Non-Lady Vol Basketball News 2024-25

[youcancallmeAl]

Then I guess it's good we have another White Knight on the forum to shield Kellie from these vicious "attacks" like this article, clearly written by an author who has it in for her...

Outstanding piece on the blue hairs railroading Fulmer with the Harper hire, and how utterly ridiculous that "search" looks two years later in light of LSU hiring Mulkey...

I take Fulmer at his word that he initially set out to hire the best possible coach, regardless of Lady Vol ties...

Because there is enough smoke that he contacted Vic Schaefer, among others, that I can't believe there is nothing to it...

There are two or three women out there who would laugh out loud at the idea that I'm anything close to a white knight!

I'm not defending Kellie the coach per se. I don't really know whether she will succeed here or not. (and neither do you) I'm not an expert on basketball coaching, just a casual observer. I'm guessing that's the case with you, too, though I sure don't want to be presumptuous about that. I hope she succeeds, because she's coaching at my alma mater. And I'm rooting for her while trying not to be blinded by my orange colored glasses.

I'm defending her chance to succeed or fail on her own merits without being harassed by those who want to complain endlessly ad infinitum about her hiring and her recruiting in her first two seasons: How she was hired. Why she was hired. Why someone else wasn't hired. Her recruiting. Her lack of recruiting. Her lack of elite pedigree. The old guard of "blue hairs", Etc. etc. etc. How many times do you estimate you have complained on these boards about the fact she was hired? Hundreds? And her recruiting? Hundreds?

Why do you harp about her hiring when what is done is done? What's the point of praising an article that rehashes this old news and harps about her hiring when that ship has sailed, that horse is out of the barn, that's a wrap, that's a done deal. She isn't going to be fired until or unless it is obvious she has failed after being given at least 4 or 5 years to succeed. There's no point in beating your head (and ours) against that proverbial wall when the basic fact that she is the coach is not going to change anytime soon.

You (and maybe also the author of that smarmy hit piece) are in effect complaining that she took the job when she was offered. And that isn't fair.

Darth, I don't have a beef with your constructive criticisms. I've liked a few of your posts when you gave fair constructive critiques. And I've learned a few things from you, which I appreciate. I just want you and everyone else to give her a fair chance.

 

[LadyVols_WBK]

 

[djtee]

I don`t think land both, And on the flipside now that TN has decided to inter the 2022 recruiting war late, Let see if hurt`s them or helps when it comes to Talaysia Cooper and Ashlyn Watkins. The two are still undecided and no one knows what school they will pick.

 

[Rickster]

They would fill out a great recruiting cycle to go with Justine and Smith from Texas.

 

[Volfan2012]

Would put them at 13 which is fine so yes could definitely happen if so inclined. I think Cooper would be the one that might want to go elsewhere since she is a point guard. I would say Tennessee's point guard position will be wide open in 2022 with Walker gone and Horston looking to be growing out of the position. That would leave only Miles of players we know of to battle for playing time.

 

[VA_VOLFAN]

Would put them at 13 which is fine so yes could definitely happen if so inclined. I think Cooper would be the one that might want to go elsewhere since she is a point guard. I would say Tennessee's point guard position will be wide open in 2022 with Walker gone and Horston looking to be growing out of the position. That would leave only Miles of players we know of to battle for playing time.

SC just got 6’7” Syracuse transfer and they got the 6’4” all american from GA. to go along with Amihere who could have 3 years left and boston who will have two (i’m sure she enters the wnba) for watkins that front court may be a little crowded

 

[Volfan2012]

SC just got 6’7” Syracuse transfer and they got the 6’4” all american from GA. to go along with Amihere who could have 3 years left and boston who will have two (i’m sure she enters the wnba) for watkins that front court may be a little crowded

Where are they not a little crowded and she might think she can beat out the fours which is where she would play. I hope both Watkins and Cooper come to Tennessee.

 

[VA_VOLFAN]

Where are they not a little crowded and she might think she can beat out the fours which is where she would play. I hope both Watkins and Cooper come to Tennessee.

shooting guard or wing possibly...

 

[Volfan2012]

shooting guard or wing possibly...

Hall, Rivers, and Russell at shooting guard so you might see someone taken there. The three with Beal seems to be the ideal spot for recruits to join the roster. My guess is they will get who they want especially players that are so close to them regardless of position. There is no reason for me to doubt Dawn will fill it up with fifteen if it is highly ranked players and let them battle it our for who plays or sits.

 

[mcannon1]

Coach Mike Neighbors tweets the Hog for a new commit. I'll bet this refers to Duada - recently released from her Baylor loi.

