Posted By: OhioBlue
Date: Tuesday, 26 March 2002, at 6:36 a.m.
I've been thinking lately, after seeing Majerus (IMHO) have some uncharacteristic lapses this year, Fisher's success at SDSU, and Cleveland's critics complaining about offensive sets, etc. etc. about coaching styles and how different they are from program to program.
I wonder in today's college hoops world, what are the pros/cons of a strict system like Rick's? He certainly seems to adopt the attitude of "you may be a good player coming in here but until you learn my system and can play the way I want you to, that doesn't matter." There are a few more obvious examples of this that have been debated ad nauseam, so I won't say anything other than that some players who leave the Ute program have flourished elsewhere with less restriction.
So here you have a hands-on coach like Rick, who "molds" players to his system, who is an x's and o's coach that loves to design schemes on both Oh-fense and D (hence the napkin thing). It seems some players who looked good in high school but never panned out at Utah may just be unable to fit into and learn a new way to play basketball, essentially.
On the other hand, and I can't think of anyone better at the time being so bear with me, you have a Steve Lavin of UCLA. He is known for being on almost the opposite side of the continuum from Big Rick, in that he essentially takes his players and their talents and molds the system (if there is any) to them. He has been described on many occasions as a "hands-off" coach, and often takes criticism for this. He doesn't restrict talent, he hopes to enhance it and build on it.
It's not entirely unlike learning to play golf. Depending on what instructor you go to or class you take, you'll get vastly different philosophies. Some golf teachers are all about "unlearning" bad habits, rebuilding the golf swing from scratch, and helping amateurs pursue that elusive perfect technique. Others are quite different, encouraging a natural development, not over-thinking it, building the swing around the strengths the person already has. Two different philosophies. Having experienced both, I can tell you that the results were also vastly different.
But I digress. I suppose the question I'm really asking here is this: is a good portion of the turnover rate in Rick's program attributable to his hands-on, fit-the-system approach? If so, what is he sacrificing? What are some of the positive aspects of his approach? Is there a middle ground, and if so, would Ute fans like to see Majerus there?
Just honest questions. If you read anything that is leading in any way, it was not my intention. I certainly don't have the answer but I've wondered about it recently as I've paid more attention to different coaching styles.
Re: HOOPS: I guess I don't see it.
Specifically when you talk x's and o's you usually talk offense. Majerus completely changed his offensive this year after Burgess went down. How is that philosiphy "my way or the highway?"
I also don't see coaching "success" for Fisher at SDSU since, he, along with Wyoming and Vegas had the most raw talent in the conference. In fact, this may have been one of Majerus' best coaching years at Utah, doing more with less.
Now, if you were talking strictly about defense and rebounding, I believe that Rick is very ridgid. If you don't play defense and rebound (or can't play defense and rebound) you won't play no matter how good you are on the offensive end. That may be what you are talking about - and it has hurt Utah this year some with Cullen seeing almost no time in the first Wyoming game.
I don't think that the turnover rate in Rick's program is in any way due to the offense Utah runs. It's not like he's consistently losing great athletes who want to jump over the backboard. (though he has lost some of these a few years back). Rick loses marginal players in his system that haven't done well understanding where to be. The only loss that really frustrated me was Puzey who could have really helped this year when Burgess went down. Course if Burgess doesn't go down, Puzey probably doesn't play very much, so it's hard to figure which situation was better for him.
Comparing Rick to Steve Lavin or say, Steve Fisher (there's something about that "Steve" name that lends itself to this type of coaching . . . I won't even go to that coach in Provo . . . ) is silly.
Here's my take on college coaching - there are two major elements of being a good coach. 1) recruiting, and 2) coaching. You can be pretty good with either one, but to be great you have to have both. Rick does great at #2, but his best teams, were definitely when he had both. Since Andre he just hasn't had the great players. I agree with others (can't remember who right now) who said that Rick is a decent recruiter when he wants to be, but hasn't focused on it for a few years, and it has hurt him. Lavin and Fisher are great recruiters, but slugs of coaches. That lends itself to playing well when they're interested, but failing over the long haul of a season.
I believe that SDSU will have great talent as long as Fisher is there, but will never win a regular season conference title. After all, Fisher never won one at Michigan, and may have had more talent than any team in the country.
Would I rather have better recruits and lesser coaching? No. I'd rather have better recruits and good coaching. It's not like the players that have left Utah have gone on to outstanding careers other places. Whiting was probably the most successful of the transfers, and he walked into a very good situation where he didn't have to be the star night in and out with Wesley and Lyday.
Re: HOOPS: Question for Ute fans about coaching styles and how it might relate to the 'revolving door' discussed below..
: I've been thinking lately, after seeing Majerus (IMHO) have some
: uncharacteristic lapses this year, Fisher's success at SDSU, and
: Cleveland's critics complaining about offensive sets, etc. etc.
: about coaching styles and how different they are from program to
: program.How would posting a 20-win season after losing your top player be an indication that such lapses have a meaningful impact (recognizing that all coaches don't make bad decisions here and there)? What success at SDSU? Utes finished 2nd in MWC at 0.714 in conference, SDSU tied for 4th at 0.500. SDSU lost several close games, one could argue that with better coaching they might have won those. Perhaps you are refering to the "moral victories" that don't show up in the standings.
: I wonder in today's college hoops world, what are the pros/cons of
: a strict system like Rick's? He certainly seems to adopt the
: attitude of "you may be a good player coming in here but
: until you learn my system and can play the way I want you to,
: that doesn't matter." There are a few more obvious examples
: of this that have been debated ad nauseam, so I won't say
: anything other than that some players who leave the Ute program
: have flourished elsewhere with less restriction.Pros: An impressive record over 10 years.
Cons: Some people's feelings are hurt. Some kids don't pan out, sometimes its their own fault, sometimes maybe Rick misjudged their potential. More below.What players have flourished?? Trent Whiting and who else?? Out of how many?
: So here you have a hands-on coach like Rick, who "molds"
: players to his system, who is an x's and o's coach that loves to
: design schemes on both Oh-fense and D (hence the napkin thing).
: It seems some players who looked good in high school but never
: panned out at Utah may just be unable to fit into and learn a
: new way to play basketball, essentially.Each case seems to be nearly unique. Some players don't work out in the weight room enough, some were misjudged to begin with, some don't go to class, a few may not be "molded", as you say.
: On the other hand, and I can't think of anyone better at the time
: being so bear with me, you have a Steve Lavin of UCLA. He is
: known for being on almost the opposite side of the continuum
: from Big Rick, in that he essentially takes his players and
: their talents and molds the system (if there is any) to them. He
: has been described on many occasions as a "hands-off"
: coach, and often takes criticism for this. He doesn't restrict
: talent, he hopes to enhance it and build on it.There's a reason you can't think of anyone better, ultimately letting high school kids play like they played in high school and on the playground will give you a glass ceiling in Div I ball. You will surprise sometimes, but more often than not, people will wonder how the team doesn't excel with such great talent.
: But I digress. I suppose the question I'm really asking here is
: this: is a good portion of the turnover rate in Rick's program
: attributable to his hands-on, fit-the-system approach? If so,
: what is he sacrificing? What are some of the positive aspects of
: his approach? Is there a middle ground, and if so, would Ute
: fans like to see Majerus there?: Just honest questions. If you read anything that is leading in any
: way, it was not my intention. I certainly don't have the answer
: but I've wondered about it recently as I've paid more attention
: to different coaching styles.I think if you are saying that Majerus is totally rigid in his game plan, you are wrong. It does seem to be true that players have to learn to work within his offense, but once they do they have a green light to play. The offense looks different with Jacobson and Spivey than it did with Andre Miller.
Last modified .