Here's the BB Coach To Hire....

#27
#27
madtownvol said:
For some (perhaps many) in the "Fire Holly," that is exactly how they see it; she deserved all the blame for losses and NONE of the credit for wins.

Others, and I believe armchair falls in this camp, are less focused on assessing responsibility for good games versus bad games and instead are looking more at overall trajectories and the questions of preparation. Why does this team so often come out flat against lower ranked opponents; why do they get disrupted when teams that are known to apply pressure, pressure them? why is this team more often than not, such a poor shooting team and other like issues.

These are all fair questions and I can see how and why they lead fans to argue that an immediate coaching change is needed.

Personally, I see the rift between the pro and con Holly camps as totally futile and needlessly divisive.

On the latter point, all LV fans want the team to peform at a higher level and with much greater consistency so that they can compete for conference titles, Final Fours and if Uconn flubs up, an NC. The debate is simply is about whether that outcome is possible with the current staff.

And on the coaching change, Holly's record, coupled with an incoming recruiting class, and some big top 10 wins (despite some equally bad losses) are enough to keep any AD from making a change. If the UTAD fired Holly, the negative national press would be massive; I know this board tends to think very locally but major Universities do care about their national reputations.

I think the more likely scenario is that Holly has two years to prove that she can return the LVs to preeminence. Assuming that DD and MR go to the WNBA, next season will be seen as a bit of rebuilding year where a lot of new and younger players have to be worked iti the rotation. Accordingly, I think expectations for the upcoming season will be more moderate. (If DD and/or MR returned in some ways that would put a lot more pressure on Holly to deliver an SEC title and a Final four). But, if the team does not break through in the following season, then AD might well feel fully justified in making a coaching change.
Click to expand...


in the pro-Warlick camp? You must be old timers. Have you actually watched this team play basketball for the last five years? Apparently not. We've not been good. We are not in the Top 25. We were seeded 7th--7th--in the SEC last year and 5th this year. Playing well every fourth game is not the mark of a good program. You seem to adopted the standards of Appalachian State. You state that if the UTAD fired Warlick, "the negative national press would be massive." That is a comically inane--stupid--statement. Why would the press be negative? Because of all that Warlick has achieved? She hasn't achieved ANYTHING. In fact, the reaction would be just the opposite--those who follow women's basketball would consider it a smart move. You say that there is a debate about whether the Vols might again get back to the top with Warlick. Need I remind you that the Warlick has been coaching the Vols for 6 years and we haven't even gotten to the Final Four--haven't been there for 10 years? She's a lousy coach. Banghart would coach circles around--like lots of other coaches have.

Did someone just mention the fact that they don't recruit in the Ivy League. Anybody who thinks Banghart couldn't recruit is thick. She wins. She's got qualities that Warlick doesn't have and will never have. Warlick's recruiting has been up and down--her problem is that she can't coach. We just lost to the 12the seeded Alabama--our second loss to them. There are dozens of coaches who would make us a much better program than we've been for 10 years, and yet some still believe that Warlick is the answer. Oh, my. :eek:hmy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#28
#28
armchair said:
you are coaching in. It's about the job you do with your team and the players on your team. Most major-college coaches start at smaller programs and then move up. That's how it works. This is about smarts and leadership, and that has nothing to do with the conference you are in. Players are players. Mike K of Duke coached at Army before getting the Duke job--not exactly a powerhouse. Muffett McGraw coached a high-school team to start her career, then went to Lehigh before being hired by Notre Dame. Jim Calhoun--three national titles with UConn men--started his coaching career in high school and then coached at Northeastern, which was a commuter school when he was there. If you can coach, the results will be apparent. Banghart can quite obviously coach.
Click to expand...

Great point; great suggestion. She is truly first rate.
 
#29
#29
Solution: If Holly's biggest asset is her ability to recruit, keep her in that capacity but hire a staff that can coach no matter who it is.
 
#30
#30
Do not know if we could get her, but Brenda Frese is a great coach. She built that Maryland program from the bottom up! She is a great recruiter and a motivating coach! I have watched the team this year and they are always ready to play! Wish we had a chance at getting her!!
 
#32
#32
Holly reminds me of Josh Pastner nice recruiter but cannot coach a lick of basketball
 
#34
#34
Vols4life said:
Holly reminds me of Josh Pastner nice recruiter but cannot coach a lick of basketball
Click to expand...

