Fire Shaka Smart

[Burt Macklin 19024]

Another issue with shaka, everytime one of his team’s experiences the slightest bit of success, they immediately throw it all away. I’ve never seen a team respond so poorly to success. We always come out flat and unmotivated after a big win.

Shaka fucking sucks.

[Valmy77 13226]

I am rooting for it all to turn around and we go on a deep run. But presuming that doesn't happen I don't want us to limp into just barely clearing baseline expectations either.

[dcar00 14210]

only tourney we are squeaking into is the NIT

[Bull Horn 118]

[Goo Punch 4275]

5 hours ago, Machinator said:

He likes his job in Lubbock and we'd have to put up something like $20M in all just in buyouts. Maybe "pipe dream" is a bit strong but it's not as easy as getting Herman was.

Also, I'm not necessarily convinced that Beard is "the one", though he's better than Shaka, of course.

I don't want Beard. He's nowhere near proven enough. 

[Goo Punch 4275]

I started to make a video to share my observations, and ended up making four videos in (i think) five possessions chronicling just how painfully inept our offensive design is. The first video starts at 15:37 left in the first half, the fourth video is around 13:11. Anyone with questions about why we are the way we are, just watch this two-three minute stretch of incredibly poor play design:

 

 

 

 

some of you here respect my opinion, others think i don't know shit about fuck. either way you feel, the fact that *I* can sit at home and observe and identify this ineptitude with ease should tell you everything. I haven't played organized ball since I was 16, and I haven't coached at any level above 5th and 6th grade parochial school kids. We are so, so poorly coached, and it's so evident.

Oh, and one other thing that I didn't record- Roach went on a mini tear at one point in the second half, and the announcer said, "when he gets himself moving without the ball and *then* creates, he can take over a game. when he's just standing around off the ball not moving, that's when he struggles." Well it's a good thing our offense is designed to have him standing around not moving when he's off the ball. /facepalm.gif 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Goo Punch

[Vinny Paul Jr. 1]

Smart is trash.

 

NEXT!

[2inDaPink1inDaStink 106]

Watched the game tonight and haven’t laughed so hard in a long time. No point in getting mad. They don’t care why should we.

[Goo Punch 4275]

re: my last post- video one starts with Texas winning 12-8, video 4 ends with Texas losing 14-12 with TCU at the line. This took place over about a two and a half minute period, and even I am able to sit there and see plain as day why we lost the lead. We get good shots and we don't turn the ball over, but we can't hit good shots, we have inferior rebounders, and we put them in inferior positions to get rebounds. any idiot can see that we'd be better just running our asses off and trying to get out in transition as much as possible (hello UNC game!), but instead we insist on this death by a thousand cuts offense. fucking pitiful. fire shaka.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10236]

[Jhawk 1075]

I know that there were zero expectations of beard this year because he lost his top two guys but I think the jury is still out on him.  Two reasons:

1. A great coach plans for deficiencies. He doesn’t have a point guard. The most important position on the court. He has one person who can put the ball in the hoop. This is MASSIVE recruiting failure. 

2. His offense is shockingly bad and his best offense was not good. Since 2016 when he took over st tech his offenses have been rated 50, 46, 44, 139. Maybe he is like Bennett? Nope. Bennett’s offenses in that time have actually been 8, 50, 30, 4 in efficiency ratings. 

Some of this might be because he’s in his 4th season and he hasn’t had the track record to recruit until this last year but I wouldn’t be hiring him for 2-3 more years anyway. If every two or three years you’re going to have a throw away season that isn’t really a coach you want unless your aspiration is to be Ohio state. It isn’t a bad aspiration but it isn’t a great one and it is one where you get lost and stale and start to wonder after 7 years what the hell youre even doing. I think beard is a good coach. I’m still unsure if he’s a great coach because coaching is a lot more than just defense. The fact that he doesn’t have a point guard in year 4 is something that should be a major red flag. 

[Goo Punch 4275]

yeah we really don't need to be going after someone with a lack of experience to replace Shaka. I do not want Beard, as well as he's done thus far. Steve Prohm doesn't have a ton of experience, and Eric Musselman hasn't been a college HC for very long, but each of them has much more experience than Beard, and both are more palatable with the offenses they run. 

