Jim Calhoun retires from Connecticut

[hurleyfor3]

He often spoke of legacy, and at 873 wins and being in the top 5 with K, Boeheim, Rupp, knight, and Deano absolutely puts him among the best (let alone 3 titles). As mentioned, I think he wanted to end up over 900, but he realized time wasn't on his side.

He was only seven wins from passing Dean (879)? Now I wish he had stayed on one more year.

[throatybeard]

Deano retired in October IIRC

You are correct. To wit, on Throatybeard's twenty-first birthday, 9 October 1997.

Glad I could help out here.

[Cameron]

As someone who followed the program rather closely, I am hardly suprised by the announcement. He has said for years, at least since 2009, that he would leave after neither a great year, no a terrible one. After the disaster of 2010, followed by the championship in 2011, it seemed that he was bound to go soon. He also indicated that the desire to sit out his suspension last year was one of his motivating factors to come back. That seemed to indicate to ME at least, that he was ready to get out. Despite the first round loss in the tournament, The year was by most, very average, and he had served his suspension, and thus had all the "criteria" he seemed to indicate that he wanted before retirement.


Further, He has been clear that his "retirement" would be more a big deal in name than in actuality of how the team has run. As everyone knows, Ollie has been "prepped" to be the head coach ever since he returned to the team. I would imagine that as calhoun suffered health issues as well as a suspension, that while George Blaney was officially in charge (at 72 years old i think?) Mr. Ollie likely took on a huge role in running the team...though perhaps not in the public eye. Further, Kevin has been taking the lead role in recruiting, in so far as at least one recruit called HIM to recruit instead of coach calhoun (source: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/colleg...7VS4kSGsB8BX6K). So as Mr. Ollie has already had huge amounts of responsibility, Calhoun has indicated that he is not stepping away from the program. He has the title of special assistant to the athletic director, and has indicated he will often attend practice and consult with the new head coach. After that assignment, he will be the head coach emeritus, which would indicate he will still be involved in the program. So, in the end, what we see is that he is in fact being true to his word. He's taking a slightly lesser role with the team, and the decision to say Ollie was the head coach was more a formality.

I thought the only thing that might bring him back was a want to hit 900 or 903 wins, which would explain why they fought hard to have the wins while he was suspended be reinstated (as well as the postseason). Without those wins/opportunities for wins, his likelihood of getting the 27/30 (i think those are the numbers) wins are extremely slim. As such, it seemed all the more likely that he would throw in the towel. The injury likely put the final nail in the coffin. I don't think he ever, as you assert, thought he would end up with more wins than K, and I don't think that was ever the goal. He often spoke of legacy, and at 873 wins and being in the top 5 with K, Boeheim, Rupp, knight, and Deano absolutely puts him among the best (let alone 3 titles). As mentioned, I think he wanted to end up over 900, but he realized time wasn't on his side.

I think, more than anything, as a uconn fan, I'm releived. There won't be any more questions about the ethics of the coach and program to answer. There won't be any worry of what injury will beset the coach this year. The team is in what seems to be very capable hands, and Jim can go to one of the other things he does very well, philanthropy and community support. At this point, everybody is doing what they need to be, Jim, Kevin, and the Uconn players. I very much look forward to seeing how the program will work under Ollie, and I wish him the best of luck.

As a close follower of the program, your thoughts on this matter are obviously more attuned to the situation than are mine. But despite the persistent health issues, I just always got the impression that Calhoun operated by the same coaching clock as the late Joe Paterno, and that even though he insisted otherwise, Calhoun would have to be carried out of Gampel Pavilion in a body bag. Calhoun evidently just has a Timex.

As you kind of hit on, I did read an article that stated Calhoun had previously said that, when the time finally came, he would leave his post in the 11th hour, just before the start of an upcoming season, in order to ensure that the man he had hand-picked as his successor would be given the keys to the gym. This, of course, is the same reason that Dean Smith retired in October, giving North Carolina no choice but to hire long-time associate head coach Bill Guthridge. That kind of loyalty is admirable.

As for my comments regarding Calhoun coaching until all that was left was a skeleton in order to break Coach K's record, that was just to support my belief that Calhoun put winning before everything else, even dignity. The fact that UConn is barred from playing in March this season speaks for itself. With that said, I do have great respect for the philanthropic work he did off the court.

[Cameron]

He was only seven wins from passing Dean (879)? Now I wish he had stayed on one more year.