 

[SCspur]

Coach Mike Neighbors tweets the Hog for a new commit. I'll bet this refers to Duada - recently released from her Baylor loi.

If they land her how far does Arkansas rise? 2nd? 3rd? Do they stay the same?

 

[Amb3096]

If they land her how far does Arkansas rise? 2nd? 3rd? Do they stay the same?

A starting 5 of Daniels, Ramirez, Goforth, Wolfenbarger, and Dauda is IMO better than any team not named SC. I guess it depends on how quickly the two star freshmen adjust to the college game and how good their bench is outside of Davis, Barnum and Eaton. But yeah, this makes them a contender for sure if they did land Dauda.

 

[VA_VOLFAN]

A starting 5 of Daniels, Ramirez, Goforth, Wolfenbarger, and Dauda is IMO better than any team not named SC. I guess it depends on how quickly the two star freshmen adjust to the college game and how good their bench is outside of Davis, Barnum and Eaton. But yeah, this makes them a contender for sure if they did land Dauda.

We thought the same thing when they landed Slocum... I say let it play out ... Kellie was voted 6th and kicked a$$ and took names.

 

[VolBall09]

A starting 5 of Daniels, Ramirez, Goforth, Wolfenbarger, and Dauda is IMO better than any team not named SC. I guess it depends on how quickly the two star freshmen adjust to the college game and how good their bench is outside of Davis, Barnum and Eaton. But yeah, this makes them a contender for sure if they did land Dauda.

Would disagree very strongly. Wolfenbarger and Dauda both will have a significant adjustment to make against the size in the SEC. Goforth is good, but not as good as Slocum or Dungee by a long shot.

My guess is they will finish just about like they did this year. Fifth or sixth.

 

[Darth_Vol]

I'm defending her chance to succeed or fail on her own merits without being harassed by those who want to complain endlessly ad infinitum about her hiring and her recruiting in her first two seasons: How she was hired. Why she was hired. Why someone else wasn't hired. Her recruiting. Her lack of recruiting. Her lack of elite pedigree. The old guard of "blue hairs", Etc. etc. etc. How many times do you estimate you have complained on these boards about the fact she was hired? Hundreds? And her recruiting? Hundreds?

Recruiting is the life blood of any college sports program and a year long discussion every forum like this, especially in the offseason. Hell, we have what, five or six threads going on recruiting right now? Like it or not, it's also a HUGE component of how Kellie will be evaluated "on her own merits." Even the biggest Kellie supporters on this forum have said Kellie needs to start landing some bigger fish. Soon. I'm not going to stop talking about it, especially two years into her tenure here when I think it's more than fair to have serious concerns.

Why do you harp about her hiring when what is done is done? What's the point of praising an article that rehashes this old news and harps about her hiring when that ship has sailed, that horse is out of the barn, that's a wrap, that's a done deal. She isn't going to be fired until or unless it is obvious she has failed after being given at least 4 or 5 years to succeed. There's no point in beating your head (and ours) against that proverbial wall when the basic fact that she is the coach is not going to change anytime soon.

The topic is being "rehashed" now because the Mulkey hire adds a new layer to the discussion. She was hired less than a month ago, and this is the first article I've seen about it so I'm not sure how you can say that aspect has been beaten to death. Regardless, it likely won't be the last of and many eyes will be on Kellie and Mulkey to compare their performances from this point. It's interesting that since I posted the article, you've posted 16 times in response (yes, I actually counted). For someone who thinks that horse has been sufficiently beaten, you seem to keep grabbing your bat.

You (and maybe also the author of that smarmy hit piece) are in effect complaining that she took the job when she was offered. And that isn't fair.

Again, you missed the point here. The piece really wasn't even about Kellie, it was about the leadership that hired her. What part of this "hit piece" did you find inaccurate or unfair to Kellie?

Darth, I don't have a beef with your constructive criticisms. I've liked a few of your posts when you gave fair constructive critiques. And I've learned a few things from you, which I appreciate. I just want you and everyone else to give her a fair chance.

We're cool. You never get personal, which is typically the point I ignore people out of existence. Despite my alleged "agenda" I want to see Kellie succeed. I've never called for her to be fired. Suppose they did fire her, then what? As the article laid out, they would just hire the next coach in the LV pecking order.

We're into year three now, the point where you would typically like to see significant progress or at least an upward trajectory. From my perspective, I see stagnation while other rival programs continue to improve. I guess we'll find out soon enough...