The Lady Vols program recruits for itself, in terms of budget, facilities, stage, fan support & tradition there isn't a better women's basketball program with the exception of UConn. If Holly continues to run the show who know's how long we'll continue to have that advantage?
 
#37
#37
tnvols72 said:
Well Holly recruited well
Click to expand...

Outside of this past year which obviously had a lot to do with the hiring of Reaves, Holly really hasn't recruited well outside of signing Russell her first year.

The list of misses with huge amounts of playing time to be offered is MUCH longer than the list of hits.
 
#38
#38
Okay, here are the problems. And the first one is about definitions.

Everyone wants: 1. the legacy rebuilt/continued, 2. for the LV's to challenge for Conference titles, Final Fours and an NC. 3. solid recruiting efforts and player improvement. 4. a good “in-game” coach that can run great, productive practices, make winning strategic game plans and adjustments and out-coach the opposition.

Let's analyze...

Legacy Rebuilt/Continued – Does this mean rule the WCBB landscape the way Pat once did? Push past UConn as the pre-eminent women's basketball program? Neither of these is going to happen. Period. Pat's legacy is PAT's Legacy. She's gone, and it is too. Holly can't do the same thing. The hope would be that she could do something similar. UConn, and other top programs, will rise and fall on their own accord. No one will ever touch Auriemma's record, just like no one will ever touch Wooden's. There'll be an Auriemma legacy, and a Summitt legacy, and a Vandeveer legacy, and maybe a Staley legacy. Besides, legacies like Pat's consist of more than just wins and losses. Holly and any new coach are doomed to failure if this criteria is paramount and taken literally.

Challenge for Titles and Final Fours – Yes, this is doable. But what does “challenge” mean? Can we quantify it? Are we looking for consistency or occasional breakthroughs? Over the next ten years, what would be an acceptable level of success? Holly has a .738 winning percentage, with three Elite Eights and one Sweet Sixteen and two conference championships in her five years as coach. Admittedly, though, the trend the last two years is down, and the team that beat the #3, #4, #6, #7, #19, and #25 teams on the AP Top 25 list and the top four finishers in the SEC wound up at #33 nationally and fifth in the SEC because of eight losses to unranked teams. But it does mean that she has “challenged” for the Conference Championship and the Final Four more times than not. Obviously, that's not good enough for most fans... so what should the target be for, say, the next five years? Three conference championships, three Final Fours, an .850 winning percentage and at least one National Championship? And if anything less than that occurs – hire a new coach? Is that realistic?

Recruiting/Player Improvement – Tenn fans have this strange tendency to over-value the skills of their program's recruits and then be disappointed with the results they achieve. Many were convinced that landing Russell, and then DeShields meant that a NC was in the bag. But there are open questions here. Were the players as good as advertised? Were recruiting needs met, rather than just drafting the kids rated the highest by some recruiting service or, God forbid, ESPN? Once recruited were the players put in the correct “system” to match their skills, and were those skills “developed” during their time at UT? And did these kids have the right “work ethic” to begin with? And, if not, whose fault is that? This issue is hard to resolve; and with a top class of recruits coming in, I sense that expectations are unusually low at this point. So Holly may have succeeded in lowering expectations just enough so that the team might be able to meet them. But if DeShields and Russell leave she'll have to lower them a LOT more.

Game Coaching – Okay, I won't kid you. Nobody thinks Holly is a good game coach. I've never attended a practice so I can't comment on that. Heck, Holly doesn't even seem like she knows why the team lost after the game is over, much less at half-time. And she seems almost equally mystified when the team wins. But here's a caveat... a lot of coaches are very smooth when it comes to explaining wins and losses, and screaming instructions and exhortations during the game, time-outs and in the locker rooms. A lot of them aren't really good coaches at all. And no points are scored at half-time or in post-game press conferences. A lot of really good coaches are eloquently non-committal after a game... until they've studied the video six or eight times. And, of course, that doesn't do any good unless you've got the basketball smarts and aptitude to know what adjustments are possible with the arsenal you have and you're confident enough to issue the orders to your staff and actually make your players comply.

So have I made it all clear? Of course not. Because it isn't clear at all, and never will be.

What is my opinion on all this? Well. It's not clear cut. In fact, it's a very close call, and not a fair one. But I think I'd make a change as soon as the LV's lost in the Tourney. There are problems with a team that has Top 10 talent and loses to eight unranked teams. Problems that Holly either can't recognize or is unable to fix. I think Holly is probably in the top third of all WCBB coaches, but that will never be enough for the Summitt-spoiled fans. They need a Top 10 coach... and, yes, they're hard to come by, and there are no guarantees. But it's impossible to steal second base – much less get to third or home – if you keep one foot on first base. Tenn has coasted through two double-digit-loss seasons. But a few more and they'll run out of momentum. The warning signs are there.