[Red Five 40859]

Another issue with shaka, everytime one of his team’s experiences the slightest bit of success, they immediately throw it all away. I’ve never seen a team respond so poorly to success. We always come out flat and unmotivated after a big win.
Shaka fucking sucks.

“We were satisfied being 2-0”.
That’s a real quote.

[Js1 85338]

Hoiberg

HOIberg

HOIBERG

[Goo Punch 4275]

5 minutes ago, Red Five said:

“We were satisfied being 2-0”.
That’s a real quote.

re:both this and macklin's quote, all i kept thinking as i was watching the game last night was, "that shit right there would get you benched immediately under Barnes". over and over and over. We don't necessarily need another disciplinarian (do NOT want Marshall or Martin types), but we do need someone who values and enforces smart play, particularly from seniors who've been starting for years. you either perform or you sit, it's that simple. something like this:

 

[The Golden Hat 299]

11 hours ago, dcar00 said:

the end is near, how near is only up to CDC.  We can write the check if we really care enough. 

How much is the buyout?

[Red Five 40859]

I read $12 million, that we can pay out over some number of years. So, nothing, considering we’re moving into a new arena for free.

[dcar00 14210]

3 minutes ago, The Golden Hat said:

How much is the buyout?

don't know for sure I think it is $12M after this year(probably has a specific date attached to it) but also heard $16M

[Machinator 32099]

At the end of the season, I think it's around $13M. Then there's the matter of buying out whoever we're hiring.

[ztejas 43452]

@Goo Punch I don't understand how you think Beard is less proven than Hoiberg. Hoiberg coached college ball for 5 years, made one SS, and has done jack shit in the NBA.

Beard made an EE last season and has Tech looking like a team that will be still in it during the 2nd weekend again this year. And it's not like Tech is on some different plane as a program than ISU. 

Not saying you're wrong - I just don't understand where you are coming from. 

Is this some sort of "we didn't want him anyway" tactic because of how much getting Beard would cost? 

[Burt Macklin 19024]

1 hour ago, Goo Punch said:

yeah we really don't need to be going after someone with a lack of experience to replace Shaka. I do not want Beard, as well as he's done thus far. Steve Prohm doesn't have a ton of experience, and Eric Musselman hasn't been a college HC for very long, but each of them has much more experience than Beard, and both are more palatable with the offenses they run. 

Even if we ignore the fact that beard’s not feasible due to his cost, I don’t want him. I can’t take 4 more years of horrible offense and he’s still pretty unproven due to his short resume. 

Hoiberg is the perfect candidate due to coaching acumen and him having no buyout could play a serious factor in whether Shaka is ousted this year. I don’t care if he doesn’t like recruiting. Guys like Lucas can make up for it.

It would be cheaper to hire Hoiberg after this year than to hire a coach with a buyout of any meaningful size next year, not to mention the value add of not sitting through another year with Shaka at the helm.  I’m sure we would have competition for Hoiberg, but CDC doesn’t seem like the type to settle for his second choice if he has any say in it.

[Burt Macklin 19024]

2 minutes ago, ztejas said:

@Goo Punch I don't understand how you think Beard is less proven than Hoiberg. Hoiberg coached college ball for 5 years, made one SS, and has done jack shit in the NBA.

Beard made an EE last season and has Tech looking like a team that will be still in it during the 2nd weekend again this year. And it's not like Tech is on some different plane as a program than ISU. 

Not saying you're wrong - I just don't understand where you are coming from. 

Is this some sort of "we didn't want him anyway" tactic because of how much getting Beard would cost? 

Beard has one full year of coaching P5 under his belt. Hoiberg has 5. Beard is absolutely less proven. Winning at Little Rock is not the same as ISU.

[Goo Punch 4275]

10 minutes ago, ztejas said:

[mention=922]Goo Punch[/mention] I don't understand how you think Beard is less proven than Hoiberg. Hoiberg coached college ball for 5 years, made one SS, and has done jack shit in the NBA.

Beard made an EE last season and has Tech looking like a team that will be still in it during the 2nd weekend again this year. And it's not like Tech is on some different plane as a program than ISU. 

