble together a team out of spare parts and rough gems. He had to spend time and effort laying the groundwork of a hopefully winning program. Takes a lot to scrub the rot. Adams had the benefit of taking over a program with recent success and an established culture. He will undoubtedly tweak it until it's his own baby, but the jury is still out on how he performs long-term. In particular, it's still a question how his teams will perform in March. That's when all this in-season sturm and drang nonsense will finally matter.

[Satchel 6938]

18 minutes ago, Herpa Derpa said:

Could be they just had an outstanding start to conference play with some highly notable wins. Which might foreshadow a deep March run. Or it might foreshadow shit. Texas and Tech both have new coaches, but the programs were at drastically different levels. Beard arrived to a broken program with only scraps on the table and had to quickly cobble together a team out of spare parts and rough gems. He had to spend time and effort laying the groundwork of a hopefully winning program. Takes a lot to scrub the rot. Adams had the benefit of taking over a program with recent success and an established culture. He will undoubtedly tweak it until it's his own baby, but the jury is still out on how he performs long-term. In particular, it's still a question how his teams will perform in March. That's when all this in-season sturm and drang nonsense will finally matter.

Okay, let’s keep it real. Last year, Shaka’s Texas had a better record than Tech’s Beard’s team. Both coaches have had to rebuild after having their programs disrupted by coaching changes and player defections. To date, the Tech guy has done a better job.

I mentioned some time ago in another thread that even the Tech people had begun to “murmur” about the “tediousness” of Beard’s offense. As I read though this and other threads, Texas fans are doing the same thing without calling it tedious. It doesn’t appear that much has changed about how Beard coaches the game. The only difference is that we’re paying closer attention.

[shadow_operative 15932]

17 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Okay, let’s keep it real. Last year, Shaka’s Texas had a better record than Tech’s Beard’s team. Both coaches have had to rebuild after having their programs disrupted by coaching changes and player defections. To date, the Tech guy has done a better job.

I mentioned some time ago in another thread that even the Tech people had begun to “murmur” about the “tediousness” of Beard’s offense. As I read though this and other threads, Texas fans are doing the same thing without calling it tedious. It doesn’t appear that much has changed about how Beard coaches the game. The only difference is that we’re paying closer attention.

he took Tech to and elite 8 and then a final four. i don't care how tedious the offense looks if he does the same thing here. his offense being slow and low scoring isn't a revelation.

[Brian Fantana 6685]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

As I understand it, Tech has a roster full of new role players that has been crafted into a two platoon team that is playing some of the best basketball in the best conference. That is after losing very talented players who are flourishing at other schools. Again, it’s not clear why that is at this point.

We literally had 5 players left on the roster when Adams got the job, and 0 incoming freshmen once Tyson naturally followed Beard. It's a weird narrative flip that some people are now arguing how "good" of a situation Adams was left with, as if Beard somehow left him with a full cupboard to work with. Especially weird, considering the preseason conversation was how far back we were going to slide and how funny that would be. Not to mention starting the season unranked and not in anyone's tournament bracket.

 

17 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

he took Tech to and elite 8 and then a final four. i don't care how tedious the offense looks if he does the same thing here. his offense being slow and low scoring isn't a revelation.

No Tech fan had a problem with the pace of play or "tedious" nature of the offense. The offense was just flat out bad for a good 75% of Beard tenure, if not more. I know for a fact you watched enough games to have gotten at least somewhere close to that same perception. That, and his absolutely abysmal record in close contests, especially in his final two seasons, were the two major pain points for Tech fans.

[MotownHorn 1762]

6 hours ago, Brothahorn said:

When every coach we hire sucks, maybe it's us?

Man it sure fucking seems like it at this point 

[MotownHorn 1762]

2 hours ago, Satchel said:

Texas Tech basketball is similarly situated and yet it has not found its forced need to adapt as challenging. I’m not sure any of s knows why that seems to be the case.

Like always, derka is just doing mental backflips to justify his previously held opinion. If Shaka started like this he’d be screaming for him to be fired because he loved Barnes. He’s willing to give beard tons of time because he hated that Barnes got fired and Shaka took his job.

Personally I want every Texas coach to succeed. I wanted Barnes to not keep shitting the bed year after year, but there’s no question he did. Same with Shaka. I’d like Beard to succeed and hope he gets it together sooner rather than later. 
 

it’s a shame though. Personally I thought Shaka left with more class and less of a stink than Barnes did. I was hoping that Shaka and beard would both have good years this year. Unfortunately only of them has so far, and it’s not the one I’d prefer if I had to pick. 

[shadow_operative 15932]

like always, you find a way to make every one of your posts about me. 

[dcar00 14181]

41 minutes ago, MotownHorn said:

Like always, derka is just doing mental backflips to justify his previously held opinion. If Shaka started like this he’d be screaming for him to be fired because he loved Barnes. He’s willing to give beard tons of time because he hated that Barnes got fired and Shaka took his job.

Personally I want every Texas coach to succeed. I wanted Barnes to not keep shitting the bed year after year, but there’s no question he did. Same with Shaka. I’d like Beard to succeed and hope he gets it together sooner rather than later. 
 

it’s a shame though. Personally I thought Shaka left with more class and less of a stink than Barnes did. I was hoping that Shaka and beard would both have good years this year. Unfortunately only of them has so far, and it’s not the one I’d prefer if I had to pick. 

well Rick Barnes went to a final four, 2 sweek 16's and 2 elite 8's.  Shaka never won a tournament game(and RIck Barnes won 3 tournament games in the same span).