 

[Lucy]

Recruiting is the life blood of any college sports program and a year long discussion every forum like this, especially in the offseason. Hell, we have what, five or six threads going on recruiting right now? Like it or not, it's also a HUGE component of how Kellie will be evaluated "on her own merits." Even the biggest Kellie supporters on this forum have said Kellie needs to start landing some bigger fish. Soon. I'm not going to stop talking about it, especially two years into her tenure here when I think it's more than fair to have serious concerns.



The topic is being "rehashed" now because the Mulkey hire adds a new layer to the discussion. She was hired less than a month ago, and this is the first article I've seen about it so I'm not sure how you can say that aspect has been beaten to death. Regardless, it likely won't be the last of and many eyes will be on Kellie and Mulkey to compare their performances from this point. It's interesting that since I posted the article, you've posted 16 times in response (yes, I actually counted). For someone who thinks that horse has been sufficiently beaten, you seem to keep grabbing your bat.



Again, you missed the point here. The piece really wasn't even about Kellie, it was about the leadership that hired her. What part of this "hit piece" did you find inaccurate or unfair to Kellie?



We're cool. You never get personal, which is typically the point I ignore people out of existence. Despite my alleged "agenda" I want to see Kellie succeed. I've never called for her to be fired. Suppose they did fire her, then what? As the article laid out, they would just hire the next coach in the LV pecking order.

We're into year three now, the point where you would typically like to see significant progress or at least an upward trajectory. From my perspective, I see stagnation while other rival programs continue to improve. I guess we'll find out soon enough...

Such BS. “ I want to see Kellie succeed”
You want to say “I told you so” a heck of a lot more. I have never seen anyone who more consistently hammers a coach. Just stop. Maya A. said “When someone tells you who they are believe them.” We have heard.

 

[Coach Jumper]

Such BS. “ I want to see Kellie succeed”
You want to say “I told you so” a heck of a lot more. I have never seen anyone who more consistently hammers a coach. Just stop. Maya A. said “When someone tells you who they are believe them.” We have heard.

worth posting twice!

 

[Amb3096]

Would disagree very strongly. Wolfenbarger and Dauda both will have a significant adjustment to make against the size in the SEC. Goforth is good, but not as good as Slocum or Dungee by a long shot.

My guess is they will finish just about like they did this year. Fifth or sixth.

The reason I like them more this year than last is that they have the potential for a balanced inside game this time instead of living or dying by their guard play and having inside players that are invisible on offense. If Dauda signs, then her, Wolfenbarger and Barnum will be their main inside rotation, so the freshmen will get lots of minutes and opportunity to adjust to SEC play. This is a 6'4 and 6'6 interior combo that has range out to the 3-point line and size to fight inside for rebounds. The upside for this team is far greater than last year's team even if there is no individual player as good as Dungee.

 

[VA_VOLFAN]

The reason I like them more this year than last is that they have the potential for a balanced inside game this time instead of living or dying by their guard play and having inside players that are invisible on offense. If Dauda signs, then her, Wolfenbarger and Barnum will be their main inside rotation, so the freshmen will get lots of minutes and opportunity to adjust to SEC play. This is a 6'4 and 6'6 interior combo that has range out to the 3-point line and size to fight inside for rebounds. The upside for this team is far greater than last year's team even if there is no individual player as good as Dungee.

Wolfenbarger is a perimeter player

 

[youcancallmeAl]

Like it or not, it's also a HUGE component of how Kellie will be evaluated "on her own merits." Even the biggest Kellie supporters on this forum have said Kellie needs to start landing some bigger fish. Soon. I'm not going to stop talking about it, especially two years into her tenure here when I think it's more than fair to have serious concerns.

Fair enough. I sure don't mind you "talking about it." We all do that, as you note correctly. The question is what is fair criticism? I believe you recently stated that if Harper didn't land a certain recruit, it would be a firing offense. Am I wrong about that? If so, I apologize. If not, that's the kind of unfair criticism I'm talking about. Certainly you would agree that her first class is the classic asterisk class, as she had to clean up a mess then. And her second class is top 15, not bad under the circumstances, and so not cause to go all wobbly about it. Too early to tell about the third class. I just don't see her recruiting so far to be a cause for alarm. Our rivals are cleaning up now, it's true. But that isn't her fault, IMO. Covid recruiting restrictions, a free for all in the transfer portal, and an upside down world all together make rebuilding a program even more difficult at this time. Bottom line about her recruiting: she deserves the benefit of the doubt for now.

