The CardBoard
Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe (/thread-2833.html)

Pages: 1 2

Well, credit to garvin - Redrum - 01-21-2012

As a guy who cares next to nothing about basketball and then only pays attention to Stanford basketball... only a headline like THAT would get me to read.  Read and wonder.    But, garvin's right.  Assuming that guy was not just into being ironic as some sort of performance art,  that is some major ass-sucking.

Well, credit to garvin - Redrum - 01-21-2012

As a guy who cares next to nothing about basketball and then only pays attention to Stanford basketball... only a headline like THAT would get me to read.  Read and wonder.    But, garvin's right.  Assuming that guy was not just into being ironic as some sort of performance art,  that is some major ass-sucking.

Well, credit to garvin - Redrum - 01-21-2012

As a guy who cares next to nothing about basketball and then only pays attention to Stanford basketball... only a headline like THAT would get me to read.  Read and wonder.    But, garvin's right.  Assuming that guy was not just into being ironic as some sort of performance art,  that is some major ass-sucking.

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - gtrplyr1 - 01-21-2012

Let me tell you something. Dan Belluomini clearly doesn't have to watch Stanford on a regular basis.

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - gtrplyr1 - 01-21-2012

Let me tell you something. Dan Belluomini clearly doesn't have to watch Stanford on a regular basis.

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - gtrplyr1 - 01-21-2012

Let me tell you something. Dan Belluomini clearly doesn't have to watch Stanford on a regular basis.

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - JohnR34231 - 01-22-2012

I'm a pretty casual Stanford basketball fan, but I've always thought the Dawkins-bashers were being too impatient and not giving him enough time to come down the learning curve as a head coach and get his program established. Now I'm beginning to think they may have been right all along. The clock is now ticking, or at least it should be.

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - JohnR34231 - 01-22-2012

I'm a pretty casual Stanford basketball fan, but I've always thought the Dawkins-bashers were being too impatient and not giving him enough time to come down the learning curve as a head coach and get his program established. Now I'm beginning to think they may have been right all along. The clock is now ticking, or at least it should be.

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - JohnR34231 - 01-22-2012

I'm a pretty casual Stanford basketball fan, but I've always thought the Dawkins-bashers were being too impatient and not giving him enough time to come down the learning curve as a head coach and get his program established. Now I'm beginning to think they may have been right all along. The clock is now ticking, or at least it should be.

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - LuckE2Bhere - 01-22-2012

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that we "were a national basketball power" when Trent Johnson walked out that door (with the Lopez twins leading the path).

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - LuckE2Bhere - 01-22-2012

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that we "were a national basketball power" when Trent Johnson walked out that door (with the Lopez twins leading the path).

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - LuckE2Bhere - 01-22-2012

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that we "were a national basketball power" when Trent Johnson walked out that door (with the Lopez twins leading the path).

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - Hank 91 - 01-22-2012

(01-22-2012, 11:34 AM)garvin link Wrote:pretty impressive when you remember the conference also included Lute Olson's powerful team. We should have been an attractive destination for any number of coaches.
Not to mention the Jim Harrick/Steve Lavin UCLA teams. (I know, not a lot of coaching going on there, but lots of winning.)

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - Hank 91 - 01-22-2012

(01-22-2012, 11:34 AM)garvin link Wrote:pretty impressive when you remember the conference also included Lute Olson's powerful team. We should have been an attractive destination for any number of coaches.
Not to mention the Jim Harrick/Steve Lavin UCLA teams. (I know, not a lot of coaching going on there, but lots of winning.)

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - Hank 91 - 01-22-2012

(01-22-2012, 11:34 AM)garvin link Wrote:pretty impressive when you remember the conference also included Lute Olson's powerful team. We should have been an attractive destination for any number of coaches.
Not to mention the Jim Harrick/Steve Lavin UCLA teams. (I know, not a lot of coaching going on there, but lots of winning.)

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - FarmBoy - 01-23-2012

Quote:We should have been an attractive destination for any number of coaches.

I don't know. Stanford is such a unique situation, I can understand if top coaching candidates are more wary of taking on the job than another program with perhaps less history of success. Looking at the players that Monty succeeded with (Tony freakin' Geovachinni???), I think most people recognized that MM did a helluva job and perhaps was the right man at the right job at the right time at Stanford. Most coaches make their way up the ranks coaching at smaller schools or being assistants at big time programs like UNC, Duke, Kansas, etc. All they know is basketball factories and schools that could give a damn about player academics as long as they meet the NCAA minimum and stay eligible. If you're a blue chip candidate, and you have your choice between Indiana and Stanford, I gotta think you're more excited about what Indiana offers than Stanford, even though Stanford has arguably a stronger recent history. Why take on the headache and handcuffs of Stanford recruiting? A lot of our coaches do a great job of selling the academics as a positive, but all most candidates probably see is the frustration of having to get the admissions office sign off before you can actively recruit a given player.