This new class has a lot of promise. If they're used correctly and developed. Heck, a change might even make it more likely that DD or MR stay, it surely wouldn't make them more likely to leave. A new coach would have no loyalty to some of the players that have mailed it in in some games this year. He or she (and it CAN be a HE or a SHE) could take a fresh look at the talent and make decisions based on the future of the program, not the past. A new coach – and a whole new coaching staff – might be able to analyze the talent, the trends and opposition in the SEC, and prevent any existing negative attitudes from infecting the new recruits.

Who to hire? A proven head coach from a major conference. One who's done a lot with the talent he or she has, but is at a school without a WCBB pedigree that helps their recruiting. You'll find them in the SEC, the ACC, the Big 12. Maybe even in the AAC, Big 10, or Big East. (I'd avoid the Pac 12 – not sure the style of play or recruiting in that conference would translate to the SEC.)

I'm sure there'll be plenty of folks with strong opinions about who the best candidates are.

So do I think this is going to happen? No. Unless next year is a total washout, I expect Holly has at least two more years, maybe more. And perhaps, if she keeps challenging for Conference titles and Final Fours, a lot more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#39
#39
One of my new coach contenders for the past few years has been UCF coach Katie Abrahamson-Henderson.

This is her first season at UCF and she has lead them to a 20-11 record. Before her arrival, UCF was 7-23. They played UConn close, relatively speaking, in a 78-56 loss in the conference semis.

Prior to UCF, she was head coach for six years at Albany. She led them to five conference titles and their first NCAA tournament win in program history. She was also a three-time conference coach of the year.

We could use someone with her proven record of success.
 
#40
#40
10cpride said:
Solution: If Holly's biggest asset is her ability to recruit, keep her in that capacity but hire a staff that can coach no matter who it is.
Click to expand...

Listening to Diamond interviewed a while back about why she came to Tennessee she went on and on about the history of excellence, the championships, the legendary players, the mystique, growing up a fan when Pat was here, and any mention of Holly was almost an afterthought. My point is, I wonder how much of the great recruiting is really Holly, and how much is the remnants of the program Pat built....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#42
#42
Alabama didn't give up trying after the "Bear". What are we striving for? Tennessee was know for women's basketball. There is absolutely no reason not to pursue the best and keep pursing until we get a "Saban". Time to move on, and if that's not good enough it will be time to move on again.
 
#44
#44
larjoranj said:
Just curious. When we win Holly outcoached the other coach? What about when we lose? Did she get outcoached? Or would you say she should get credit for wins and the players should get blame for the losses?
Click to expand...

Doesn't it go the other way as well.... her fault when we lose... team winning on their own when we win
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#45
#45
ocoandasoc said:
Okay, here are the problems. And the first one is about definitions.

Everyone wants: 1. the legacy rebuilt/continued, 2. for the LV's to challenge for Conference titles, Final Fours and an NC. 3. solid recruiting efforts and player improvement. 4. a good “in-game” coach that can run great, productive practices, make winning strategic game plans and adjustments and out-coach the opposition.

Let's analyze...

Legacy Rebuilt/Continued – Does this mean rule the WCBB landscape the way Pat once did? Push past UConn as the pre-eminent women's basketball program? Neither of these is going to happen. Period. Pat's legacy is PAT's Legacy. She's gone, and it is too. Holly can't do the same thing. The hope would be that she could do something similar. UConn, and other top programs, will rise and fall on their own accord. No one will ever touch Auriemma's record, just like no one will ever touch Wooden's. There'll be an Auriemma legacy, and a Summitt legacy, and a Vandeveer legacy, and maybe a Staley legacy. Besides, legacies like Pat's consist of more than just wins and losses. Holly and any new coach are doomed to failure if this criteria is paramount and taken literally.

Challenge for Titles and Final Fours – Yes, this is doable. But what does “challenge” mean? Can we quantify it? Are we looking for consistency or occasional breakthroughs? Over the next ten years, what would be an acceptable level of success? Holly has a .738 winning percentage, with three Elite Eights and one Sweet Sixteen and two conference championships in her five years as coach. Admittedly, though, the trend the last two years is down, and the team that beat the #3, #4, #6, #7, #19, and #25 teams on the AP Top 25 list and the top four finishers in the SEC wound up at #33 nationally and fifth in the SEC because of eight losses to unranked teams. But it does mean that she has “challenged” for the Conference Championship and the Final Four more times than not. Obviously, that's not good enough for most fans... so what should the target be for, say, the next five years? Three conference championships, three Final Fours, an .850 winning percentage and at least one National Championship? And if anything less than that occurs – hire a new coach? Is that realistic?