Great point. At least Jim Boeheim, who currently sits on win No. 880, already surpassed Dean last season, but it would have even more sweet to watch Dean slip to fourth all-time on the very list of wins that defined his career for so many years. At this point, 879 seems kind of underwhelming. That in itself might be the most impressive feat of K's entire career.

[tommy]

The UCLA brass did not pick a UCLA assistant; JD Morgan and crowd passed over internal candidates to pick Gene Bartow, who was the successful coach of UAB.

sagegrouse

We're off the thread topic here, but while you're right that UCLA did not pick a Wooden assistant to succeed him, Bartow was plucked from Illinois. It was after two years at UCLA that Bartow left to start the athletic program at UAB, where he also coached the basketball team, and had some real success. Upon Bartow's departure, UCLA then went to a former Wooden player and assistant, Gary Cunningham, who also won 50 games (maybe a few more if I'm not mistaken) in his two years at the helm.

[greybeard]

I see things differently.



From everything I know about him, Calhoun was and is an arrogant bully, and one who demonstrated on numerous occasions that he was woefully lacking in the ethics and integrity departments. Winning baskeball games was all that mattered to him. Players committing crimes? That's OK. Players not getting any kind of real education? That's OK. Anybody in the media question me or my judgment on any issue? Not in my fiefdom you don't.

I don't think his comeback last year was so heroic. UConn was rated a top-3 team pre-season, as their lineup looked to be stocked, including bringing in the best big man in high school basketball, by far (and doing so as a surprise at the last minute) in Andre Drummond. I think Calhoun thought that despite the lousy year they had had, that somehow he could come in, rally the troops, get em in line, and make a run for another championship. All about seeking more glory for himself. That's all.

Bully's don't attract the talent he did. Doesn't happen. I haven't heard word one from any of his stars that is negative about the guy. Was he demanding, probably. Did he give his studs free reign, not. He was no Bayheim; guys did there jobs, and only if he needed to let somebody loose like he did the last time UConn won it all did Calhoun not coach em' up. Pretty longshop coming back to make a run for a national championship after how UConn had showed all season, a fact underscored by how "well" they actually did in the post seasonl. Calhoun can make for the same reason that guys, very talented guys came to play for him. He was committed to his players, and to giving them what he could.

What I find so remarkable about your position is its failure to address Calhoun's health issues. Back surgery is a crap shoot that does not make "it all better." Lymph nodes are transmitters to mastization. He had 27 of them removed reasonably recently. When the doctors told him of the cancer they also told him that it was no big thingl=, not to worry about. Then they rocked him with the news that it had reached his lymth nodes. People have a cluster of nodes removed and still figure that they are on the meter. This guy was a three time loser and is a ticking time bomb.

I retired from being an attorney with the Federal Government, a job I never came close to having a passion for, or success in, that Calhoun has had in basketball. When I decided that I had had enough, it still wasn't easy to say goodbye to being a lawyer. I did not leave a job, I left a career, which is what Jim Calhoun was confronting. Given the bar from postseason play and the uality players that he had coming back, are you really trying to make the case that some one other than Calhoun's assistant shouldn't have been chosen? Calhoun did not preempt anyone from making a real coaching decision, he just gave them time. If you're in a card game and the administration is holding the hand that Calhoun should, according to you, have left them at the end of last season, you're really going all in that the administration would not do what Calhoun chose, what he would have told them to do? You're too knowledgible and smart to be arguing for the sake of argument and to put down a dedicated and tremendous coach who plain outcoached K in a championship game when K had the better hand. His guys played not just hard, but very, very intelligently and accomplished things that don't happen without Calhoun at the helm. UConn may have a winner in this feelow Ollie. If not, Calhoun gave UConn's administrators the chance to do what everyone here, or nearly everyone hear, said he should have provided them. How many ways you want it; I've run out of fingers.

Whether or not he "deserved" a shot, Esherick's teams did not perform. Here were his records:

1999 (he took over mid-season, to be fair): 15-15, NIT
2000: 19-15, NIT
2001: 25-8, Sweet 16
2002: 19-11; rejected bid to NIT
2003: 19-15, NIT
2004: 13-15, including 4-12 in the conference; no post season

So he took the Hoyas to one NCAA tournament in 6 seasons. The program fared far better both before his tenure and since. He may be a perfectly good guy, and I'm sure he is, but the program clearly faltered under his guidance. Oh, and he only put two players in the NBA - Ruben Boumtje-Boumtje and Mike Sweetney, neither of whom made it. He also did recruit Jeff Green and Roy Hibbert though, but he was fired before they made it to the league.

