Re: Larry Brown?
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:38 pm
Local news just said its a no go on Brown, not that that means a whole lot.
FIVE-O-FAN wrote:Local news just said its a no go on Brown, not that that means a whole lot.
LakeHighlandsPony wrote:So one of the best coaches of all time wants to coach one of the worst programs of all time and we need to think about it??!! This is the equivalent of Jimmy Johnson being bored and wanting to coach UTEP (Except UTEP actually has fans that go to the games). We have received more press from Brown showing interest this week than we have had in 10 years. Do you realize how many tickets this guy would sell?
Ok- so I exaggerated. Just trying to make a point that Brown needs to be hired.
gostangs wrote:eventually y'all will wake up to realize big bucks + perfect facilities + recruiting hot bed + big east equals one of the best coaching opportunities in the country
hoopmanx wrote:gostangs wrote:eventually y'all will wake up to realize big bucks + perfect facilities + recruiting hot bed + big east equals one of the best coaching opportunities in the country
yea, it's not quite that easy. I agree that we're a sleeping giant, and can be resurrected w/o nearly the hassle that many of the talking heads suggest, but your synopsis doesn't address the questions many of these coaches have, when discussing SMU as a job op. What you mention are the perks, what they mention are admin, admissions, transfer policies, bad model, academic support, private travel for team & recruiting, a hoops-specific S&C coach, just to start.
We can be great, and I'm the first to yell that to masses, but change is needed. Not just coaching change, either.
RyanSMU98 wrote:hoopmanx wrote:gostangs wrote:eventually y'all will wake up to realize big bucks + perfect facilities + recruiting hot bed + big east equals one of the best coaching opportunities in the country
yea, it's not quite that easy. I agree that we're a sleeping giant, and can be resurrected w/o nearly the hassle that many of the talking heads suggest, but your synopsis doesn't address the questions many of these coaches have, when discussing SMU as a job op. What you mention are the perks, what they mention are admin, admissions, transfer policies, bad model, academic support, private travel for team & recruiting, a hoops-specific S&C coach, just to start.
We can be great, and I'm the first to yell that to masses, but change is needed. Not just coaching change, either.
I don't think anyone would dispute that changes are needed, and you lay them out quite nicely. But do you think a Larry Brown type personality is what we need to get those changes initiated, surrounded by young, energetic assistants who can capitalize on them and learn from a great coach to be prepared to take the reigns from him in 2-3 years? I am not sure a lower profile, albeit longer term successful coach gets those changes pushed through the administration in the time frame we are likely looking at to be BEAST competitive. Of course, I could also be full of [Gary Patterson] on all this, too!
hoopmanx wrote:I think IF it's on the new head coach to initiate these changes, we're going to get slaughtered in the Big East, either way. The folks that hire/fire and were responsible for getting us a Big East bid, now need to make sure any coach has the tools at his disposal to be successful. Any new coach has enough to worry about, hiring a staff, forcing some attrition, organizing a recruiting plan, and executing it, all by the first open evaluation. The new coach shouldn't have to fight city hall, cause the barriers of entry to the Big East have been obvious to anyone who follows, well before this past staff was even under fire. You have to guarantee a new coach these things & follow through, not ask him to become a part of the politics of old policy, from day 1
RyanSMU98 wrote:hoopmanx wrote:I think IF it's on the new head coach to initiate these changes, we're going to get slaughtered in the Big East, either way. The folks that hire/fire and were responsible for getting us a Big East bid, now need to make sure any coach has the tools at his disposal to be successful. Any new coach has enough to worry about, hiring a staff, forcing some attrition, organizing a recruiting plan, and executing it, all by the first open evaluation. The new coach shouldn't have to fight city hall, cause the barriers of entry to the Big East have been obvious to anyone who follows, well before this past staff was even under fire. You have to guarantee a new coach these things & follow through, not ask him to become a part of the politics of old policy, from day 1
Are there indications that the admin is actively pursuing correcting these deficiencies? Is Marinatto pushing them from the BE side? I know some of the things you mentioned were rumored to be out there as part of the Buzz pitch, but I am certainly not plugged in enough to know whether or not those changes are being implemented independent of the coach search. Any insights into this?