Recruiting/Player Improvement – Tenn fans have this strange tendency to over-value the skills of their program's recruits and then be disappointed with the results they achieve. Many were convinced that landing Russell, and then DeShields meant that a NC was in the bag. But there are open questions here. Were the players as good as advertised? Were recruiting needs met, rather than just drafting the kids rated the highest by some recruiting service or, God forbid, ESPN? Once recruited were the players put in the correct “system” to match their skills, and were those skills “developed” during their time at UT? And did these kids have the right “work ethic” to begin with? And, if not, whose fault is that? This issue is hard to resolve; and with a top class of recruits coming in, I sense that expectations are unusually low at this point. So Holly may have succeeded in lowering expectations just enough so that the team might be able to meet them. But if DeShields and Russell leave she'll have to lower them a LOT more.

Game Coaching – Okay, I won't kid you. Nobody thinks Holly is a good game coach. I've never attended a practice so I can't comment on that. Heck, Holly doesn't even seem like she knows why the team lost after the game is over, much less at half-time. And she seems almost equally mystified when the team wins. But here's a caveat... a lot of coaches are very smooth when it comes to explaining wins and losses, and screaming instructions and exhortations during the game, time-outs and in the locker rooms. A lot of them aren't really good coaches at all. And no points are scored at half-time or in post-game press conferences. A lot of really good coaches are eloquently non-committal after a game... until they've studied the video six or eight times. And, of course, that doesn't do any good unless you've got the basketball smarts and aptitude to know what adjustments are possible with the arsenal you have and you're confident enough to issue the orders to your staff and actually make your players comply.

So have I made it all clear? Of course not. Because it isn't clear at all, and never will be.

What is my opinion on all this? Well. It's not clear cut. In fact, it's a very close call, and not a fair one. But I think I'd make a change as soon as the LV's lost in the Tourney. There are problems with a team that has Top 10 talent and loses to eight unranked teams. Problems that Holly either can't recognize or is unable to fix. I think Holly is probably in the top third of all WCBB coaches, but that will never be enough for the Summitt-spoiled fans. They need a Top 10 coach... and, yes, they're hard to come by, and there are no guarantees. But it's impossible to steal second base – much less get to third or home – if you keep one foot on first base. Tenn has coasted through two double-digit-loss seasons. But a few more and they'll run out of momentum. The warning signs are there.

This new class has a lot of promise. If they're used correctly and developed. Heck, a change might even make it more likely that DD or MR stay, it surely wouldn't make them more likely to leave. A new coach would have no loyalty to some of the players that have mailed it in in some games this year. He or she (and it CAN be a HE or a SHE) could take a fresh look at the talent and make decisions based on the future of the program, not the past. A new coach – and a whole new coaching staff – might be able to analyze the talent, the trends and opposition in the SEC, and prevent any existing negative attitudes from infecting the new recruits.

Who to hire? A proven head coach from a major conference. One who's done a lot with the talent he or she has, but is at a school without a WCBB pedigree that helps their recruiting. You'll find them in the SEC, the ACC, the Big 12. Maybe even in the AAC, Big 10, or Big East. (I'd avoid the Pac 12 – not sure the style of play or recruiting in that conference would translate to the SEC.)

I'm sure there'll be plenty of folks with strong opinions about who the best candidates are.

So do I think this is going to happen? No. Unless next year is a total washout, I expect Holly has at least two more years, maybe more. And perhaps, if she keeps challenging for Conference titles and Final Fours, a lot more.
Click to expand...

I really enjoyed this post. Especially the game-coaching paragraph.
Excellent points.
By the way, Becky Hammon.Or leave it alone.
 
