03-14-2016, 08:27 PM
She didn't say better coach she said better man. Anyone who spent 5 minutes with Johnny would agree on the better man part.Â
Sources report: Dawkins out
03-14-2016, 08:27 PM
She didn't say better coach she said better man. Anyone who spent 5 minutes with Johnny would agree on the better man part.Â
03-14-2016, 08:27 PM
I expect the next coach to make the NCAA tournament because I believe we have the returning talent to get there and will be disappointed if we don't get there. But every new coach is entitled to a stumble or two before they get declared a failure. The feelings about Dawkins did not start after a single bad year, but have become ossified after 8 years of poor play, punctuated by a single NCAA tournament berth.
Most people wanted Buddy fired after his three years. Despite the loss against Davis and yet another failure to make a bowl game, most people also gave Harris a mulligan his first year, but the calls to fire him grew louder after the 1-11 season. Harbaugh didn't lead us to a bowl game the next year, or the year after, but had the team playing better so that pretty much nobody thought he ought to be fired after 4-8/5-7 seasons.
BC
Most people wanted Buddy fired after his three years. Despite the loss against Davis and yet another failure to make a bowl game, most people also gave Harris a mulligan his first year, but the calls to fire him grew louder after the 1-11 season. Harbaugh didn't lead us to a bowl game the next year, or the year after, but had the team playing better so that pretty much nobody thought he ought to be fired after 4-8/5-7 seasons.
BC
I expect the next coach to make the NCAA tournament because I believe we have the returning talent to get there and will be disappointed if we don't get there. But every new coach is entitled to a stumble or two before they get declared a failure. The feelings about Dawkins did not start after a single bad year, but have become ossified after 8 years of poor play, punctuated by a single NCAA tournament berth.
Most people wanted Buddy fired after his three years. Despite the loss against Davis and yet another failure to make a bowl game, most people also gave Harris a mulligan his first year, but the calls to fire him grew louder after the 1-11 season. Harbaugh didn't lead us to a bowl game the next year, or the year after, but had the team playing better so that pretty much nobody thought he ought to be fired after 4-8/5-7 seasons.
BC
Most people wanted Buddy fired after his three years. Despite the loss against Davis and yet another failure to make a bowl game, most people also gave Harris a mulligan his first year, but the calls to fire him grew louder after the 1-11 season. Harbaugh didn't lead us to a bowl game the next year, or the year after, but had the team playing better so that pretty much nobody thought he ought to be fired after 4-8/5-7 seasons.
BC
03-14-2016, 08:27 PM
I expect the next coach to make the NCAA tournament because I believe we have the returning talent to get there and will be disappointed if we don't get there. But every new coach is entitled to a stumble or two before they get declared a failure. The feelings about Dawkins did not start after a single bad year, but have become ossified after 8 years of poor play, punctuated by a single NCAA tournament berth.
Most people wanted Buddy fired after his three years. Despite the loss against Davis and yet another failure to make a bowl game, most people also gave Harris a mulligan his first year, but the calls to fire him grew louder after the 1-11 season. Harbaugh didn't lead us to a bowl game the next year, or the year after, but had the team playing better so that pretty much nobody thought he ought to be fired after 4-8/5-7 seasons.
BC
Most people wanted Buddy fired after his three years. Despite the loss against Davis and yet another failure to make a bowl game, most people also gave Harris a mulligan his first year, but the calls to fire him grew louder after the 1-11 season. Harbaugh didn't lead us to a bowl game the next year, or the year after, but had the team playing better so that pretty much nobody thought he ought to be fired after 4-8/5-7 seasons.
BC
I expect the next coach to make the NCAA tournament because I believe we have the returning talent to get there and will be disappointed if we don't get there. But every new coach is entitled to a stumble or two before they get declared a failure. The feelings about Dawkins did not start after a single bad year, but have become ossified after 8 years of poor play, punctuated by a single NCAA tournament berth.
Most people wanted Buddy fired after his three years. Despite the loss against Davis and yet another failure to make a bowl game, most people also gave Harris a mulligan his first year, but the calls to fire him grew louder after the 1-11 season. Harbaugh didn't lead us to a bowl game the next year, or the year after, but had the team playing better so that pretty much nobody thought he ought to be fired after 4-8/5-7 seasons.