First, you didn't watch Georgetown play during that era. They played much, much better than their record showed. They often lost games by muffing plays down the stretch. Whose fault was that, you ask. Who cares. How many guys could have walked in that huddle with what was it 3 plus seconds left to go against Kentucky and said something to the effect, "Were going to win this game. Grant, can you throw a pass to Laetner . . . ." and have that happen. Come on. John Thompson had that ability, he had the ability to bring out te best, the unbriddled best in terms of athleticism, decision making, performance, on both sides of the ball, as well as the surity in each player that, well, who knows what the that was accept the players who experienced it and I doubt that any of them could put words around it. How could players on succeeding teams combining to play GEORGETOWN ball looking for whatever that was and not finding it?

Esherick did quite well and thus cute legerdemain about his recruiting--he didn't get to coach Green and Hibbert, come on. Neither was highly recruited, both turned out to be extraordinary players. Add in Bumptje and Sweetny and that's an awesome array of big men in the wake of the BIG MAN's having left. I do not remember the names of the other guys on Escherick's teams that could really, really play, and don't want to bother to look them up. There were many. Being GEORGETOWN without the Big Man to run the show, to do what Thompson does to make men of boys, disciplined, fearless players out of kids who had some talent, and get them to gel deep into the bench into more than the sum of their parts, well, I'm not mad at Escherick's record.

So, Thompson left his team to a guy who had been his top assistant for who knows how many years, as I witnessed it, those teams were quite good and played like it much more often then their record shows, made it to the sweet sixteen once in five years (same as K did recently, right), and left GT III with two guys who nobody batted an eye at when they came out except Esherick, who seems to have seen it right. I don't remember what other talent Escherick left GT III with, but I am sure it was enough to field a very credible team, at less the nucleous of one.

Finally, how can you argue with Thompson's stewardship of the Georgetown program from his seat on high when it lead to bringing a matured GT III to the Hilltop. The guy kicked the snot of the top ranked Duke team with Reddick and Sheldon, not by slowing it down as everyone predicated, but by playing an up tempo game that featured astonishing half court offense that left Sheldon lost. GT III also made toast of the other vaunted team from Tobacco Road, a team that was as good at the up tempo game as you can get. Well almost. Georgetown was better at it that night.

Maybe Thompson was just lucky that things worked out the way they did. Maybe Thompson could have gotten someone like Dawkins to succeed him at Georgetown, to come to McDonough arena (now that's a misuse of a term if there ever was one) to sell as a recruiting tool, or maybe he could have convinced Izzoy or somebody like him to leave millions behind to folllow in footsteps nobody on the planet could fill. We are talking about John Thompson, here men. K can never be in Sport, not just basketball, but sport, what John Thompson was, and Duke, no matter how many championships and pros it produces, will not be what GEORGETOWN was. NEVER.

Somehow, someway, Thompson got precisely the right person/coach/teacher/leader for a team that included two bigs whom he could help grown to a stature nobody could have predicted, whose teams put on a show bulot around a passing game that at times seemed to be the Meadowlark Lemon Globetrotters toying with an opponent made to look like the Washington Generals (watch the film of Georgetwon v Duke at the Verizon Center to catch an image of it.)

Vision, judgment, discernment, brilliance do not look for quick fixes, they produce longterm and longlasting results. They sometimes even do it with class in a way that creates a seemless web of men whose journeys make a whole. Thompson can live with and be proud of every step of that transition, he probably has feelings that go well beyond that. I know I do.




Tanked? Gene Bartow's first UCLA team went 28-4, including 13-1 in conference, and made it to the Final Four. His second team went 24-5, including 11-3 in the conference, before losing in the Sweet 16. That's 52-9 over two years. Too much pressure for him, though, so he left, but the Bruins can hardly be said to have "tanked" under his leadership.

SORRY, MY RESPONSES TO MOST ALL OF tOMMY'S POST ARE IN THE ABOVE TEXT ATTRIBUTED TO HIM. YOU WILL HAVE TO FERRET THOSE REMARKS OUT IF YOU CARE TO READ THEM. mY RESPONSES TO HIS bARTOW STUFF FOLLOWS.