Last edited:
#48
#48
armchair said:
in the pro-Warlick camp? You must be old timers. Have you actually watched this team play basketball for the last five years? Apparently not. We've not been good. We are not in the Top 25. We were seeded 7th--7th--in the SEC last year and 5th this year. Playing well every fourth game is not the mark of a good program. You seem to adopted the standards of Appalachian State. You state that if the UTAD fired Warlick, "the negative national press would be massive." That is a comically inane--stupid--statement. Why would the press be negative? Because of all that Warlick has achieved? She hasn't achieved ANYTHING. In fact, the reaction would be just the opposite--those who follow women's basketball would consider it a smart move. You say that there is a debate about whether the Vols might again get back to the top with Warlick. Need I remind you that the Warlick has been coaching the Vols for 6 years and we haven't even gotten to the Final Four--haven't been there for 10 years? She's a lousy coach. Banghart would coach circles around--like lots of other coaches have.

Did someone just mention the fact that they don't recruit in the Ivy League. Anybody who thinks Banghart couldn't recruit is thick. She wins. She's got qualities that Warlick doesn't have and will never have. Warlick's recruiting has been up and down--her problem is that she can't coach. We just lost to the 12the seeded Alabama--our second loss to them. There are dozens of coaches who would make us a much better program than we've been for 10 years, and yet some still believe that Warlick is the answer. Oh, my. :eek:hmy:
Click to expand...

I guess my post was not clear. I was suggesting that you were in the more thoughtful, trend tracking anti-camp Holly; rather than being focused in in-game X and O's, you would be thinking more about how problems in coaching (development and player preparation) hindered team performance.

As for the "inane, comic, stupidity" of suggesting that the press would be negative for firing at this point-- it would be the Gary Blair narrative-i.e., it is hard to follow a legend and Holly has carved out a 75% win percentage; three elite 8s and several SEC titles; and now she is poised to start a new era with her #1 recruiting class. The national media does not track performance trends as closely as hardcore fans do. And UTAD has the specter of having a hostile environment for women also lingering over it.

You can bet if Holly was fired. Michelle Voepel and other like commentators would be all over it; noting that the team had some high and lows this year but there was cause for optimism with the class coming in and so on.

I get that you HATE, HATE Holly being coach and believe that she should have never gotten the job but if you can step away from that POV for just a second, a case CAN be made (and indeed had often been made) that she stepped into a challenging position and has had a reasonable degree success, particularly with injuries factored in.

As I originally said, this good will can't last forever and these last two seasons might have done it, had the team not made an elite 8 run last season and the promise of next's years class and redshirt players.

But, the clock is ticking and Holly likely will be fired or forced to resigned if she does not deliver a Final four in the next two seasons.

No need to yell back at me. I am not proposing that Holly is John Wooden incarnate but that for the reasons noted above, she is not getting the ax this season, even if you helpfully suggest a better coaching option. Your point is that a case can be made for firing Holly now, no make that yesterday; Fine. My counter conjecture is that it would be highly unlikely for the UTAD to make that call right now. We will see soon enough whether or not Holly is on the LV's bench next season.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#49
#49
ocoandasoc said:
Okay, here are the problems. And the first one is about definitions.

Everyone wants: 1. the legacy rebuilt/continued, 2. for the LV's to challenge for Conference titles, Final Fours and an NC. 3. solid recruiting efforts and player improvement. 4. a good “in-game” coach that can run great, productive practices, make winning strategic game plans and adjustments and out-coach the opposition.

Let's analyze...

Legacy Rebuilt/Continued – Does this mean rule the WCBB landscape the way Pat once did? Push past UConn as the pre-eminent women's basketball program? Neither of these is going to happen. Period. Pat's legacy is PAT's Legacy. She's gone, and it is too. Holly can't do the same thing. The hope would be that she could do something similar. UConn, and other top programs, will rise and fall on their own accord. No one will ever touch Auriemma's record, just like no one will ever touch Wooden's. There'll be an Auriemma legacy, and a Summitt legacy, and a Vandeveer legacy, and maybe a Staley legacy. Besides, legacies like Pat's consist of more than just wins and losses. Holly and any new coach are doomed to failure if this criteria is paramount and taken literally.

Challenge for Titles and Final Fours – Yes, this is doable. But what does “challenge” mean? Can we quantify it? Are we looking for consistency or occasional breakthroughs? Over the next ten years, what would be an acceptable level of success? Holly has a .738 winning percentage, with three Elite Eights and one Sweet Sixteen and two conference championships in her five years as coach. Admittedly, though, the trend the last two years is down, and the team that beat the #3, #4, #6, #7, #19, and #25 teams on the AP Top 25 list and the top four finishers in the SEC wound up at #33 nationally and fifth in the SEC because of eight losses to unranked teams. But it does mean that she has “challenged” for the Conference Championship and the Final Four more times than not. Obviously, that's not good enough for most fans... so what should the target be for, say, the next five years? Three conference championships, three Final Fours, an .850 winning percentage and at least one National Championship? And if anything less than that occurs – hire a new coach? Is that realistic?