Not saying you're wrong - I just don't understand where you are coming from. 

Is this some sort of "we didn't want him anyway" tactic because of how much getting Beard would cost? 

 

i think it's self evident that fred hoiberg is a better coach than Beard. Hoiberg's ISU teams were awesome, and his mind for offense is unquestioned, as is his ability to identify talent. Hoiberg assembled some really good teams at ISU, and man were they well coached. Look at these numbers from 2014:

 

 

 

Don't you want that at Texas? Beard hasn't shown that he can come close to those numbers.

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Goo Punch

[Machinator 32099]

Beard seems to be elite at coaching defense, and the trendlines are promising with regard to talent identification, recruiting, and player development. But he also has the 139th-best offense (per KenPom) right now, and watching them they appear to be as hapless as Texas at times in the half-court.

He's a better coach than Shaka, but he's not definitively head and shoulders above other candidates.

[ztejas 43452]

9 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Beard has one full year of coaching P5 under his belt. Hoiberg has 5. Beard is absolutely less proven. Winning at Little Rock is not the same as ISU.

He has two full years, actually, including an elite eight appearance like I mentioned. And winning at Tech is absolutely similar to winning at ISU (albeit somewhat easier I would assume). 

I'm not championing Beard - just questioning what puts Hoiberg ahead of him as a candidate in a vacuum. Hoiberg hasn't recruited in 3 years and may not want to get back on that trail. And - as I said - despite coaching under a dysfunctional organization with a poor roster he didn't move the needle much in the NBA. 

I mean this really seems like Hoiberg is the more available candidate, not necessarily the better one. Maybe Hoiberg comes to UT and crushes it - I'd love to see that. But if Beard was floating out there I think he would be an excellent hire. 

[Rockethorn1978 6077]

Great videos Derka, If everyone will watch even the last 5 games one approach to playing shaka is always the same and that is every team plays off our guys 3-4 feet, they pressure the ball handler and are basically running a pre school "shell drill" on defense with the 1 pass away deny, 2 passes away one foot in the lane and 3 passes away you are in the lane playing mid line. I joke but it's true and you see zero adjustments by shaka in how to attack it so we ball screen and roll/pop and swing it quickly for a three. No back screening so the guard can basket cut or curl.

One of the ways you get a bad shooting team going is by upping the tempo with full court pressing and get in a running game and it's like shaka just is ok with playing in the mid 50's and low 60's. No way CDC keeps him here after his 4th full year.

[Burt Macklin 19024]

7 minutes ago, ztejas said:

He has two full years, actually, including an elite eight appearance like I mentioned. And winning at Tech is absolutely similar to winning at ISU (albeit somewhat easier I would assume). 

I'm not championing Beard - just questioning what puts Hoiberg ahead of him as a candidate in a vacuum. Hoiberg hasn't recruited in 3 years and may not want to get back on that trail. And - as I said - despite coaching under a dysfunctional organization with a poor roster he didn't move the needle much in the NBA. 

I mean this really seems like Hoiberg is the more available candidate, not necessarily the better one. Maybe Hoiberg comes to UT and crushes it - I'd love to see that. But if Beard was floating out there I think he would be an excellent hire. 

My point is length of resume. Hoiberg has 2.5 times more seasons at the P5 Level. Tech is really starting to struggle in conference, and outside of Duke, they played about as easy of a non-conference schedule as you could imagine. If they falter in Big 12 play, then he’ll only really have one good season at the P5 level.

We’ll know more after this year, but even just three seasons as a P5 head coach is an awfully short resume. We got burned with both shaka and Charlie due in large part to short resumes. 

Hoiberg had 4 straight winning season in the Big 12, finishing 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 2nd.  Beard has finished T-7th and 2nd. This year, they could be anywhere from 1st-7th. If he finishes in the high end, he’ll look like a much different candidate than if he finishes on the low end, but even then it’ll be hard to know either way. If we’re gonna pay Shaka a massive buyout, it needs to be for a candidate that’s more of a sure thing.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Burt Macklin

[52-80 19159]

2 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

god wouldnt want to be caught dead with this team

[Jhawk 1075]

42 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

don't know for sure I think it is $12M after this year(probably has a specific date attached to it) but also heard $16M

15.9 before the end of the year, 12.9 after the season.