Bartow lasted two years because he had been handed two championship calibur teams and was not up to the task of trying to recruit to compete on a high level. He was handed a team with 8 future pros when he began in the 75-76 season. The team was lead by a trio of top 5 first round picks in the front court, lead by Marcus Johnson. David Greenwood, a 6'9" inch could-do-it-all smooth, strong, athletic, and savy inside player widely regarded as the number 1 recruit in college basketball who went on to play like it, and 6'11" Richard Washington who could shoot mid range and score the ball inside, had been tournament MVP on Wooden's last run. Bartow could go bigger, if needed with either 7'2" Ralph Drollinger and 7' Brett Vrogram, both of whom could play. The team had three guards who played in the pros, one of whom, Andre McCarter had a long pro career, and another, Brad Holland, has had a successful college coaching career after a few years in the pros.

The next year Bartow was handed two more Wooden recruits to join Greenwood, Johnson, Vrogram, Townsend, and Holland. They woulod be KiKi Vandewehge and Keith Wilkes, both multiple-year all pros in the League. Bartowe was not run out of town, but rather got out of the big-time where he did not belong. He left his successor, who had been Wooden's longtime first assistant, with nothing coming in, and that was the beginning of the slide.

Ever see the documentary, Standing in the Shadows of Motown, or the Funk Brothers. The Funk Brothers were THE MOTOWN SOUND. They were a group of about 20 jazz musicians who created the music on the fly behind every Motown star in the '60s. One producer was who had worked with him who had been singing their praises (they played on more top ten hits than Elvis, the Beattles, and the Rolling Stones combined) was asked, "Well, they had some real good young talent out in front of him didn't he?" The producer answered, "Deputy Dog could have been singing them songs and they still would have been hits." Bartow was Deputy Dog.

Which is better, a short immediate dip followed by a resurgence or a short, dropped in your lap wining team followed by a long drought. Bartow left before he had a chance to stand on his own two feet and succeed or fail. His successors did not do too well, to say the least.

[JasonEvans]

SORRY, MY RESPONSES TO MOST ALL OF tOMMY'S POST ARE IN THE ABOVE TEXT ATTRIBUTED TO HIM. YOU WILL HAVE TO FERRET THOSE REMARKS OUT IF YOU CARE TO READ THEM. mY RESPONSES TO HIS bARTOW STUFF FOLLOWS.

Dude, you need to learn how to use the quote function. It really isn't all that hard. But asking us to pick out which of the quoted text is yours and which is his... ain't no way most of us (raises hand) are going to go through that unless you promise that your words contain the hidden key to cold fusion or some mystical formula that accurately predicts K's rotation for next season.

If you can't figure out how to parse a quote by inserting your own brackets, well, just let the system automatically quote the post and then put your comments below. I think we can all look back and see what you are referencing.

-Jason "sheesh... as if reading long posts wasn't taxing enough! Ha!" Evans

[JasonEvans]

As you kind of hit on, I did read an article that stated Calhoun had previously said that, when the time finally came, he would leave his post in the 11th hour, just before the start of an upcoming season, in order to ensure that the man he had hand-picked as his successor would be given the keys to the gym. This, of course, is the same reason that Dean Smith retired in October, giving North Carolina no choice but to hire long-time associate head coach Bill Guthridge. That kind of loyalty is admirable.

I think it depends on whether you think the Coach's first loyalty should be to the program or to his assistant coaches. If the coach should be loyal, first and foremost, to the program/school then retiring at a time that gives the school time to do a proper search is the proper thing to do. There is nothing to say that you cannot strongly recommend your assistant for the job and even push for him to get it, but you are giving the program/school options at that point. Personally, I fail to see the loyalty in putting your school in a tough place.

-Jason

[allenmurray]

unless you promise that your words contain the hidden key to cold fusion

Please Jason, don't tempt him. Now I'm expecting a 10,000 word post on that topic (and how it relates to soccer).

[greybeard]

Dude, you need to learn how to use the quote function. It really isn't all that hard. But asking us to pick out which of the quoted text is yours and which is his... ain't no way most of us (raises hand) are going to go through that unless you promise that your words contain the hidden key to cold fusion or some mystical formula that accurately predicts K's rotation for next season.

If you can't figure out how to parse a quote by inserting your own brackets, well, just let the system automatically quote the post and then put your comments below. I think we can all look back and see what you are referencing.

-Jason "sheesh... as if reading long posts wasn't taxing enough! Ha!" Evans

Don't bother. Grey "I completely agree with you about the long posts" beard

[tommy]

SORRY, MY RESPONSES TO MOST ALL OF tOMMY'S POST ARE IN THE ABOVE TEXT ATTRIBUTED TO HIM. YOU WILL HAVE TO FERRET THOSE REMARKS OUT IF YOU CARE TO READ THEM. mY RESPONSES TO HIS bARTOW STUFF FOLLOWS.