While it was time for Barnes to go, I would expect the first guy to be little bit salty whereas I would expect the second guy to slink out of town quickly without saying much.

[shadow_operative 15932]

 

57 minutes ago, MotownHorn said:

it’s a shame though. Personally I thought Shaka left with more class and less of a stink than Barnes did. 

holy shit. this is some fucking hilariously uninformed nonsense, even by your lofty standards. this would be like saying, "personally I think that Chris Beard runs a more uptempo offense than Mark Few."  just the exact opposite of reality.

Rick Barnes was told to fire all of his assistants or be fired himself, so he fell on his sword and left Texas with nothing but class. meanwhile Shaka went out the door talking shit about Texas fans and throwing shade at UT. then again you being completely ignorant as to what you're talking about has never stopped you before. jesus you're a moron. 

 

Edited January 21, 2022 by shadow_operative

[dcar00 14181]

8 hours ago, Js1 said:

#6 Marquette vs. #11 Texas.  Just imagine it.  The committee loves a good story.

ha if there is any way they can do it they will.  Marquette or aggy.

[chemHORN 1239]

5 hours ago, shadow_operative said:

 

lol jesus christ. gotta love sports fans. Beard has been here for all of two seconds (same with 85% of our roster) and people are out here going, "let's just face the facts people, our culture is toxic and our players think they're better than everyone else and we're never going to win at anything." 

shuuuuuuuuuut up with that nonsense. we don't know shit about shit yet. can you even back up your claim that the "facts" show that our players think that they're better than everyone else, and that they don't work hard or have any fight in them because of our amenities? of course not. and yet somehow those are "the facts". 

people spend their entire lives watching sports and never seem to learn a damn thing about what they're watching. 

I didn't say that they thought they were better than everyone else.  I said they have it good which takes the edge away.  The problem in the past has been with coached being able to motivate them past that.  I also said we don't know yet if our 2 new coachs can accomplish this.  Reading comprehension is key. 

[SL Xpress 7513]

I'm not concerned about Beard in the long term. Some of what I see here and on the game threads is some kind of fan PTSD. 

It's a results driven industry, and after that loss to K-State at home, the results have, without a doubt, been wanting this season. I feel like derka has the reasons down very well. But the season isn't over. How a team performed in hindsight is determined almost exclusively by how they do in the NCAA tournament, whether rightly or wrongly. 

Here are some thoughts on what I thought we were getting in the transfers, versus what we've seen this year:

Marcus Carr - 

What I thought: playmaking point guard whose horrible shot percentages was due to having to shoulder the offensive load on his other two teams. Relatively high assist numbers even with the high scoring totals indicates a willingness to get his teammates involved, even with a high percentage of overall team shots taken. When I watched him at Minnesota I saw a player who could create his own shot almost any time he wanted, but wasn't that interested in defense and his team was completely depending on whether he was hot or not for any particular game.

What we got: We have a player who started half the season obviously hesitant in looking for his own shot. He can't beat his defender off the dribble to get to the rim, although he can create his own shot just about any time he wants to. He's still hot and cold. He is committed to defense. He's not as much of a facilitator as I thought he'd be, but I feel like some of that is on his teammates and the offense he's directing. What the ratio of blame is, I don't know.

Tre Mitchell -

WIT: outstanding threat on the offensive end with great footwork and extended range. Good jump hook. I thought he would help create spacing on the floor with pick and pops from outside. Was thought to be one of the best three point shooters on the team in the preseason workouts. 

WWG: He's still shown really good footwork, but he doesn't get a chance very often. This team is terrible at post entry. I mean gawdawful. There's only been a handful of times I've even seen anyone receive the ball on the low block or inside the paint. Given how consistent it is, that has to be a function of the offensive system. When he does receive the ball and tries to do something with it, he's not as effective as I thought he'd be. He's not able to out athlete defenders, stronger bodies give him issues, and he too often gets stuffed. Again, some of that might be where he's getting the ball, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. He's not able to be the 15ppg/5+rpg/25mpg front court player I thought he'd be. His lack of production compared to what I thought he'd have has been a big reason why this team isn't nearly as good as I thought they'd be. I want to make clear I don't completely blame Tre Mitchell for this. I just don't often see him put into situations where he can be successful. 

On defense he's okay to switch, but again, he's not an elite athlete, and he doesn't have much facility for being a rim protector.

To his credit, he also hasn't been the NBA first type player I thought he might be, given what I heard during his recruitment out of the portal. He's been a great team player, very humble, and willing to do whatever the team asks of him.

Dylan Disu - 

WIT: Conference leading rebounder who, like Tre Mitchell, can also space the floor from the three point line. Tough, physical presence. Good rim protector. Best true front court player on the roster.

WWG: I had no idea his injury was so severe he wouldn't be able to start the season. No reason I shouldn't have known that. It's a serious injury and his recovery has been right in line with other people who have the injury. I just chose to be ignorant to reality. He's not really used to space the floor from the 3 point line. He's been a good but not great rebounder. He's definitely the best rim protector on the team, but he's not amazing at the role. Just like with Tre Mitchell, any passes into the "post" he receives are usually a good two feet outside the paint which he's then asked to do something with.