[ztejas 43452]

10 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

My point is length of resume. Hoiberg has 2.5 times more seasons at the P5 Level.

There are three types of lies. You're comparing 5 to 3. And those 5 were much less recent. It's not like Hoiberg has a "long" resume. 

10 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Hoiberg had 4 straight winning season in the Big 12, finishing 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 2nd.  Beard has finished T-7th and 2nd. This year, they could be anywhere from 1st-7th. If he finishes in the high end, he’ll look like a much different candidate than if he finishes on the low end, but even then it’ll be hard to know either way.

I agree. We'll have to see if Tech can repeat their success from last year. If they do, I don't think it is hard to "know" that he is a good coach. I mean, Tech could have realistically made the FF last year if they hadn't run into one of the GOAT college teams that whipped everyone's ass that they played.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

4 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

god wouldnt want to be caught dead with this team

eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani

[Jhawk 1075]

23 minutes ago, ztejas said:

He has two full years, actually, including an elite eight appearance like I mentioned. And winning at Tech is absolutely similar to winning at ISU (albeit somewhat easier I would assume). 

I'm not championing Beard - just questioning what puts Hoiberg ahead of him as a candidate in a vacuum. Hoiberg hasn't recruited in 3 years and may not want to get back on that trail. And - as I said - despite coaching under a dysfunctional organization with a poor roster he didn't move the needle much in the NBA. 

I mean this really seems like Hoiberg is the more available candidate, not necessarily the better one. Maybe Hoiberg comes to UT and crushes it - I'd love to see that. But if Beard was floating out there I think he would be an excellent hire. 

The problem with beard will always be the cost.  I broke it down earlier in the thread but a Beard hire this season would cost somewhere around $25-28million to get between his buyout and shaka's.  It might even be $30 since we don't have exact language on his buyout.  That's a lot of cheddar for a coach who hasn't shown he can coach offense above a top 44 level.  Like I mentioned, he also has let his roster get depleted to the point that he doesn't have very standard components.  He doesn't have one pg that can play?  Seriously?  I love Chris Beard and hope he is a successor to HCBS one day if he can get an offensive plan together, but he knew 2 years ago he wouldn't have a pg this year and he didn't address the problem.  That is a big deal.

Can someone give me an update on the arena thing?  I've heard it is "costing nothing" for UT.  Can someone elaborate?  Are you leasing from a private developer?

[ztejas 43452]

1 minute ago, Jhawk said:

The problem with beard will always be the cost.  I broke it down earlier in the thread but a Beard hire this season would cost somewhere around $25-28million to get between his buyout and shaka's.  It might even be $30 since we don't have exact language on his buyout. 

Yeah this is kind of my point. I feel like people are undervaluing his coaching acumen because of how much it would cost to get him. If he and Hoiberg were both floating out there on the FA market I think this would be a different discussion. 

[VinyVango 694]

I get that teaching a complicated offensive scheme might take time with college kids who are used to simple playground / high school schemes.  However as rudimentary as our offense has been from day one of the season, there is ZERO excuse for not adding additional options every few games and alleviating repeated errors by specific players and coaches.

There is no excuse for repeatedly putting the ball in Roach's hands as a PG at the end of the game in the crunch.  I get he's valuable, but have him moving off ball and get the ball to him where he doesn't go into his fancy ankle-breaker dribble BS and fumble up a turnover of contested 3. 

There is no excuse for continually playing the 4-guard, 1-big defense when Ramey or Roach are stuck playing in a PF role.  Put Hamm in the fucking game.  

Coach up Simms to get back to extending his arms and grabbing a rebound at the apex of his jump.  He's developed this crazy habit this year of leaping early and trying to snatch rebounds at his face or chest level.. a new quirk that should have been aggressively coached out.

There is no excuse for all of our players standing around at the 3-point line and letting defenders rest.  At least pretend there is a play in the works and make them break a sweat.

There is no excuse for the piss-poor boxing out on defense.  When the shot is up, get your body into the nearest opponent at least.  It's something that used to be stressed in the lowest level of organized basketball (the level where many kids can't throw the ball hard enough to reach the rim).