BC
Most people wanted Buddy fired after his three years. Despite the loss against Davis and yet another failure to make a bowl game, most people also gave Harris a mulligan his first year, but the calls to fire him grew louder after the 1-11 season. Harbaugh didn't lead us to a bowl game the next year, or the year after, but had the team playing better so that pretty much nobody thought he ought to be fired after 4-8/5-7 seasons.
BC
03-14-2016, 08:36 PM
(03-14-2016, 08:03 PM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158604#msg158604 date=1458009990]
Please explain why, given the exact same players, the exact same outcome is a complete failure for one coach and "not a bad outcome" for another?
I think it's fair to assume a new coach has a steep learning curve to get to know the players, maximize their talents, figure out a school's culture, develop offensive and defensive schemes that work for the particular permutations on hand, etc. In other words, all other things equal, it's reasonable to think a new coach's team would perform worse in year 1 than a mediocre coach's same team in year 9.
[/quote]
I don't think that is always the case and, in particular, not the case in the situation where [as here] the previous coach is fired for long-term underachievement that has created a somewhat toxic environment. There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets -- fans are naturally more optimistic and more excited; they actually start attending games again, and they are less critical and more willing to give the new coach "a pass" that they would never have given the old coach in that same season. That new atmosphere, in turn, leads to better performance by the players as the emotional baggage of the prior season(s) is shed and basketball gets to be "fun" again. Unless there is a drastic change in the respective schemes of the old and new coaches -- or unless the players really aren't as talented as everyone assumed when they were blaming the team's poor performance on the previous coach rather than on the players themselves -- the first year of a new coach under these circumstances is often fairly successful. It seems to me that it is the second year -- i.e. the year in which a "sophomore slump" either appears or doesn't -- that provides a better indicator of the new coach's abilities and potential for long term success. [Again, this assumes a coach with prior head coaching experience. If the coach has never been a head coach before, then I agree with you entirely.]
Look at OSU and Wayne Tinkle, for example.
(03-14-2016, 08:03 PM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158604#msg158604 date=1458009990]
Please explain why, given the exact same players, the exact same outcome is a complete failure for one coach and "not a bad outcome" for another?
I think it's fair to assume a new coach has a steep learning curve to get to know the players, maximize their talents, figure out a school's culture, develop offensive and defensive schemes that work for the particular permutations on hand, etc. In other words, all other things equal, it's reasonable to think a new coach's team would perform worse in year 1 than a mediocre coach's same team in year 9.
[/quote]
I don't think that is always the case and, in particular, not the case in the situation where [as here] the previous coach is fired for long-term underachievement that has created a somewhat toxic environment. There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets -- fans are naturally more optimistic and more excited; they actually start attending games again, and they are less critical and more willing to give the new coach "a pass" that they would never have given the old coach in that same season. That new atmosphere, in turn, leads to better performance by the players as the emotional baggage of the prior season(s) is shed and basketball gets to be "fun" again. Unless there is a drastic change in the respective schemes of the old and new coaches -- or unless the players really aren't as talented as everyone assumed when they were blaming the team's poor performance on the previous coach rather than on the players themselves -- the first year of a new coach under these circumstances is often fairly successful. It seems to me that it is the second year -- i.e. the year in which a "sophomore slump" either appears or doesn't -- that provides a better indicator of the new coach's abilities and potential for long term success. [Again, this assumes a coach with prior head coaching experience. If the coach has never been a head coach before, then I agree with you entirely.]
Look at OSU and Wayne Tinkle, for example.
03-14-2016, 08:36 PM
(03-14-2016, 08:03 PM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158604#msg158604 date=1458009990]
Please explain why, given the exact same players, the exact same outcome is a complete failure for one coach and "not a bad outcome" for another?
I think it's fair to assume a new coach has a steep learning curve to get to know the players, maximize their talents, figure out a school's culture, develop offensive and defensive schemes that work for the particular permutations on hand, etc. In other words, all other things equal, it's reasonable to think a new coach's team would perform worse in year 1 than a mediocre coach's same team in year 9.