Christian Bishop -

WIT: Because Bishop was first to commit to Texas before Mitchell and Disu, I felt like there was a chance he'd find himself behind those two in terms of minutes. On a 4 guard Creighton team with Bishop as the lone post player he was terrific at getting put backs and easy buckets because of how much Creighton spread the floor. I felt like he might be challenged to fit in Beard's system on offense, but would be good at Beard's switching man defense. 

WWG: Well, he's actually shown more basketball skill at times than I thought he'd have as a primary post player. He can put the ball on the court to some degree to get to the rim. He's pretty bouncy. But without Creighton's spread the floor offense, he's had a hard time getting many shots at Texas. He's had a rougher time than I thought he'd have, actually, and I thought there would be some challenges.

Tim Allen -

WIT: A do everything junk yard dog type, I felt like he'd be exactly what Beard wants on his team. He'd give Beard flexibility to go big or small. A good inside the paint and mid range game, and an ability to hit the three albeit at not a high percentage rate. 

WWG: Well, he's been pretty much what I thought he'd be, just a little less productive at the role than I thought he'd be. Again, some of it has to be how  the offense runs.

Devin Askew -

WIT: I figured he'd be the starting PG prior to Marcus Carr coming on board. I was ambivalent about it. He'd been a 5 star recruit prior to going to Kentucky. However, during his one year at Kentucky he wasn't very good. I was hoping maybe a change in scenery would help. 

WWG: Beard has transitioned his story into being a freshman on the team, with the growing pains that go with that, since he left high school after his junior season to go to Kentucky a year early. Askew has seemed to buy into that, along with a complete lack of confidence and deference to his teammates to shoot unless the shot clock is practically at zero. He's a solid defender, and careful with the ball, but there aren't any "wow" moments of beating his guy off the dribble. Just kind of a steady hand. Since I wasn't expecting a huge amount in the first place once Carr committed, he's actually been a pleasant surprise. I'm interested to see what his upside is.

So those are the 6 key transfers. 

Most of the comments on the surly threads focus on guard play, and our lack of difference making quality both among transfers and the inherited players. And that's true. However, I've been astounded by the lack of consistent frontcourt scoring from anyone between Mitchell, Disu, Bishop, or Allen. Some of that is on them, but some of that is on the offense.

Probably my biggest issue with the offense isn't the methodical style. It's that they're so methodical getting it up the court. It seems like every possession there's only about 10 seconds left on the shot clock before they're actually trying to do anything. That's a coaching issue. It also means you're not going to have any time to try to set up a post play. I realize the game has gone away from a pound it into the post style of play, but it doesn't mean it's gone away entirely. There's no point in recruiting someone like Mitchell if you're not going to give it to him with some time on the shot clock in the low block, spread the floor for him to prevent the double team, or allow him to pass it to the open man to punish the double team, and let him go to work. Also, why aren't we using Disu/Mitchell to help spread the floor, and then allow Allen to post up his man? Well, for one thing, there's no time to do anything like that with 10 seconds on the shot clock.

I'm not saying I have all the answers and they should put me on the staff. I'm saying these are some of my frustrations as a fan who enjoys watching our team play, but would sure like it if we hadn't lost to K-State at home. 

I also feel much better about Beard at this stage than I did about Shaka Smart. I hadn't given up on Smart halfway through his first season. That would come in his second. But what I did see from Smart that I didn't understand at all is a complete disappearance of the havoc defense that got him the job in the first place, a complete switch in recruiting the kind of players he'd had success with in the past in order to get proto NBA types, and a complete lack of coherence in identity which meant we got all those Jekyll and Hyde performances from year to year, with some kind of year end implosion to complete the scenario.

Compare that with Barnes' first year, where he comes in and takes 7 players with an overrated Chris Mihm as his centerpiece, and goes on to win the conference title. That's obviously not going to happen. But at least I'm not seeing Beard abandon what got him here. It would worry me a lot more if we were losing because Beard was going with some kind of loosey goosey offense and the defense was completely ineffective. Okay, I get the defense looked like swiss cheese against K-State's penetration, and that didn't give me a good feeling. But for the most part the defense has been very good. The intensity has been there. 

Like derka, I continue to hold out hope the team finds a way to gel with one another, and they reach a different level of performance before the season is over. Prior to the season I had hoped to make a Sweet Sixteen. That's still technically possible, but it feels like a forlorn hope at this point. I still want a first round win. Obviously they have to make the tournament first, and to do that they are going to need some quality wins. A .500 record in conference pretty much guarantees they're in the tournament. So that's what I'm hoping for at this point. A .500 conference record and a first round NCAA win. That's not what I started the season off with in terms of expectations, but things just haven't gone the way I'd hoped. And that's okay. Let's see what the rest of the season has in store for us.