There is no excuse for allowing the quantity of contested and early shot clock 3 point attempts that we jack up.  I get the "shoot it when wide open" principle, but what we are allowing is way, way beyond that.

There is no excuse for not coaching up Hepa after 20 games to add a roll to the basket after setting a pick.  He has a 1-play playbook currently.

Ball screens are cool.  It's fun when Hayes gets a dunk of a pick and roll.  Off-ball screens and using 2 screeners are fun too!   Maybe watch a top-20 team playing on ESPN and borrow a couple of their ideas?  I'd rather see a new twist that doesn't work as smoothly as desired that the same stale offensive set every trip down the court.  Watch any of our games and listen to the valid comments EVERY commentary (save Lowell) makes about blatant issues that need to be corrected.

Since were are a marginal NIT team currently, it's time to play the guys who show desire, bring energy, and minimize mistakes.  When DO can't get a layup over the front rim and Roach thinks he's Steph Curry, bench their asses.    .500 ball is not a sign of things working right, so scrap the weave and pick up the pace.  

Aside from Hayes, seems like every other kid on the team starts dragging their tail, getting teary eyed, and/or pouting when the slightest negative occurs.  I think Hayes is the only player who appears to be consistent and/or improving with each game.  Hamm looked good in his stints earlier this year but has been benched in favor of this newfangled 4-guard, 1-big lineup.

Bob Weltlich's offenses were more creative ad got more open looks than Shaka's... that's pretty sad.

[Dbeasy 15051]

What about that coach at Tennessee? He seems like he’s good. Maybe we could get him.

[Burt Macklin 19024]

22 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Yeah this is kind of my point. I feel like people are undervaluing his coaching acumen because of how much it would cost to get him. If he and Hoiberg were both floating out there on the FA market I think this would be a different discussion. 

I’ll put it this way, I think Beard is likely a very good coach, but I have a lot of reservations due to only having coached two full seasons at P5 til now. Considering the buyout we will be payjng Shaka, I think we need to hire someone with a longer resume who is more of a known entity. Someone like Buzz Williams would be ideal IMO, but it sounds like there’s no way we could get him. Hoiberg won for four years in a row and with his own recruits in the Big 12. I think he’s much more of a known entity than Beard. 

[2inDaPink1inDaStink 106]

Can we hire a consultant, how about Rick Pitino or Larry Brown. They can at least spot some areas that need improvement and both are out of jobs.

[2inDaPink1inDaStink 106]

Consultant is Cheaper than a buyout, that is if we are going all cheap on this deal. I always wondered what it was like to be a fan of Baylor, rice, or Tech  back in the SWC days,  now I know..

[Burt Macklin 19024]

22 minutes ago, 2inDaPink1inDaStink said:

Can we hire a consultant, how about Rick Pitino or Larry Brown. They can at least spot some areas that need improvement and both are out of jobs.

With great ideas like hiring Rick Pitino, it’s a real shock that you have that negative red number next to your name.

[Bitterwhiteguy 153]

On 1/23/2019 at 11:55 AM, Burt Macklin said:

I get that a top 15 program is pretty damn high to expect.Do you think it’s unreaonable to expect a top 25 type-program moving forward? I understand that’s not the History of the program and we will always be a football school, but based on our facilities (KD’s gift + new stadium), proximity to elite talent, exposure, and UT’s reputation as a school, I don’t see any reason why we can’t be a team that routinely is in the top 25 and when we have a year where all the right guys come together, be in the top 15 and other rebuilding years be outside the top 25.

Ultimately, I don’t see any reason why over the next ten years, we couldn’t be in the top 25 teams in the country in terms of average finish in the AP top 25, or Kenpom, or whatever metric you want to use. Based on recruiting rankings since Barnes through current and the salary we’re willing to pay a coach, like we did with shaka, I don’t see why fans shouldn’t expect a top 25 program.

