Sudden Impact
Who we are is what We do with what We have!
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 14,444
- Likes
- 7,905
Please expound on where you think the upgrades are. I can only see one position. Chiles might be better than Barton.
Please expound on where you think the upgrades are. I can only see one position. Chiles might be better than Barton.
Barton was gone anyway. He's saying Thompson is better than Chiles.
I believe he's referring to the recruiting class. Which, other than Mostella, is debatable. Cofer and Austin would both have been better than who we are bringing in at their positions for the long term health of the program. We upgraded SG and C as I don't think Turman would have fit this system.
I believe he's referring to the recruiting class. Which, other than Mostella, is debatable. Cofer and Austin would both have been better than who we are bringing in at their positions for the long term health of the program. We upgraded SG and C as I don't think Turman would have fit this system.
Have to agree, McKnight is a better option than Turman.
As far as SG and PF I still see Hubbs and Moore as the best options.
i think Donnie filled out his roster with the best he could get at this time. the real upgrading will come in the next class.
I think we gained the most in extending our bench.
Win or lose, I am intrigued and marking my calendar to watch this team play.
so you don't think anyone coming in will be able to help us better then DT. And i am a DT fan thought he passed well but not a good shooter or ball handler. Maybe he looked nervous due to be a freshman
unfortunately, all we can go on for Thompson is his 2 pts and 2 assts and multiple benchings for lazy passes and play.
If you look at stats and proven experience, Chiles is an upgrade. So we upgrade at 3 positions and majorly upgrade in depth, scorers and ballhandlers over what this team was going to look like just a few weeks ago. Add in upgrade in recruiting, HC and assts and things go from dreading next year to excitement.
went to one game each year the past 3 years after being a season ticket holder for @ 10 years or so. It just wasn't entertaining to me personally and wasn't an event I wanted to take friends, family or clients to. The intensity in the building sucked, and our lazy and no instensity starts to way to many games will be no longer.
Now, I already have 4 games planned with current and maybe future business partners and I look forward to seeing us play.
Games will be fun again and business will be conducted. Suites will be full again and the people invested in the program will not be losing $ and potential clients anymore.
All jmo of course, but from personal experience and the experience of friends doing business on a level way above what I deal with.
So fans will be okay with losing if it's exciting?You aren't the only one who feels this way. I know two big time donor families and both have had season tickets since TBA opened. Both parties were so feed up with watching Zo ball that they decided to begin to lease year by year their season tickets for as long as it took for Zo to leave. Many people don't look at the business side of UT basketball. UT under Zo was losing money. The attendance was down last year, and next year would have been much worse. I've heard the excuses for the attendance dropping some this year, but the real problem was Zo's product bored people. It's not so much about losing as it is about not entertaining. Zo's product contained both losing crucial games and boring people to death.