[jimmyjazz 45903]

It's not ridiculous to think that recruits and coaches often tend to let off the gas (SWIDT?) when they get to Austin, but that sometimes certain chemistries and talent let them power through and play at a very high level.  Mack Brown was slowly bringing the football team back from 15 years of lackluster performance, and then Vince Young hit campus and things went nearly vertical.  Colt McCoy and crew were able to sustain most of that performance level, even while Mack was getting fatter and happier.  TJ Ford did the same for Rick Barnes, who eventually perfected the art of getting his teams to a very high national ranking in nonconference play and then driving his guys into the dirt.

That doesn't mean there isn't an undercurrent of entitlement and "whew, I made it", for players and coaches.  There absolutely is, we see it over and over again.  I think it has very little to do with facilities, which while very nice, are not often the best in the nation.  I think it's part of being an academic and athletic blueblood in a highly desirable city brimming with hot girls, good food, sunshine and all kinds of other distractions.

[SL Xpress 7513]

5 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's not ridiculous to think that recruits and coaches often tend to let off the gas (SWIDT?) when they get to Austin, but that sometimes certain chemistries and talent let them power through and play at a very high level.  Mack Brown was slowly bringing the football team back from 15 years of lackluster performance, and then Vince Young hit campus and things went nearly vertical.  Colt McCoy and crew were able to sustain most of that performance level, even while Mack was getting fatter and happier.  TJ Ford did the same for Rick Barnes, who eventually perfected the art of getting his teams to a very high national ranking in nonconference play and then driving his guys into the dirt.

That doesn't mean there isn't an undercurrent of entitlement and "whew, I made it", for players and coaches.  There absolutely is, we see it over and over again.  I think it has very little to do with facilities, which while very nice, are not often the best in the nation.  I think it's part of being an academic and athletic blueblood in a highly desirable city brimming with hot girls, good food, sunshine and all kinds of other distractions.

Meh. It's always about the coach. I'd agree with this view if coaches were leaving Texas and then finding incredible success. No offense to derka and his unbounding love for Barnes, who I liked for a long time until he jumped the shark, but he hasn't done anything at Tennessee like what he did at Texas from 2002 to 2008. Instead, it's been exactly like all his other years. 

Fred Akers. Abe Lemons. Tom Penders. John Mackovic. And now Mack Brown at UNC. Brown no longer had the appetite to work as hard as is needed to win at the highest levels in college football. He didn't have it towards the end of his tenure at Texas, and he doesn't have it now. We'll see what happens with Shaka Smart at Marquette, and Tom Herman where ever he ends up, but the track record is not good.

There are two coaches I can think of in my lifetime who had great success after leaving Texas, and not coincidentally, they're also the only two coaches who left voluntarily - or, at least in the case of Shaka Smart, with serious job pressures.

Richard Quick left the women's swimming team for Stanford at the top of his profession. While Stanford may or may not be a better job, a particularly nasty divorce had more of an impact on his departure. Mick Haley won a couple of national championships in volleyball, but when he wanted more money and resources for the program, and threatened to go coach the national team if he didn't get what he wanted, the administration told him to go coach the national team.

Since WWII there has only been one program that hasn't really misfired all that badly on any of their football hires, and that's Ohio State. Every other program has made misses. In basketball UNC had an issue after Dean Smith, but they righted the ship with Roy Williams, who had turned them down originally but went back to his alma mater when things seemed a bit dire. We'll see how Hubert Davis does. Kentucky has had issues in basketball. We'll see how Duke does post Krzyzewski, but there's no guarantees Jon Scheyer comes anywhere close to his success.

The difference with the big programs, is once they find someone, they keep him. Texas simply has done a very poor job of finding the right person. Some of that is luck. Some of it is due to the fact that in football other factors have been more important than hiring the best candidate. 

But Texas fans and outsiders seem to love to persist in this idea there's something inherently wrong with Texas. If that was the case, it would affect every sport. It doesn't. But in the sports where the administration does a poor job in finding the right person, yeah, the results are less than optimal. But that's the sole issue. Believing there's something specifically wrong with UT's culture is like believing in astrology. Yeah, anecdotally it can help make circumstances have some sense about them, especially in terms of things not going right, but UT's culture is no more responsible for the lack of success in football and other sports than the location of the planets and stars having some kind of impact on our personal lives. It's simply a mythos that makes things more understandable for us because we crave some kind of explanation. The explanation is very simple. Hire the right coach, and the problems go away, because coaches simply don't leave Texas. But keep hiring the wrong coaches, and we'll continue to have issues.

 

 

[shadow_operative 15932]

while i do agree with jimmy's post wholeheartedly, i'm of the opinion that this situation (entitlement, and a sense of having "made it", simply by being at Texas) especially does not apply to this group of guys. i'd be absolutely shocked if that was the case here.

every single person on this team, including it's coaches, made sacrifices to bring this thing together. every single one of them signed up for this project, knowing that they were starting from nothing, and knowing that they would be sacrificing personal status in an attempt to achieve something bigger; in an attempt to win at the highest level. 