It's not, and that's sort of the rub with Shaka's teams thus far; aside from the 11-22 season (I need an acronym for that season, like RIGBY from Silicon Valley) his teams have been close to top-25 but not quite there. His teams have been 39, 70, 36, & 29 (so far) in Pomeroy, so analytics says this team is closer to being a top-25 program than not. This is what infuriates me, for two reasons: 1) it's more frustrating to be running behind someone who is just out of reach than someone who blows past you with no chance of catching and 2) a significant number of fans think these teams are somewhere between mediocre and terrible when most metrics say they're more like "good, but not as good as you want them to be". Shaka's program has yet to find 4th gear, and 3rd gear is good enough to get them into the tourney most years but not good enough to make the kind of run we all want to see in March. Will they ever consistently find 4th gear? Maybe, maybe not. Which leads me to the point I don't think enough people are talking about: Shaka has basically been an extension of Barnes' last 4 seasons at Texas.

I posted this earlier this week on Reddit:

Barnes' Big 12 record his last 4 years: 2 losing records, 1 .500 record, never more than 11 wins

Shaka's Big 12 record his first 3.5 years: 2 losing records, 1 .500 record (so far), never more than 11 wins

Barnes' NCAA tourney results his last 4 years: 1-2, missed one year

Shaka's NCAA tourney results his last 3.5 years: 0-2, missed one year, this year TBD

Barnes' Pomeroy rankings the last 4 years: 32, 94, 41, 24

Shaka's Pomeroy rankings the last 3.5 years: 39, 70, 36, 29 (so far)

 

I think the most compelling argument someone can make about Shaka's tenure thus far is that he's performed at pretty close to the same level Barnes did in his final few years on campus. I went through and looked at a number of offensive & defensive metrics (I don't have the spreadsheet with me) and basically it boiled down to Barnes & Shaka both being really good at a couple of things, pretty good at a few others, and poor at a couple of things by design. For example, Barnes' teams were terrible at stealing the ball because that's not what his defenses were designed to do, and Shaka's teams don't get offensive rebounds because they run back to get set on defense. But at the end of the day, they were basically a wash. So if you accept the idea that Shaka is basically Bald Barnes, the logical next question is: is that good enough? When you consider the history of Texas basketball, it becomes pretty clear that since the Korean War, Texas basketball hasn't been the kind of program that consistently makes noise in March. Even if you limit it to the past ~30 years, they're basically a program that makes the dance most years but doesn't get very far. Barnes had a 6-7 year run where he vastly exceeded the norm, but is that sustainable at Texas? So far, the answer has been no. Penders didn't do it much, Barnes had more years where he didn't than did, and Shaka's been about like the last 6-7 years of Barnes. Rick warped our expectations through his success and became a victim of that success. Does that mean Texas fans need to recalibrate their expectations, or do they think they should be permanently on that higher plane? And if they think they should be on that higher plane, will they show the level of support necessary to help lift the program there? If Texas is going to maximize its chance at landing the next Tom Izzo or Mark Few, they need to show that coach that the program and fanbase is willing to consistently push to that level. More and more college coaches are finding a smaller pond and thriving financially, so just being 'TEXAS' isn't enough on its own.

I guess what I'm getting at is that Texas fans need to have an honest discussion with themselves about if they really think the program should be up at that next tier behind the 4 blue bloods, and if so what they're willing to do to support the program. It's a symbiotic relationship to some extent; the blue bloods stay the blue bloods because the fanbase is vociferously behind them, and any program who wants to get into that group has to have the motivated fanbase behind them to do it. I realize this is a bit of a chicken & egg thing and that the program needs to hold up its end of the bargain as well; the intent here is not to absolve the basketball program of responsibility, rather to point out that if you want your white knight to come over, you're going to have to start doing some crunches and shaving your legs. Even if he passes you by, you'll still look more desirable to the next suitor. Beard is getting paid and treated like a golden god in a town he has deep roots in, just saying you're Texas isn't going to get him here. That's likely going to be the case with most of the coaches you're looking to replace Shaka with, as well. If you're not willing to go that extra mile, that's also fine, so long as you understand you're making the window for success that much smaller.

This was a fucking ramble.

[Jhawk 1075]

You guys should just throw up the birds to the ncaa and big12 and hire pitino. You’d be in the final four within 4 years. 