Bartow lasted two years because he had been handed two championship calibur teams and was not up to the task of trying to recruit to compete on a high level. He was handed a team with 8 future pros when he began in the 75-76 season. The team was lead by a trio of top 5 first round picks in the front court, lead by Marcus Johnson. David Greenwood, a 6'9" inch could-do-it-all smooth, strong, athletic, and savy inside player widely regarded as the number 1 recruit in college basketball who went on to play like it, and 6'11" Richard Washington who could shoot mid range and score the ball inside, had been tournament MVP on Wooden's last run. Bartow could go bigger, if needed with either 7'2" Ralph Drollinger and 7' Brett Vrogram, both of whom could play. The team had three guards who played in the pros, one of whom, Andre McCarter had a long pro career, and another, Brad Holland, has had a successful college coaching career after a few years in the pros.

The next year Bartow was handed two more Wooden recruits to join Greenwood, Johnson, Vrogram, Townsend, and Holland. They woulod be KiKi Vandewehge and Keith Wilkes, both multiple-year all pros in the League. Bartowe was not run out of town, but rather got out of the big-time where he did not belong. He left his successor, who had been Wooden's longtime first assistant, with nothing coming in, and that was the beginning of the slide.

Ever see the documentary, Standing in the Shadows of Motown, or the Funk Brothers. The Funk Brothers were THE MOTOWN SOUND. They were a group of about 20 jazz musicians who created the music on the fly behind every Motown star in the '60s. One producer was who had worked with him who had been singing their praises (they played on more top ten hits than Elvis, the Beattles, and the Rolling Stones combined) was asked, "Well, they had some real good young talent out in front of him didn't he?" The producer answered, "Deputy Dog could have been singing them songs and they still would have been hits." Bartow was Deputy Dog.

Which is better, a short immediate dip followed by a resurgence or a short, dropped in your lap wining team followed by a long drought. Bartow left before he had a chance to stand on his own two feet and succeed or fail. His successors did not do too well, to say the least.

First of all, I agree with Jason. The usual spelling errors and, uh, unusual syntax and sentence structure make it hard enough to read and comprehend your posts, but really, you've got to use the quote function properly or else it's just impossible.

Now Greybeard, I love ya. Love your posts, the passion, and the usually offbeat positions you take. I actually look forward to your posts, because if nothing else they're entertaining. But while you're of course entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts, and your post is rife with factual inaccuracies. I'll do the best I can to establish your words in the proper quote boxes and then fill in with mine, so as to make it understandable for other readers.

Bully's don't attract the talent he did. Doesn't happen.

Bob Knight didn't attract talent? Or he wasn't a bully? What about Bob Huggins? No talent? Or not a bully? Frank Martin? Need I go on?

What I find so remarkable about your position is its failure to address Calhoun's health issues.

I understand the health issues. I just don't agree with you that coming back to coach last year with those health issues was in any way heroic. To me it was irresponsible and selfish. Wonder what his family thought of it. And I don't think there's any way he would've done it if he had a less talented team, one he didn't think somehow could pull it together and make a run for another title.

Are you really trying to make the case that some one other than Calhoun's assistant shouldn't have been chosen? Calhoun did not preempt anyone from making a real coaching decision, he just gave them time. If you're in a card game and the administration is holding the hand that Calhoun should, according to you, have left them at the end of last season, you're really going all in that the administration would not do what Calhoun chose, what he would have told them to do?

Like Jason indicated, I think the timing of Calhoun's announcement of his decision left UConn's administrators with no choice other than to give it to Ollie, as this is September and practice starts in a month. How would they be able to hire somebody from the outside at this very late date? Very, very difficult. By waiting until now, Calhoun forced their hand, forced them to hire HIS choice. The right thing to do would've been to announce the retirement months ago to give the administration the time to conduct a thorough search and make the best hire they could. Maybe it would've turned out to be Ollie anyway. But that should've been THEIR decision, not Calhoun's. Again, selfish and arrogant.

First, you didn't watch Georgetown play during that era.

And you know that . . . how? Your presumptuousness, and the inaccuracy of those presumptions, can truly be breathtaking.

Come on. John Thompson had that ability, he had the ability to bring out te best, the unbriddled best in terms of athleticism, decision making, performance, on both sides of the ball, as well as the surity in each player that, well, who knows what the that was accept the players who experienced it and I doubt that any of them could put words around it. How could players on succeeding teams combining to play GEORGETOWN ball looking for whatever that was and not finding it?