Chris Beard left a place where he was adored to come try and rebuild a once mighty program from less than nothing. two of his assistants quit their jobs as D-1 head coaches just to come be a part of this project. every single player who signed on (save maybe Christian Bishop) did so knowing that he would almost certainly go from a conference standout in the Pac 12, A 10, or SEC, to just being "one of five" at Texas. Ramey and Jones could have transferred to any number of NCAA Tourney schools where they'd have bigger, more defined roles. everyone on this roster has sacrificed to be here.

now i don't snap on people very often anymore; not like i used to. but this knee-jerk, armchair fan, johnny-come-lately take that says, "well these guys are clearly entitled and that's just the way it is at UT and therefore we'll never win" is so lazy and typical and uninformed that it really gets my goat. you can't possibly know anything about this team and then come up with that opinion. you just can't.

here's the other thing- this program struggles for the better part of six years under Shaka, and i see the same ~20 or so handles posting in here regularly, suffering along with the program. then this offseason we land Beard and the no.1 transfer class, the hype train is going full steam ahead, and all of a sudden a bunch of people who normally don't even support or keep up with this program find themselves entitled to some sort of instant gratification, because the TV and the internet said we were a final four team. now we're three months into Beard's coaching tenure, and people who i haven't seen post here for six years suddenly have strong, butthurt, uninformed opinions that they'd love to shove down our throats. in the words of Dewey Finn: "Who are you babe?"

This is only the beginning. This is the first three months of what we hope will be a couple of decades of Chris Beard being the coach at Texas. he's working with a team that was scrapped together overnight, and while talented, they are limited athletically, and are clearly still struggling to find their way as one cohesive unit. that's ok. it's not what we wanted or expected, but it's fine. it's not at all illogical, nor is it a sign for alarm. let's relax. let's let this shit play out. we know that Chris Beard is a very good coach and an excellent recruiter, and the staff he's assembled is truly top notch. let's give the man and his program some room to breathe and some time to grow, and let's save our whining and our entitlement for when the man and his staff have had time to actually build something. 

i'll leave you with this. it's a video i made about Sark rebuilding the football program, and it's fairly applicable to this situation as well, albeit on a smaller scale player personnel wise. watch it at your leisure, and please, above all- SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM. it's too fucking early in this process to be crying about not getting your way already. 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2022 by shadow_operative

[Satchel 6938]

I don’t think Chris Beard will be at any one place for decades. He seems to have a restlessness about him, much like Larry Brown.

[shadow_operative 15932]

4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I don’t think Chris Beard will be at any one place for decades. He seems to have a restlessness about him, much like Larry Brown.

i don't think we have any real evidence to support this idea. he's been climbing the ladder his entire career, which is different from simply being flighty. plus, he's already stayed at TTU for more than a decade. no reason to think he doesn't want to settle down at Texas.

[Satchel 6938]

2 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

i don't think we have any real evidence to support this idea. he's been climbing the ladder his entire career, which is different from simply being flighty. plus, he's already stayed at TTU for more than a decade. no reason to think he doesn't want to settle down at Texas.

We’ll see.

[markstanco 12574]

On 1/20/2022 at 11:39 AM, Js1 said:

#6 Marquette vs. #11 Texas.  Just imagine it.  The committee loves a good story.

#11 is a reach right now.  Meat of the schedule is about to happen and 3-3 conference play has already happened. 

[Brian Fantana 6685]

53 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

i don't think we have any real evidence to support this idea. he's been climbing the ladder his entire career, which is different from simply being flighty. plus, he's already stayed at TTU for more than a decade. no reason to think he doesn't want to settle down at Texas.

I was kind of concerned with how he left UNLV in the dust and scrambling. Also, people that know him say that his ultimate goal is to be an NBA coach. I'm not sure he's a fit for that league, though.

[Guest]

22 hours ago, Satchel said:

Texas Tech basketball is similarly situated and yet it has not found its forced need to adapt as challenging. I’m not sure any of s knows why that seems to be the case.

The players Tech retained are damned good leaders, and I am especially calling out Kevin McCullar and Carlos Santos-Silva, even if CS-S has taken on something of a 6th man role. Hell, his willingness to do that demonstrates leadership, IMHO. I don't know jack shit about UT's lockerroom culture, but I'd wager Coach Adams had just a little easier continuation in that department.

[jimmyjazz 45903]

1 hour ago, SL Xpress said:

Meh. It's always about the coach. I'd agree with this view if coaches were leaving Texas and then finding incredible success.

 

I think it supports my point.  $3M-$6M per year takes a shit ton of pressure off a coach who starts phoning it in once they hit Austin.  They climb the mountain, get fired, you think they want to climb it again? Nah.  They're set.  They'll ride it out until retirement age, coaching lesser programs, continuing the grift.  Salaries just keep going up.  There aren't a lot of guys with a Saban-esque drive to win, regardless of circumstance.

 

 

Quote

There are two coaches I can think of in my lifetime who had great success after leaving Texas, and not coincidentally, they're also the only two coaches who left voluntarily - or, at least in the case of Shaka Smart, with serious job pressures.

Richard Quick left the women's swimming team for Stanford at the top of his profession. While Stanford may or may not be a better job, a particularly nasty divorce had more of an impact on his departure. Mick Haley won a couple of national championships in volleyball, but when he wanted more money and resources for the program, and threatened to go coach the national team if he didn't get what he wanted, the administration told him to go coach the national team.