[/quote]
I don't think that is always the case and, in particular, not the case in the situation where [as here] the previous coach is fired for long-term underachievement that has created a somewhat toxic environment. There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets -- fans are naturally more optimistic and more excited; they actually start attending games again, and they are less critical and more willing to give the new coach "a pass" that they would never have given the old coach in that same season. That new atmosphere, in turn, leads to better performance by the players as the emotional baggage of the prior season(s) is shed and basketball gets to be "fun" again. Unless there is a drastic change in the respective schemes of the old and new coaches -- or unless the players really aren't as talented as everyone assumed when they were blaming the team's poor performance on the previous coach rather than on the players themselves -- the first year of a new coach under these circumstances is often fairly successful. It seems to me that it is the second year -- i.e. the year in which a "sophomore slump" either appears or doesn't -- that provides a better indicator of the new coach's abilities and potential for long term success. [Again, this assumes a coach with prior head coaching experience. If the coach has never been a head coach before, then I agree with you entirely.]
Look at OSU and Wayne Tinkle, for example.
(03-14-2016, 08:03 PM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158604#msg158604 date=1458009990]
Please explain why, given the exact same players, the exact same outcome is a complete failure for one coach and "not a bad outcome" for another?
I think it's fair to assume a new coach has a steep learning curve to get to know the players, maximize their talents, figure out a school's culture, develop offensive and defensive schemes that work for the particular permutations on hand, etc. In other words, all other things equal, it's reasonable to think a new coach's team would perform worse in year 1 than a mediocre coach's same team in year 9.
[/quote]
I don't think that is always the case and, in particular, not the case in the situation where [as here] the previous coach is fired for long-term underachievement that has created a somewhat toxic environment. There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets -- fans are naturally more optimistic and more excited; they actually start attending games again, and they are less critical and more willing to give the new coach "a pass" that they would never have given the old coach in that same season. That new atmosphere, in turn, leads to better performance by the players as the emotional baggage of the prior season(s) is shed and basketball gets to be "fun" again. Unless there is a drastic change in the respective schemes of the old and new coaches -- or unless the players really aren't as talented as everyone assumed when they were blaming the team's poor performance on the previous coach rather than on the players themselves -- the first year of a new coach under these circumstances is often fairly successful. It seems to me that it is the second year -- i.e. the year in which a "sophomore slump" either appears or doesn't -- that provides a better indicator of the new coach's abilities and potential for long term success. [Again, this assumes a coach with prior head coaching experience. If the coach has never been a head coach before, then I agree with you entirely.]
Look at OSU and Wayne Tinkle, for example.
03-14-2016, 08:38 PM
(03-14-2016, 07:49 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=14741.msg158598#msg158598 date=1458007038]
[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158585#msg158585 date=1457998683]
Even an N.IT championship next year, for example -- which launched Monty's successful trajectory back then -- will be summarily dismissed by everyone as a complete failure.
If Stanford won the NIT next year, I would see it as a step in the right direction. There's a big difference winning the NIT in your first or second season vs your 7th.
[/quote]
So you're assuming we will be hiring someone with no head coaching experience? I'd be really surprised if that happened.
[/quote]
I agree but regardless of whether the new coach has HC experience or not, I will give him (or her!) a pass for the first two years.
But I did mean 1st/2nd years with the program, not career.
(03-14-2016, 07:49 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=14741.msg158598#msg158598 date=1458007038]
[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158585#msg158585 date=1457998683]
Even an N.IT championship next year, for example -- which launched Monty's successful trajectory back then -- will be summarily dismissed by everyone as a complete failure.
If Stanford won the NIT next year, I would see it as a step in the right direction. There's a big difference winning the NIT in your first or second season vs your 7th.
[/quote]
So you're assuming we will be hiring someone with no head coaching experience? I'd be really surprised if that happened.
[/quote]
I agree but regardless of whether the new coach has HC experience or not, I will give him (or her!) a pass for the first two years.
But I did mean 1st/2nd years with the program, not career.