[ztejas 43452]

1 hour ago, Burt Macklin said:

I’ll put it this way, I think Beard is likely a very good coach, but I have a lot of reservations due to only having coached two full seasons at P5 til now. Considering the buyout we will be payjng Shaka, I think we need to hire someone with a longer resume who is more of a known entity. Someone like Buzz Williams would be ideal IMO, but it sounds like there’s no way we could get him. Hoiberg won for four years in a row and with his own recruits in the Big 12. I think he’s much more of a known entity than Beard. 

Fair.

29 minutes ago, 2inDaPink1inDaStink said:

Can we hire a consultant, how about Rick Pitino or Larry Brown. They can at least spot some areas that need improvement and both are out of jobs.

I hope you're trolling. If not I hope you're a ward of the state. 

[76Jayhawk 44]

2 hours ago, Burt Macklin said:

I’ll put it this way, I think Beard is likely a very good coach, but I have a lot of reservations due to only having coached two full seasons at P5 til now. Considering the buyout we will be payjng Shaka, I think we need to hire someone with a longer resume who is more of a known entity. Someone like Buzz Williams would be ideal IMO, but it sounds like there’s no way we could get him. Hoiberg won for four years in a row and with his own recruits in the Big 12. I think he’s much more of a known entity than Beard. 

I heard Buzz wasn't happy at VaTech and would likely jump at a chance to go coach in Texas.

 

[2inDaPink1inDaStink 106]

Can we get a list of which cheaters, predators, rapist and drunks  are good and which ones aren’t? It’s getting really hard to tell who offends and who doesn’t. 

Saban,  cheater but 90% of this fan base would have given up a first born child to hire.

Applewhitee diddled a subbordinate many wanted to keep him and promote or even bring him back?

If Bill Bilicheck wanted to jump to college you guys would fire Herman for just a hope of getting a known cheater

Edited January 24, 2019 by 2inDaPink1inDaStink
Mistake

[HookEm 2467]

RE: Bitterwhiteguy - Solid rant.

For the most part, I agree that first 4 years of Shaka is about equal to last 4 years of Barnes.  People are forgetting how terrible and frustrating we were the last few years of his tenure.  The Barnes we had at the end is not the Barnes at Tennessee now.

This team is frustrating because we are SO CLOSE to being good.  We are competitive in every single game.  Our losses are so winnable:

• 10 pts to #2 Michigan State
• 3 pts to #106 Radford (bad loss but close)
• 1 pt to #59 VCU (another bad close loss)
• 3 pts at #91 OSU (another bad close loss)
• 6 pts at #22 Tech (painful close road loss to fringe elite team)
• 2 pts at #8 KU (painful close road loss to elite team)
• 4 pts at #26 TCU (painful close road loss to likely tourney team)

And then we go out and beat teams like #9 UNC, #14 Purdue, #20 K-State (road), #21 OU sometimes in dominating fashion.  We also are recruiting extremely well.

My displeasure is also compounded by the fact that a lot of our mistakes seem easily fixable.  We play STUPID.  We also don't play to our strengths.  I honestly feel like I could do a better job, which is a crazy statement for a guy being paid like Shaka.

[Machinator 32099]

2 minutes ago, HookEm said:

RE: Bitterwhiteguy - Solid rant.

For the most part, I agree that first 4 years of Shaka is about equal to last 4 years of Barnes.  People are forgetting how terrible and frustrating we were the last few years of his tenure.  The Barnes we had at the end is not the Barnes at Tennessee now.

This team is frustrating because we are SO CLOSE to being good.  We are competitive in every single game.  Our losses are so winnable:

• 10 pts to #2 Michigan State
• 3 pts to #106 Radford (bad loss but close)
• 1 pt to #59 VCU (another bad close loss)
• 3 pts at #91 OSU (another bad close loss)
• 6 pts at #22 Tech (painful close road loss to fringe elite team)
• 2 pts at #8 KU (painful close road loss to elite team)
• 4 pts at #26 TCU (painful close road loss to likely tourney team)

And then we go out and beat teams like #9 UNC, #14 Purdue, #20 K-State (road), #21 OU sometimes in dominating fashion.  We also are recruiting extremely well.

My displeasure is also compounded by the fact that a lot of our mistakes seem easily fixable.  We play STUPID.  We also don't play to our strengths.  I honestly feel like I could do a better job, which is a crazy statement for a guy being paid like Shaka.