I think there is significant distinction between minor sports and major sports, and men's sports and women's sports.  I should have been more clear -- I was talking about football and men's basketball.  Things get blurrier when we get into baseball, track, swimming & diving, tennis, golf, etc., all of which have excelled recently, but the payoff isn't so comfortable, either. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by jimmyjazz

[SL Xpress 7513]

49 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think it supports my point.  $3M-$6M per year takes a shit ton of pressure off a coach who starts phoning it in once they hit Austin.  They climb the mountain, get fired, you think they want to climb it again? Nah.  They're set.  They'll ride it out until retirement age, coaching lesser programs, continuing the grift.  Salaries just keep going up.  There aren't a lot of guys with a Saban-esque drive to win, regardless of circumstance.

 

 

I think there is significant distinction between minor sports and major sports, and men's sports and women's sports.  I should have been more clear -- I was talking about football and men's basketball.  Things get blurrier when we get into baseball, track, swimming & diving, tennis, golf, etc., all of which have excelled recently, but the payoff isn't so comfortable, either. 

Nothing otherworldly about the salaries Texas coaches make that distinguishes the program from other programs which are actually doing well. If the coaches started phoning it in once they reached Texas, they weren’t the right hire. However, I don’t agree any of the coaches in football or men’s basketball phoned it in. They just weren’t good enough. I also don’t believe they were riding it out at subsequent jobs. Give me some specific examples of what you’re thinking of. 

The point is still the same. Hire the right coach. Several minor sports have underachieved at Texas because of this very same issue. There’s nothing blurry about it. Hire the right coach, and then keep them. Don’t hire the right coach, and you’re having to make a change on down the road because the results are sub par. Has nothing to do with anything peculiar regarding UT. That’s a fiction made up to graft an explanation on to something that doesn’t need one. The only true advantage Texas has over other programs is the ability to keep a coach when they find the right one. But if you don’t find the right one to begin with, that advantage can’t kick in. 

Every other advantage people like to cite when talking about UT doesn’t matter. 

[jimmyjazz 45903]

Well, I look at coaching as a much coarser version of recruiting.  Consider the number of blue chip busts we've had in the major men's sports:  look at their offer lists.  At some point, you have to either come to the conclusion that other schools like 'bama and tOSU were trying to dupe us into signing overrated scrubs, or something happened once they hit campus.  Same goes for coaches -- Strong, Herman, Smart, etc.  "blue chip", couldn't succeed, regardless of the pedigree and demand.  If you think there is zero external input into those repeated failures and aren't willing to look in the mirror, then hey, I have some nice land just a smidge off the coast near Port A I'd like to show you.

[SL Xpress 7513]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, I look at coaching as a much coarser version of recruiting.  Consider the number of blue chip busts we've had in the major men's sports:  look at their offer lists.  At some point, you have to either come to the conclusion that other schools like 'bama and tOSU were trying to dupe us into signing overrated scrubs, or something happened once they hit campus.  Same goes for coaches -- Strong, Herman, Smart, etc.  "blue chip", couldn't succeed, regardless of the pedigree and demand.  If you think there is zero external input into those repeated failures and aren't willing to look in the mirror, then hey, I have some nice land just a smidge off the coast near Port A I'd like to show you.

So you’re saying Charlie Strong didn’t succeed because of something wrong at Texas? Tom Herman? Shaka Smart? Because I’m saying those are all bad hires. Charlie Strong wasn’t going to succeed anywhere as a head coach. You think he failed miserably at his next job because he phoned it in? He’s not a good head coach. He did well at Louisville because he got lucky with his QB and faced suboptimal competition. 
 

Tom Herman may or may not be a good coach. But he’s not a good human being. He’s a jerk and an asshole who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else. Which is fine as long as you win. But if you don’t win people quickly wonder why they put up with your crap. He also hired a terrible first staff, which I pointed out at the time he was hired. The hiring process was horribly handled in part because Herman successfully manipulated circumstances to force a lame duck AD and a president who would quickly leave for a non football school to make a quick decision that would make key alumni happy. Nonetheless, bad hire. 
 

Shaka Smart caught lightning in a bottle at his previous gig. Of the three, he’s actually the one I was most excited about. But then he completely changed his approach, and the team reflected his complete lack of a personal identity. My biggest issue with Shaka Smart is that it took 6 years to make a change, but some of that was the AD situation, as well as football issues taking priority. Thank goodness he left for Marquette on his own. 

None of the three “blue chip” coaching candidates you’re citing requires a lot of naval gazing. They’re bad hires. All three of them. I’m glad they’re gone. 

As far as talent being busts, again, if you have the wrong head coach that’s what you’re going to get, whether from an evaluation or development perspective. The person in charge matters. If you’ve ever been around someone who’s a gifted leader, you know what a difference it makes. The competition in football and men’s basketball is fierce, and it attracts many of the most ambitious people our current culture produces. Until Texas finds their own leader who is a top 1% in his profession, we’re going to keep getting subpar results. That’s literally the end of the story.

[jimmyjazz 45903]

Well, maybe I'm naive.  What is the difference between hiring Bob Stoops (with no HC experience) and hiring Charlie Strong or Tom Herman (both with successful HC experience)?  I mean, when you're chasing the same "hot" commodities as every other school trying to hire a coach, and you land the "best", what more can you do?

If your point is that the definition of "hot" is immaterial, and that the hiring committees should be more capable of discerning why schools that are chasing Strong or Herman or Shaka Smart are wrong, then fine.  I have no idea how to assemble those committees, because by definition they would be filled with contrarians, and beyond that, really insightful contrarians, and those seem more rare than good coaches.

