Cuonzo should have been fired.

#51
#51
True it was a nice run against far inferior talent. UT played better competition in the SEC, which is really down as it is.
I'm good w/ him going his way but this discrediting the tourney success is ludicrous.

Tournaments aren't won by the highest rank teams. They're won by the hottest teams. This year proves that. Discredit the tourney run if you like but most fans gauge the team's success by how they do at the big dance.

Perhaps if Duke didn't suck so bad this year, and had beaten Mercer, we'd have a better barometer. :nono:
 
#52
#52
OK, let me rephrase. Success isn't determined by financial gain. The women's basketball and softball teams have been far more successful in winning as of late than the men's basketball teams, but because men are not interested in those sports, they do not have the following nor financial reward. My point there was that even though the men's team makes more money and have a bigger following, they aren't as successful. Most fans do not care that they have reaped more financial reward, nor that they are more "popular", but are pizzed that they do not win championships.

What is gonna be interesting going forward is where this Northwestern lawsuit to unionize is going to go. I firmly believe that if it happens, and players want a cut of the gate for playing football, then that will not be good for other sports at the University.. many of them men's sports too. UT has a fairly rich swimming history for example... baseball.. tennis... Who's gonna pay for that if the Berry twins are getting a big chunk of the take at Neyland? Then there's the one and done issue that will arise in college football after that....

That's great and all, but no one was arguing against that point. The original comment made it sound like no one cares about the men's team because of the women's team, and that's simply not true in the least. The argument all along has been about popularity, not success.
 
#56
#56
No wonder he left. We have the least knowledgeable fans around. Stupid sh.. like this may keep a good coach away. If anybody agrees with any of this they know nothing about basketball.

Yeah like what is said on Vol N will keep us from getting a good coach. If he's that much of a pansy I don't want him
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#59
#59
Actually I thought he regressed after the first Kentucky game because he was a monster of the midway that game. Face it bozo was not a good coach.

You cant seriously look at one good game his freshman year and compare it to the body of work from his junior year.

Stoke improved significantly over his time here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#60
#60
Actually I thought he regressed after the first Kentucky game because he was a monster of the midway that game. Face it bozo was not a good coach.

Lmao of course you did, I'm sure you thought Josh Richardson, Jordan McRae and Jeronne Maymon also regressed under Zo.
 
#61
#61
No wonder he left. We have the least knowledgeable fans around. Stupid sh.. like this may keep a good coach away. If anybody agrees with any of this they know nothing about basketball.

This is complete BS. Let’s talk bball knowledge, pal. Start with the mental game and turnovers, pathetic point guard play, forcing the ball into lane traffic, lack of outside shooting, lack of half court offense, pathetic ball handling.

UT did 2 things well under Guonzo, they rebounded and played decent defense.

As for Stokes, as a big, he was a double double machine. Jump shot, not good, and that will hurt him as a 6’8” big body in the NBA. Maymon played courageously, but he missed a ton of lay ups, and turned the ball over constantly. So, for a coach with a big guy mentality, there wasn’t much growth in the games of these two guys other than tenacity and physicality. Their actual on the court game didn’t progress a whole lot. It wasn’t until very late in this last season that these guys began to grasp the concept of inside out offense. You could argue that JR was the best shooter down the stretch. Sure, McRae could hit the 3 and get hot, but he’s a shot creator, slasher, long type player, and of all the guys mentioned, he grew the most next to JR under Guonzo. But the bigs didn’t progress a whole lot.

As for the sweet 16 run, come on. You’re supposed to beat a team like Iowa in the play in game, they’d lost like 9 of their last 10 games going into that match. The stars aligned for a run, and yes, the Vols took advantage. But opponents like UMass and Mercer wouldn’t survive in the SEC, yet Mercer took us out of the first round of the NIT a year ago, in Knoxville! Mercer beat Duke by shooting lights out beyond the arc. Still, they weren’t a goliath. Duke would have stomped us out of the building.

And after all that, with the talent on this team, these guys should have never been in the position of having to sit on the edge of their chairs to see if they made the dance. This team lost to Tex AM twice, UTEP, and Vandy(who had a very depleted roster), making UT one of the only power conference teams in the tourney with losses to 3 opponents who’s RPI was greater than 100!

Bottom line, Cuonzo should be gonzo, and I don’t give a damn what you call me or how you describe me because all this team achieved was basketball mediocrity at a time when the SEC is weak and provided a chance to be somebody.

Enough said.

P.S. Gonzo didn’t recruit Stokes or McRae, or Maymon. They were originally had by Pearl. Gonzo did convince Stokes to come after Pearl’s departure, so I’ll give him that.
 
Last edited:
#62
#62
Lmao of course you did, I'm sure you thought Josh Richardson, Jordan McRae and Jeronne Maymon also regressed under Zo.

Great point. McRae and Maymon may have been Pearl recruits, but they progressed significantly under Martin.

Not that Cuonzo was a world beater by any means, but to say that his players made no progression is not even close to an accurate analysis
 
#63
#63
Great point. McRae and Maymon may have been Pearl recruits, but they progressed significantly under Martin.

Not that Cuonzo was a world beater by any means, but to say that his players made no progression is not even close to an accurate analysis

There's a lot he can be criticized for, but some people stretch it way too far.
 
#65
#65
Stokes looked good this year and did improve. My problem is CM held him back. He didn't face Stokes up early on this year or much at all last year. Stokes showed a midrange shot face up in his first game at Ky. He was put in bad spots too often for his skill set, and the team didn't run like stokes was capable. Then after the you know what, stokes runs more, faces up more, gets the ball more early in the shot clock and in good position.

Those are actual issues that many basketball people discuss during the season. Stokes should've faced up more last year. If he did, we don't go to the nit. Almost waited too late this year. That's why people.have issues, among many more basketball issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Advertisement



Back
Top