 

[LadyVols_WBK]

Coach Mike Neighbors tweets the Hog for a new commit. I'll bet this refers to Duada - recently released from her Baylor loi.

look at his 3rd most recent liked tweet

 

[Amb3096]

Wolfenbarger is a perimeter player

So was Dungee, but she'll still play the 4. Her skillset makes her a great stretch 4 on offense, and her size will make her more effective than Dungee defending in the frontcourt.

 

[And1]

Recruiting is the life blood of any college sports program and a year long discussion every forum like this, especially in the offseason. Hell, we have what, five or six threads going on recruiting right now? Like it or not, it's also a HUGE component of how Kellie will be evaluated "on her own merits." Even the biggest Kellie supporters on this forum have said Kellie needs to start landing some bigger fish. Soon. I'm not going to stop talking about it, especially two years into her tenure here when I think it's more than fair to have serious concerns.



The topic is being "rehashed" now because the Mulkey hire adds a new layer to the discussion. She was hired less than a month ago, and this is the first article I've seen about it so I'm not sure how you can say that aspect has been beaten to death. Regardless, it likely won't be the last of and many eyes will be on Kellie and Mulkey to compare their performances from this point. It's interesting that since I posted the article, you've posted 16 times in response (yes, I actually counted). For someone who thinks that horse has been sufficiently beaten, you seem to keep grabbing your bat.



Again, you missed the point here. The piece really wasn't even about Kellie, it was about the leadership that hired her. What part of this "hit piece" did you find inaccurate or unfair to Kellie?



We're cool. You never get personal, which is typically the point I ignore people out of existence. Despite my alleged "agenda" I want to see Kellie succeed. I've never called for her to be fired. Suppose they did fire her, then what? As the article laid out, they would just hire the next coach in the LV pecking order.

We're into year three now, the point where you would typically like to see significant progress or at least an upward trajectory. From my perspective, I see stagnation while other rival programs continue to improve. I guess we'll find out soon enough...

Yawn.

 

[youcancallmeAl]

The topic is being "rehashed" now because the Mulkey hire adds a new layer to the discussion. She was hired less than a month ago, and this is the first article I've seen about it so I'm not sure how you can say that aspect has been beaten to death. Regardless, it likely won't be the last of and many eyes will be on Kellie and Mulkey to compare their performances from this point. It's interesting that since I posted the article, you've posted 16 times in response (yes, I actually counted). For someone who thinks that horse has been sufficiently beaten, you seem to keep grabbing your bat.

Harper is working on a master plan to bring the program back to national relevance. She has no control over who gets hired and fired in the conference. Mulkey's hiring in the conference shouldn't change her plan or it's timeline any more than Staley's presence should, unless it lengthens it. Given expectations, it's clear that sooner or later she'll be compared to any and all programs in the conference. So, why make a big deal about this one? I would think it would be more likely that Mulkey will be compared to SC than Tennessee for now. It's the hire you wanted here, so you want to make the comparison in your desire to keep endlessly attacking the Harper hire. My posts are simply what's required to counter yours on this topic.

 

[youcancallmeAl]

Again, you missed the point here. The piece really wasn't even about Kellie, it was about the leadership that hired her. What part of this "hit piece" did you find inaccurate or unfair to Kellie?

I think you missed the point. Kellie had no control over Fulmer's decision to offer the job to her. Once offered, she took it. Can't blame her for that. If you have a beef with her hiring, it's irrational and unfair to take it out on her by unfair expectations of her recruiting and attacks on her resume, such as snide remarks about mid-majors. Take it out on whoever hired her if you're so inclined.

As to the article, my beef with the author's antics is different from my beef with you - which is that you glommed on to it asap because it supports your narrative that Harper should have never been offered. What's bizaare to me is although the author attacks Fulmer, you protect him, even though he is the one who offered Harper. For some reason, you choose to blame "the girls" as if they held a gun to Fulmer's head. I don't get that.

As for the author of the piece, it's just a gratuitous attack on Fulmer under false or unverified premises: 1) Fulmer could have hired Mulkey or someone like Mulkey if he hadn't let "the girls" talk him out of it, and 2) that Harper's hire proves Fulmer didn't care about LV basketball championships. He's attacking Fulmer to get street cred with his sportswriter peers that he isn't a homer. These guys write their articles for each other rather than their readers. I hold no brief for Fulmer, but it's cowardly and smarmy of this writer to spit on him like this over the Harper hire two years after the fact. But then he's a sportswriter at a big daily paper, so what's new. He doesn't attack Harper directly, but treats her with undeserved disrespect, like you often do.