[jimmyjazz 45903]

6 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

If you’ve ever been around someone who’s a gifted leader, you know what a difference it makes.

I assure you I have, twice, and in both cases the results were outstanding.

 

Quote

The competition in football and men’s basketball is fierce, and it attracts many of the most ambitious people our current culture produces. Until Texas finds their own leader who is a top 1% in his profession, we’re going to keep getting subpar results. That’s literally the end of the story.

Well, "top 1%" of all football or basketball coaches?  OK.  We're not dipping into the HS ranks, so that reduces the pool to ~ 120 FB staffs (plus a few pros) and ~ 300 BB staffs (plus a few pros).  I think 1% is too fine a line.  I mean, I know of absolutely nobody who thinks Kirby Smart is a top 1% college/pro coach.  He is definitely a top 1% recruiter.  (Hi, Mack.)

[SL Xpress 7513]

6 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

The money advantage would absolutely matter if we used it more often to make actual splash hires in football.   We have the most money available to pay a football coach of any college program, and we’ve hired Charlie Strong, Tom Herman and Steve Sarkisian for upper level P5 market rate.

I agree hiring the right coach is the problem, but the reasons why we haven’t hired the right coach are ultimately not just bad luck.  We’re too patrician to do something uncouth like blowing the curve on coaching salaries to get a real heavy hitter football coach - even though A&M, USC, LSU, even Bama way back when with Saban all do it, and even though it would be the most Texan thing anyone could ever do.  

How some of these people think they’re going to get pushback in the State of Texas for throwing cash around to prove they’re the best at something - football, at that - is what actually astounds me the most.   Money, bravado, state pride, football - all things Texans just hate, obviously.  

Well, this I can agree with. I don’t know what happened with Urban Meyer. I assume they would have thrown the bank at him. Also, a group of alumni felt they had Saban ready to take the Texas job but Dodds and Brown killed it because Brown didn’t want Saban following him. 

It’s also unfortunate that the current state of college football means all the oxygen has been sucked from the room by a very small group of coaches. I don’t see Texas hiring Saban, Swinney, Smart or Ryan Day (not sure about Day in any case). I’ll also point out that A&M has had their own coaching issues, and it’s not clear how good Jimbo Fisher is, even though he’s currently cleaning our clock. USC is the one program that rivals Texas in terms of ineptitude, and their one home run hire in the last 30 years was a complete accident by a terrible AD who whiffed on his first 5 choices. Sure, they just hired Lincoln Riley, which is an amazing hire, but let’s not put them up as some kind of paragon of football coaching hiring processes. Same with LSU. That’s an AD thing. He’s been willing to break the bank to make splash hires everywhere he’s been (e.g. Jimbo Fisher and Kim Mulkey) but as an institution LSU hasn’t been without flaw in the coaching hire department, either. 

I’m with you, though, in the sense that Sarkisian was an underwhelming hire compared to what it seemed like Texas should be able to afford to go after. But we’re on the basketball board, and in terms of basketball you cannot say the same thing about Chris Beard. They opened up the checkbooks to get their guy, and while the season results have been underwhelming thus far, it’s still only midway through the first season, and the off the court actions by Beard have been amazing. I choose to believe we got the right guy in Beard. Now we just have to wait and see if the results verify that or it’s more underachieving by the program. My bet is on the former. 

[shadow_operative 15932]

i'm just popping in to say that i'm really enjoying this discussion, and that there's a lot of substantive, thought provoking things being said, even from people are disagreeing with one another. good stuff guys. 🤘🏼 

[jimmyjazz 45903]

12 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

But we’re on the basketball board, and in terms of basketball you cannot say the same thing about Chris Beard. They opened up the checkbooks to get their guy, and while the season results have been underwhelming thus far, it’s still only midway through the first season, and the off the court actions by Beard have been amazing. I choose to believe we got the right guy in Beard. Now we just have to wait and see if the results verify that or it’s more underachieving by the program. My bet is on the former. 

I think one big difference with Beard is that he has proven himself at the highest college level, and I don't just mean a Final Four (ahem, Shaka) but by surviving what is arguably the toughest and maybe the best D1 conference.  Those bona fides earn him a lot more leeway in my mind that Strong, Herman, or Smart.

[shadow_operative 15932]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think one big difference with Beard is that he has proven himself at the highest college level, and I don't just mean a Final Four (ahem, Shaka) but by surviving what is arguably the toughest and maybe the best D1 conference.  Those bona fides earn him a lot more leeway in my mind that Strong, Herman, or Smart.

Beard has more respect from his peers and from people who closely cover the sport than any HC we've had in the major sports since Augie, Mack, and Rick were in their prime (and i somewhat hesitate to even include Mack in there). Beard is a much more known and respected commodity than any of our other coaching hires in football and basketball since Dodds left. 

Edited January 22, 2022 by shadow_operative

[SL Xpress 7513]

19 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, maybe I'm naive.  What is the difference between hiring Bob Stoops (with no HC experience) and hiring Charlie Strong or Tom Herman (both with successful HC experience)?  I mean, when you're chasing the same "hot" commodities as every other school trying to hire a coach, and you land the "best", what more can you do?