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - FarmBoy - 01-23-2012

Quote:We should have been an attractive destination for any number of coaches.

I don't know. Stanford is such a unique situation, I can understand if top coaching candidates are more wary of taking on the job than another program with perhaps less history of success. Looking at the players that Monty succeeded with (Tony freakin' Geovachinni???), I think most people recognized that MM did a helluva job and perhaps was the right man at the right job at the right time at Stanford. Most coaches make their way up the ranks coaching at smaller schools or being assistants at big time programs like UNC, Duke, Kansas, etc. All they know is basketball factories and schools that could give a damn about player academics as long as they meet the NCAA minimum and stay eligible. If you're a blue chip candidate, and you have your choice between Indiana and Stanford, I gotta think you're more excited about what Indiana offers than Stanford, even though Stanford has arguably a stronger recent history. Why take on the headache and handcuffs of Stanford recruiting? A lot of our coaches do a great job of selling the academics as a positive, but all most candidates probably see is the frustration of having to get the admissions office sign off before you can actively recruit a given player.

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - FarmBoy - 01-23-2012

Quote:We should have been an attractive destination for any number of coaches.

I don't know. Stanford is such a unique situation, I can understand if top coaching candidates are more wary of taking on the job than another program with perhaps less history of success. Looking at the players that Monty succeeded with (Tony freakin' Geovachinni???), I think most people recognized that MM did a helluva job and perhaps was the right man at the right job at the right time at Stanford. Most coaches make their way up the ranks coaching at smaller schools or being assistants at big time programs like UNC, Duke, Kansas, etc. All they know is basketball factories and schools that could give a damn about player academics as long as they meet the NCAA minimum and stay eligible. If you're a blue chip candidate, and you have your choice between Indiana and Stanford, I gotta think you're more excited about what Indiana offers than Stanford, even though Stanford has arguably a stronger recent history. Why take on the headache and handcuffs of Stanford recruiting? A lot of our coaches do a great job of selling the academics as a positive, but all most candidates probably see is the frustration of having to get the admissions office sign off before you can actively recruit a given player.

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - Yellowlab - 01-23-2012

(01-23-2012, 09:37 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:
Quote:We should have been an attractive destination for any number of coaches.

I don't know. Stanford is such a unique situation, I can understand if top coaching candidates are more wary of taking on the job than another program with perhaps less history of success. Looking at the players that Monty succeeded with (Tony freakin' Geovachinni???), I think most people recognized that MM did a helluva job and perhaps was the right man at the right job at the right time at Stanford. Most coaches make their way up the ranks coaching at smaller schools or being assistants at big time programs like UNC, Duke, Kansas, etc. All they know is basketball factories and schools that could give a damn about player academics as long as they meet the NCAA minimum and stay eligible. If you're a blue chip candidate, and you have your choice between Indiana and Stanford, I gotta think you're more excited about what Indiana offers than Stanford, even though Stanford has arguably a stronger recent history. Why take on the headache and handcuffs of Stanford recruiting? A lot of our coaches do a great job of selling the academics as a positive, but all most candidates probably see is the frustration of having to get the admissions office sign off before you can actively recruit a given player.

Tara's father told her that Stanford was a coach's graveyard.  ;D

Re: Dan Belluomini, ass-sucking King of the Universe - Yellowlab - 01-23-2012

(01-23-2012, 09:37 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:
Quote:We should have been an attractive destination for any number of coaches.

I don't know. Stanford is such a unique situation, I can understand if top coaching candidates are more wary of taking on the job than another program with perhaps less history of success. Looking at the players that Monty succeeded with (Tony freakin' Geovachinni???), I think most people recognized that MM did a helluva job and perhaps was the right man at the right job at the right time at Stanford. Most coaches make their way up the ranks coaching at smaller schools or being assistants at big time programs like UNC, Duke, Kansas, etc. All they know is basketball factories and schools that could give a damn about player academics as long as they meet the NCAA minimum and stay eligible. If you're a blue chip candidate, and you have your choice between Indiana and Stanford, I gotta think you're more excited about what Indiana offers than Stanford, even though Stanford has arguably a stronger recent history. Why take on the headache and handcuffs of Stanford recruiting? A lot of our coaches do a great job of selling the academics as a positive, but all most candidates probably see is the frustration of having to get the admissions office sign off before you can actively recruit a given player.

Tara's father told her that Stanford was a coach's graveyard.  ;D