03-14-2016, 08:38 PM
(03-14-2016, 07:49 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=14741.msg158598#msg158598 date=1458007038]
[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158585#msg158585 date=1457998683]
Even an N.IT championship next year, for example -- which launched Monty's successful trajectory back then -- will be summarily dismissed by everyone as a complete failure.
If Stanford won the NIT next year, I would see it as a step in the right direction. There's a big difference winning the NIT in your first or second season vs your 7th.
[/quote]
So you're assuming we will be hiring someone with no head coaching experience? I'd be really surprised if that happened.
[/quote]
I agree but regardless of whether the new coach has HC experience or not, I will give him (or her!) a pass for the first two years.
But I did mean 1st/2nd years with the program, not career.
(03-14-2016, 07:49 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=14741.msg158598#msg158598 date=1458007038]
[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158585#msg158585 date=1457998683]
Even an N.IT championship next year, for example -- which launched Monty's successful trajectory back then -- will be summarily dismissed by everyone as a complete failure.
If Stanford won the NIT next year, I would see it as a step in the right direction. There's a big difference winning the NIT in your first or second season vs your 7th.
[/quote]
So you're assuming we will be hiring someone with no head coaching experience? I'd be really surprised if that happened.
[/quote]
I agree but regardless of whether the new coach has HC experience or not, I will give him (or her!) a pass for the first two years.
But I did mean 1st/2nd years with the program, not career.
03-14-2016, 08:39 PM
(03-14-2016, 08:36 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets
I look forward to returning to Maples in November for the first time since spring 2013.
03-14-2016, 08:39 PM
(03-14-2016, 08:36 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets
I look forward to returning to Maples in November for the first time since spring 2013.
03-14-2016, 08:41 PM
Fire the new coach! Don't wait for the first loss!
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
03-14-2016, 08:41 PM
Fire the new coach! Don't wait for the first loss!
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
03-14-2016, 08:50 PM
(03-14-2016, 08:39 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158612#msg158612 date=1458012996]
There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets
I look forward to returning to Maples in November for the first time since spring 2013.
[/quote]
I'm sure the team will appreciate having you back... :)
By the way, will it become the Newly Important Tournament next year if that's where we end up? ;D
(03-14-2016, 08:39 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158612#msg158612 date=1458012996]
There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets
I look forward to returning to Maples in November for the first time since spring 2013.
[/quote]
I'm sure the team will appreciate having you back... :)
By the way, will it become the Newly Important Tournament next year if that's where we end up? ;D
03-14-2016, 08:50 PM
(03-14-2016, 08:39 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158612#msg158612 date=1458012996]
There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets
I look forward to returning to Maples in November for the first time since spring 2013.
[/quote]
I'm sure the team will appreciate having you back... :)
By the way, will it become the Newly Important Tournament next year if that's where we end up? ;D
(03-14-2016, 08:39 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158612#msg158612 date=1458012996]
There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets
I look forward to returning to Maples in November for the first time since spring 2013.
[/quote]
I'm sure the team will appreciate having you back... :)
By the way, will it become the Newly Important Tournament next year if that's where we end up? ;D
03-15-2016, 03:51 AM
More speculation on possible hires:
-Jamie Dixon (Pitt)
-Randy Bennett (St. Mary's)
-Chris Collins (Northwestern)
-Tommy Amaker (Harvard)
Not a yuge fan of any of these options. Dixon and Bennett are treading water, and while Collins is promising and has upside potential, I'm not sure he has a proven track record yet. And both he and Amaker are Dukies, so it'd be nice to get out from under the Coach K coaching tree for the next hire.
-Jamie Dixon (Pitt)
-Randy Bennett (St. Mary's)
-Chris Collins (Northwestern)
-Tommy Amaker (Harvard)
Not a yuge fan of any of these options. Dixon and Bennett are treading water, and while Collins is promising and has upside potential, I'm not sure he has a proven track record yet. And both he and Amaker are Dukies, so it'd be nice to get out from under the Coach K coaching tree for the next hire.
