I don't ever want to be Kentucky... Watching them play and Gillespie is said to be on the hotseat after only his 2nd year... He's on the HOTSEAT, but playing on national TV in a post-season tournament... Unreal...
Also Lavin was talking about another coach and HIS comment was it is impossible to judge the progress of a program until year 4 at the very earliest and more realistically year 5 when you have a continuity and experience in a system. It should apply to GMac as well, but the clock IS ticking and year 4 is fast approaching.
I'm a staunch GMac supporter but I do understand results should prevail in the end. Probably the major disagreement on this board is WHEN the results should be the overriding factor.
I think it's easier to be patient from a distant SpokaneCy...it certainly is easier for me. I'm a Gmac supporter also but I think if I was living in Iowa it would be much more difficult. Living in Virginia, I don't see anything about ISU in the local newspaper or on the TV...I can choose not to look on the internet. Once again...I am a Gmac supporter and these next two years are going to be good.
Gillipsie hasn't had time to bring in his players though. You can give a great coach a great team and get horrible results because he doesn't have players who can play in his system.
Gillipsie hasn't had time to bring in his players though. You can give a great coach a great team and get horrible results because he doesn't have players who can play in his system.
That's alot easier said than done. I know now that Chizik is gone, we see alot of those same comments about the football program. The problem with doing that is two-fold.
First, the coaches on any team play a system they are most comfortable coaching. That means they know the system in and out, can scheme against the opposition the best, and can recognize the players to be put in spots to have the most success in that system. Is there some flexibility, of course, but you don't have a staff made up of people that are experts on 15 different systems. Usually guys are selected becuase they have an expertise in the system you want to run.
Secondly, college athletics are participated in for 4, maybe 5, years on a rotating basis. If you're a new coach, you're picking up some existing players at the same time you're integrating 'your' new players. Does it make sense to make 'your' recruits learn a system that you don't want to run just because the existing players are comfortable in it or does it make sense to get 'your' guys up to speed as quickly as possible and comfortable in a system that they will run for 4-5 years? I think most would agree that you can make some minor changes to a system, but the smart thing is to get the new guys ready, maybe at the risk of losing a few extra games early, so that by the time you have 3-4 years in a program everyone is on the same page.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by pujolsman 
Bookmarks