Tech loss was at home (though it didn't feel like it)

[HookEm 2467]

That's right, my bad.

[dogbreath 434]

Quote

Does that mean Texas fans need to recalibrate their expectations, or do they think they should be permanently on that higher plane? And if they think they should be on that higher plane, will they show the level of support necessary to help lift the program there? If Texas is going to maximize its chance at landing the next Tom Izzo or Mark Few, they need to show that coach that the program and fanbase is willing to consistently push to that level. More and more college coaches are finding a smaller pond and thriving financially, so just being 'TEXAS' isn't enough on its own.

I can understand your historical point of view, but let me say what the fuck does it matter.  If Smart's results are essentially equal to the last years of Barnes then he deserves to get fired.  And it doesn't matter what Texas fans deserve.  If the current coach isn't passing muster then you get another one and that's the way it is at any school. 

I don't know which coach Texas could reasonably get and it's a crap shoot on getting the right one, but I'd want one that would kick Dylan's ass for loafing last night. Of all the problems with this team, effort should be the easiest one to fix.  I've criticized Osetkowski and Roach for not having much basketball IQ, but when that is combined with lack of effort by your team leaders (seniors), then that reveals a toxic atmosphere and it is time for the coach to go.  Again, who gives a fuck what the fans deserve or think.  This is a decision to be made by the AD.     

[Goo Punch 4275]

that @Bitterwhiteguy post, like everything he posts, is a bunch of shaka apologist bullshit. being a "writer" for a couple of websites doesn't make you an authority in anything, and this idea you keep perpetuating that you know and comprehend things that the rest of our pleb fans can't grasp or understand is elitist bullshit. i mean most of your major points are straight up lies. you don't have the spreadsheets handy? don't worry, i do:

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/texas/

go see for yourselves you ignorant plebs, the numbers are nowhere close. go look at Rick's last two years vs Shaka's last year and this one. It's not even close. Shaka's teams live in the 200's and 300's in the vast majority of team stats tracked by b-r, while Barnes's teams avoided those areas of the rankings almost entirely, not to mention the fact that Barnes's teams actually ranked in the top 5-10% of the country in several categories both years, something Shaka cannot come close to saying. Oh and Rick did this with a bunch of 2*, 3*, and low 4* talent, while Shaka's teams, which have been markedly worse in essentially every measurable statistic (FACT) have been full of HS All americans and top ranked classes. you're so full of shit it's not even funny.

for those wondering why i've suddenly decided to go old school on this assclown, this motherfucker @Bitterwhiteguy had the nerve to come to this board at the beginnng of this season and announce publicly that he is above conversing with me. all year long he has popped in to take part in discussions i'm involved in,  it he has stayed true to his belief that he is literally too good to even speak to me. well fuck that. he is a friendlier wescott eberts, and nothing more. writing about this team and feigning politeness don't make you some sort of expert who is above the rest of us plebs, and no matter how much bullshit you spout about Shaka's teams "really being no different from Barnes's teams", that won't make it even remotely true. you and your holier than this shtick can go fuck back off to BC now where the whole "the jury is still out in shaka" bullshit holds more weight.

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Goo Punch

[Goo Punch 4275]

13 minutes ago, dogbreath said:

I can understand your historical point of view, but let me say what the fuck does it matter.  If Smart's results are essentially equal to the last years of Barnes then he deserves to get fired.  And it doesn't matter what Texas fans deserve.  If the current coach isn't passing muster then you get another one and that's the way it is at any school. 

I don't know which coach Texas could reasonably get and it's a crap shoot on getting the right one, but I'd want one that would kick Dylan's ass for loafing last night. Of all the problems with this team, effort should be the easiest one to fix.  I've criticized Osetkowski and Roach for not having much basketball IQ, but when that is combined with lack of effort by your team leaders (seniors), then that reveals a toxic atmosphere and it is time for the coach to go.  Again, who gives a fuck what the fans deserve or think.  This is a decision to be made by the AD.     

They aren't. They aren't even close. See the link in my last post for all of the relevant info. bwg is straight up lying and hoping that the unwashed, uneducated shaggy masses are too stupid and lazy to do five seconds of research and call him on it. The numbers don't lie, but bwg does.