More speculation on possible hires:
-Jamie Dixon (Pitt)
-Randy Bennett (St. Mary's)
-Chris Collins (Northwestern)
-Tommy Amaker (Harvard)
Not a yuge fan of any of these options. Dixon and Bennett are treading water, and while Collins is promising and has upside potential, I'm not sure he has a proven track record yet. And both he and Amaker are Dukies, so it'd be nice to get out from under the Coach K coaching tree for the next hire.
-Jamie Dixon (Pitt)
-Randy Bennett (St. Mary's)
-Chris Collins (Northwestern)
-Tommy Amaker (Harvard)
Not a yuge fan of any of these options. Dixon and Bennett are treading water, and while Collins is promising and has upside potential, I'm not sure he has a proven track record yet. And both he and Amaker are Dukies, so it'd be nice to get out from under the Coach K coaching tree for the next hire.
03-15-2016, 03:51 AM
More speculation on possible hires:
-Jamie Dixon (Pitt)
-Randy Bennett (St. Mary's)
-Chris Collins (Northwestern)
-Tommy Amaker (Harvard)
Not a yuge fan of any of these options. Dixon and Bennett are treading water, and while Collins is promising and has upside potential, I'm not sure he has a proven track record yet. And both he and Amaker are Dukies, so it'd be nice to get out from under the Coach K coaching tree for the next hire.
-Jamie Dixon (Pitt)
-Randy Bennett (St. Mary's)
-Chris Collins (Northwestern)
-Tommy Amaker (Harvard)
Not a yuge fan of any of these options. Dixon and Bennett are treading water, and while Collins is promising and has upside potential, I'm not sure he has a proven track record yet. And both he and Amaker are Dukies, so it'd be nice to get out from under the Coach K coaching tree for the next hire.
More speculation on possible hires:
-Jamie Dixon (Pitt)
-Randy Bennett (St. Mary's)
-Chris Collins (Northwestern)
-Tommy Amaker (Harvard)
Not a yuge fan of any of these options. Dixon and Bennett are treading water, and while Collins is promising and has upside potential, I'm not sure he has a proven track record yet. And both he and Amaker are Dukies, so it'd be nice to get out from under the Coach K coaching tree for the next hire.
-Jamie Dixon (Pitt)
-Randy Bennett (St. Mary's)
-Chris Collins (Northwestern)
-Tommy Amaker (Harvard)
Not a yuge fan of any of these options. Dixon and Bennett are treading water, and while Collins is promising and has upside potential, I'm not sure he has a proven track record yet. And both he and Amaker are Dukies, so it'd be nice to get out from under the Coach K coaching tree for the next hire.
03-15-2016, 05:24 AM
Quote:Danny Hurley coached a game at Stanford recently. He is a joke. Ranting and raving the whole time, no time for his team too busy yelling at the refs. No nuts and no dookie or dookie connections allowed.
I wasn't familiar with his in game persona when I made the suggestion and I would rather not have a coaching caricature on the sideline drawing attention from the game and players. However, the counterpoint is that we recently had success with a turn around coach in football who drew unnecessary attention to himself and relationship with the media and opponents who turned out pretty good for the program. True, when you act up on the football sideline, it's less noticeable than in a smaller basketball arena.
And Danny Hurley doesn't have any direct connections to Dook. He played for Seton Hall. Being a brother to a Dook alum should not disqualify a candidate. Given Coach K's coaching tree, I bet we could find some tenuous connection between any of the current candidates and the Dook program.
I'm not pushing for Hurley. But I wouldn't discount him entirely for the reasons you gave.
Quote:Danny Hurley coached a game at Stanford recently. He is a joke. Ranting and raving the whole time, no time for his team too busy yelling at the refs. No nuts and no dookie or dookie connections allowed.
I wasn't familiar with his in game persona when I made the suggestion and I would rather not have a coaching caricature on the sideline drawing attention from the game and players. However, the counterpoint is that we recently had success with a turn around coach in football who drew unnecessary attention to himself and relationship with the media and opponents who turned out pretty good for the program. True, when you act up on the football sideline, it's less noticeable than in a smaller basketball arena.