Recruiting/Player Improvement – Tenn fans have this strange tendency to over-value the skills of their program's recruits and then be disappointed with the results they achieve. Many were convinced that landing Russell, and then DeShields meant that a NC was in the bag. But there are open questions here. Were the players as good as advertised? Were recruiting needs met, rather than just drafting the kids rated the highest by some recruiting service or, God forbid, ESPN? Once recruited were the players put in the correct “system” to match their skills, and were those skills “developed” during their time at UT? And did these kids have the right “work ethic” to begin with? And, if not, whose fault is that? This issue is hard to resolve; and with a top class of recruits coming in, I sense that expectations are unusually low at this point. So Holly may have succeeded in lowering expectations just enough so that the team might be able to meet them. But if DeShields and Russell leave she'll have to lower them a LOT more.

Game Coaching – Okay, I won't kid you. Nobody thinks Holly is a good game coach. I've never attended a practice so I can't comment on that. Heck, Holly doesn't even seem like she knows why the team lost after the game is over, much less at half-time. And she seems almost equally mystified when the team wins. But here's a caveat... a lot of coaches are very smooth when it comes to explaining wins and losses, and screaming instructions and exhortations during the game, time-outs and in the locker rooms. A lot of them aren't really good coaches at all. And no points are scored at half-time or in post-game press conferences. A lot of really good coaches are eloquently non-committal after a game... until they've studied the video six or eight times. And, of course, that doesn't do any good unless you've got the basketball smarts and aptitude to know what adjustments are possible with the arsenal you have and you're confident enough to issue the orders to your staff and actually make your players comply.

So have I made it all clear? Of course not. Because it isn't clear at all, and never will be.

What is my opinion on all this? Well. It's not clear cut. In fact, it's a very close call, and not a fair one. But I think I'd make a change as soon as the LV's lost in the Tourney. There are problems with a team that has Top 10 talent and loses to eight unranked teams. Problems that Holly either can't recognize or is unable to fix. I think Holly is probably in the top third of all WCBB coaches, but that will never be enough for the Summitt-spoiled fans. They need a Top 10 coach... and, yes, they're hard to come by, and there are no guarantees. But it's impossible to steal second base – much less get to third or home – if you keep one foot on first base. Tenn has coasted through two double-digit-loss seasons. But a few more and they'll run out of momentum. The warning signs are there.

This new class has a lot of promise. If they're used correctly and developed. Heck, a change might even make it more likely that DD or MR stay, it surely wouldn't make them more likely to leave. A new coach would have no loyalty to some of the players that have mailed it in in some games this year. He or she (and it CAN be a HE or a SHE) could take a fresh look at the talent and make decisions based on the future of the program, not the past. A new coach – and a whole new coaching staff – might be able to analyze the talent, the trends and opposition in the SEC, and prevent any existing negative attitudes from infecting the new recruits.

Who to hire? A proven head coach from a major conference. One who's done a lot with the talent he or she has, but is at a school without a WCBB pedigree that helps their recruiting. You'll find them in the SEC, the ACC, the Big 12. Maybe even in the AAC, Big 10, or Big East. (I'd avoid the Pac 12 – not sure the style of play or recruiting in that conference would translate to the SEC.)

I'm sure there'll be plenty of folks with strong opinions about who the best candidates are.

So do I think this is going to happen? No. Unless next year is a total washout, I expect Holly has at least two more years, maybe more. And perhaps, if she keeps challenging for Conference titles and Final Fours, a lot more.
Click to expand...

We need someone like Kara Lawson, Carolyn Peck or Muffat McGraw.
 
#50
#50
tallyho said:
We need someone like Kara Lawson, Carolyn Peck or Muffat McGraw.
Click to expand...

Someone like them? Or actually one of them? Kara doesn't coach and a google search reveals she has a net worth of 4.5 million bucks - and she has a pretty decent job already. But if you meant a good former UT basketball player that has never coached then how about Scooter McFadgon?

Peck did win a NC nearly 20 years ago with 2 All Americans and a NCAA tourney MVP. But then she had a losing record in the WNBA, a losing record at Florida and is now an assistant on the worst team in the SEC.

McGraw is 61 and has been at Notre Dame since Heck was a pup. I hear it's a pretty good gig but you never know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top