If your point is that the definition of "hot" is immaterial, and that the hiring committees should be more capable of discerning why schools that are chasing Strong or Herman or Shaka Smart are wrong, then fine.  I have no idea how to assemble those committees, because by definition they would be filled with contrarians, and beyond that, really insightful contrarians, and those seem more rare than good coaches.

 

On the old Go Big 12 boards I was the only person advocating Bob Stoops as the coach to replace John Mackovic. I liked his resume of success coaching under Snyder and Spurrier. I liked how he conducted himself in the press conferences Spurrier put him in charge of while he was at Florida (an unusual measure for any head coach, but Spurrier marches to the beat of his own drummer). However, it was known at the time that Texas was never going to hire an assistant. To be honest, there's no way anyone in their right mind hires Bob Stoops over Mack Brown at the respective stages of their careers in 1998.

OU has always hired assistants. They've had remarkable success with it. It's still about keeping the ones who end up being good. Bud Wilkinson, Barry Switzer, and Bob Stoops. None of their other coaches since WWII have been remarkable, and some of them, like John Blake, have been flat out bad. The one former head coach they did hire was arguably the worst of all in Schnellenberger's one season in Norman. 

Charlie Strong was not a coaching search directed to find the best candidate out there. It was a coaching search to find the best black candidate to hire as head coach. While it's a great gesture from a progressive standpoint, it has the same issues so many of the other coaching searches have had. The selection processes never looked at EVERY possibility. Fred Akers was hired because he agreed to exclude AD Darrell Royal from the football program. David McWilliams was hired because he was cheap, and he was a legacy hire from the Royal days who had built some great defenses and had one decent season including a Texas Tech win over the Longhorns. Mackovic was hired because he ran an exciting offense and projected the image of a CEO. Tom Herman was hired to prevent him from going to LSU as that season's hot commodity. 

Steve Sarkisian is one of the first assistants Texas has taken a chance on, although of course he has head coaching experience. Like longhornmatt, it seems like Texas could have gone after someone a little more high profile, but they didn't. 

As far as hiring committees, however many or few are a part of that process at Texas, what I would say more than anything is to open it up to include all possibilities. That's my biggest gripe with how Texas hires, specifically for football. Without that mindset, they never hire Mack Brown in the first place. Gary Barnett would have been the hire. Tom Hicks, Darrell Royal, and others helped open it up to even interviewing Mack Brown, who wasn't even dead set on leaving North Carolina until he went back to the UNC AD with what Texas brought to the table and UNC declined to extend anything further.

More hires like that, where everyone in the country is on the table, and Texas goes after the best candidate possible. Like they did when they hired Garrido for baseball. That just doesn't seem to happen in football. 

[Herpa Derpa 6125]

1 hour ago, shadow_operative said:

i'm just popping in to say that i'm really enjoying this discussion, and that there's a lot of substantive, thought provoking things being said, even from people are disagreeing with one another. good stuff guys. 🤘🏼 

On Surly? Something drastic must be done before the universe is torn asunder. 
 

Boobs. 

[shadow_operative 15932]

 

 

[Underdog 28615]

Nice win over a ranked Xavier team at home. 

[MotownHorn 1762]

This thread isn’t going quite the way some people thought it would….

[SL Xpress 7513]

38 minutes ago, MotownHorn said:

This thread isn’t going quite the way some people thought it would….

It’s half a season. Shaka is going to Shaka his entire career. It’s not like he didn’t have success at Texas. It’s that he never had any consistency. Anyone getting excited by him at this point, whether it’s Marquette fans or bitter white fans, are going to be Lucy’d by him eventually. He will always pull that football away eventually, no matter how many assurances he gives to the contrary beforehand. 

[HookEm 2467]

Quote

He will always pull that football away eventually, no matter how many assurances he gives to the contrary beforehand. 

Not sure I agree as an absolute.  I will say that was certainly the case at Texas.

[SL Xpress 7513]

16 minutes ago, HookEm said:

Not sure I agree as an absolute.  I will say that was certainly the case at Texas.

We’ll see. Those teams were manifestations of his leadership. Read Derka’s post about his interactions with a former player he inherited from Barnes. Not that it’s the ultimate indictment. All successful head coaches/leaders play some mind games with a narrative inside their heads they’re trying to get the most out of the people around them. The results for Shaka speak for themselves. It’s not like we have a limited sample size. Any successes he has will be short lived and an outlier. I realize I’m being highly declarative, but I have a lot of conviction on this. It will be fun for me to follow. 

[Rockethorn1978 6077]

[texasstrong12 4668]

1 hour ago, SL Xpress said:

It’s half a season. Shaka is going to Shaka his entire career. It’s not like he didn’t have success at Texas. It’s that he never had any consistency. Anyone getting excited by him at this point, whether it’s Marquette fans or bitter white fans, are going to be Lucy’d by him eventually. He will always pull that football away eventually, no matter how many assurances he gives to the contrary beforehand. 

I was a Shaka defender and it's like people haven't followed Shaka. 

He's capable of putting runs together but it's been nearly a decade since he won a game in the tournament. That's why he was told to pack his bags. College basketball coaches are judged on winning in March. 

Until Shaka shows he can win in March it doesn't mean much of anything.