And Danny Hurley doesn't have any direct connections to Dook. He played for Seton Hall. Being a brother to a Dook alum should not disqualify a candidate. Given Coach K's coaching tree, I bet we could find some tenuous connection between any of the current candidates and the Dook program.
I'm not pushing for Hurley. But I wouldn't discount him entirely for the reasons you gave.
03-15-2016, 05:24 AM
Quote:Danny Hurley coached a game at Stanford recently. He is a joke. Ranting and raving the whole time, no time for his team too busy yelling at the refs. No nuts and no dookie or dookie connections allowed.
I wasn't familiar with his in game persona when I made the suggestion and I would rather not have a coaching caricature on the sideline drawing attention from the game and players. However, the counterpoint is that we recently had success with a turn around coach in football who drew unnecessary attention to himself and relationship with the media and opponents who turned out pretty good for the program. True, when you act up on the football sideline, it's less noticeable than in a smaller basketball arena.
And Danny Hurley doesn't have any direct connections to Dook. He played for Seton Hall. Being a brother to a Dook alum should not disqualify a candidate. Given Coach K's coaching tree, I bet we could find some tenuous connection between any of the current candidates and the Dook program.
I'm not pushing for Hurley. But I wouldn't discount him entirely for the reasons you gave.
Quote:Danny Hurley coached a game at Stanford recently. He is a joke. Ranting and raving the whole time, no time for his team too busy yelling at the refs. No nuts and no dookie or dookie connections allowed.
I wasn't familiar with his in game persona when I made the suggestion and I would rather not have a coaching caricature on the sideline drawing attention from the game and players. However, the counterpoint is that we recently had success with a turn around coach in football who drew unnecessary attention to himself and relationship with the media and opponents who turned out pretty good for the program. True, when you act up on the football sideline, it's less noticeable than in a smaller basketball arena.
And Danny Hurley doesn't have any direct connections to Dook. He played for Seton Hall. Being a brother to a Dook alum should not disqualify a candidate. Given Coach K's coaching tree, I bet we could find some tenuous connection between any of the current candidates and the Dook program.
I'm not pushing for Hurley. But I wouldn't discount him entirely for the reasons you gave.
03-15-2016, 06:34 AM
(03-14-2016, 08:50 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=14741.msg158614#msg158614 date=1458013184]
[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158612#msg158612 date=1458012996]
There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets
I look forward to returning to Maples in November for the first time since spring 2013.
[/quote]
I'm sure the team will appreciate having you back... :)
By the way, will it become the Newly Important Tournament next year if that's where we end up? ;D
[/quote]
Nope still the Not Important Tournament. But I'll say it again - new coach gets a couple years.
(03-14-2016, 08:50 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=14741.msg158614#msg158614 date=1458013184]
[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158612#msg158612 date=1458012996]
There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets
I look forward to returning to Maples in November for the first time since spring 2013.
[/quote]
I'm sure the team will appreciate having you back... :)
By the way, will it become the Newly Important Tournament next year if that's where we end up? ;D
[/quote]
Nope still the Not Important Tournament. But I'll say it again - new coach gets a couple years.
03-15-2016, 06:34 AM
(03-14-2016, 08:50 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=14741.msg158614#msg158614 date=1458013184]
[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158612#msg158612 date=1458012996]
There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets
I look forward to returning to Maples in November for the first time since spring 2013.
[/quote]
I'm sure the team will appreciate having you back... :)
By the way, will it become the Newly Important Tournament next year if that's where we end up? ;D
[/quote]
Nope still the Not Important Tournament. But I'll say it again - new coach gets a couple years.
(03-14-2016, 08:50 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=14741.msg158614#msg158614 date=1458013184]
[quote author=76lsjumb link=topic=14741.msg158612#msg158612 date=1458012996]
There is an emotional "bump" that the new coach gets
I look forward to returning to Maples in November for the first time since spring 2013.
[/quote]
I'm sure the team will appreciate having you back... :)
By the way, will it become the Newly Important Tournament next year if that's where we end up? ;D
[/quote]
Nope still the Not Important Tournament. But I'll say it again - new coach gets a couple years.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »