Posted By: ColoUte
Date: Monday, 8 April 2002, at 2:37 p.m.
Now, this is NOT, in any way, intended to be a flame of anyone. I too see the turnover of players in this program as a problem. However, it's really easy to notice a problem and point it out and complain about it - particularly when nothing else is going on - but it's another to try to find a way to solve it...or at least form some kind of objective for our complaints. What do we really want to see happen from all of this? Do we even know?
So, I'm asking you for a minute to put yourselves in the shoes of Chris Hill. You see a top caliber program with a coach, nationally regarded as one of the best in the business, but with the problem of a very high rate of player turnover. What do you do?
- Do you try to talk to Rick and see if he'll lighten up? Sorry, I had to laugh as I wrote that. It's not happening. I doubt he'd even take suggestions as to whom he should hire as assistants who could act as a buffer. Frankly, Rick will run the program the way Rick wants to run the program.
- Do you pull rank and start limiting Rick's recruiting activities? Do you make him live with his recruits who haven't worked out as expected? Do you force him to stop recruiting players once he's replaced the graduating seniors/mission kids? Do you tell him he can't replace players he kicks off the team? Basically, do you tell Rick that he can't gamble on projects anymore - which forces him to ONLY recruit the top national players....and will lead to years where we're under our scholie limit because we don't land the guys we're after and Rick can't give the remaining scholie to a "project"?
- Do you fire Majerus? Now, I don't think anyone has gone so far as to call for Rick's head. Frankly, this would be a stupid move. You'd get the same result - Rick leaving - by doing either of the two options above, but they wouldn't be nearly the PR nightmare.
I guess what I'm asking is; Is this a big enough problem in most people's minds to require measures this drastic? Will this problem be so detrimental in the future that we should most likely lose Majerus just so that we'll be able to keep the Puzeys, McTavishes, and Goettsches in the future?
Or, is this problem correctable without resorting to the options I stated above?
Again, this isn't a flame to anyone. I'm sick of it too. I'd just like to know what people out there think needs to be done in order to correct the problem, and I'd like to know what most feel our overall objective is.
Thanks for any input.
We're fans with final 4 appetites in a first round exit place to recruit...
Posted By: Mr.
Crimson <me@me.com>
Date: Monday, 8 April 2002, at 2:47 p.m.
In Response To: HOOPS: Just curious, what's our objective? (ColoUte)
Besides Utah who was the last MWC team to visit the second weekend of the tourney. UNLV with the best team money could buy in the early 90's Wyoming did it in 88, New Mexico has gone once in their history, 1976, BYU not since Ainge I believe, has CSU or SDSU and Im pretty sure its never for Air Force.
We know and so does Rick that with the right combination of players and luck we can be back to the final four and even perhaps a national title. You know what, we don't cheat except for cookies, when players are here they go to class and all the talent in the world won't keep you on the team if you don't. Within those parameters I'm fine with this stuff.
If Cameron doesn't want to be yelled at the thats fine, its doesn't make him a bad person just a personality difference. It happens.
I don't even see the problem.
Last modified .