The team performed far better in the years preceding Esherick's tenure, and far better in the years after Esherick was fired. Is it possible that was coincidence, and had nothing to do with Esherick? Sure, it's possible. Not reasonable, but possible.

Esherick did quite well and thus cute legerdemain about his recruiting--he didn't get to coach Green and Hibbert, come on. Neither was highly recruited, both turned out to be extraordinary players. Add in Bumptje and Sweetny and that's an awesome array of big men in the wake of the BIG MAN's having left. I do not remember the names of the other guys on Escherick's teams that could really, really play, and don't want to bother to look them up. There were many.

The original John Thompson recruited Boumtje-Boumtje. Esherick recruited and coached Sweetney. He recruited both Green and Hibbert, but didn't coach either one, so it's hard to give him credit for their development. The only big men of note that Esherick coached, then, are Boumtje-Boumtje and Sweetney. Both were nice college players, but that's all. This group was "extraordinary?" "Awesome?" Don't you think that's a bit hyperbolic? And the reason you don't remember the names of the other guys on Esherick's teams is because they were eminently forgettable. I just reviewed their rosters from those years. There was nothing there. Other than the couple of big guys already mentioned, the best player in the Esherick years was Kevin Braswell. No wonder the teams' records were so average.

K can never be in Sport, not just basketball, but sport, what John Thompson was, and Duke, no matter how many championships and pros it produces, will not be what GEORGETOWN was. NEVER.

You don't think the program that Mike Krzyzewski has built in the 30 years he's been at Duke -- both on and off the court -- is equal to what Thompson did during his tenure at Georgetown? Really? Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think you would be in a tiny, tiny minority in holding this view. K is almost universally viewed to belong on the Mt. Rushmore of college coaches, along with Wooden and Dean Smith and, depending on the person opining, Rupp, Allen, or a very few others. I've never heard of Thompson even being in that conversation.

Bartow lasted two years because he had been handed two championship calibur teams and was not up to the task of trying to recruit to compete on a high level. He was handed a team with 8 future pros when he began in the 75-76 season. The team was lead by a trio of top 5 first round picks in the front court, lead by Marcus Johnson. David Greenwood, a 6'9" inch could-do-it-all smooth, strong, athletic, and savy inside player widely regarded as the number 1 recruit in college basketball who went on to play like it, and 6'11" Richard Washington who could shoot mid range and score the ball inside, had been tournament MVP on Wooden's last run. Bartow could go bigger, if needed with either 7'2" Ralph Drollinger and 7' Brett Vrogram, both of whom could play. The team had three guards who played in the pros, one of whom, Andre McCarter had a long pro career, and another, Brad Holland, has had a successful college coaching career after a few years in the pros.

Bartow was an accomplished head coach before coming to UCLA, having taken Memphis to the Final Four in 1973, just a couple of years before getting the UCLA job.

Bartow's first UCLA team did indeed have a solid roster. But David Greenwood, a future top 5 pick, was a freshman on that team, who blossomed the following year -- under Bartow. Andre McCarter had an undistinguished three year NBA career. Holland, though he suffered a knee injury, was not a success in the NBA either. Drollinger averaged 7 ppg in his career, Vroman averaged 4 ppg. Serviceable big guys, but that's all.

The next year Bartow was handed two more Wooden recruits to join Greenwood, Johnson, Vrogram, Townsend, and Holland. They woulod be KiKi Vandewehge and Keith Wilkes, both multiple-year all pros in the League. Bartowe was not run out of town, but rather got out of the big-time where he did not belong. He left his successor, who had been Wooden's longtime first assistant, with nothing coming in, and that was the beginning of the slide.

How could he be "handed" two more Wooden recruits when Wooden had been retired for over a year and Bartow was clearly in control of the program, including recruiting? He did get Kiki Vandeweghe, but Keith Wilkes had graduated several years earlier, in 1974. You must have meant James Wilkes, who was nowhere near the player as was Keith (later Jamaal) Wilkes. James never averaged more than 8.8 ppg in his UCLA career.

Bartow had already proven that he "belonged" by virtue of the two Final Fours he had coached teams to, one at Memphis and one at UCLA. He proved it again by building UAB literally from scratch -- he started the program -- and getting them to the Sweet 16 in his third year, the Elite 8 in his fourth, and making 7 straight NCAA appearances and nine overall in his UAB career. Not too shabby.

[UConnJack]

They edited it at the right moment. Just after they cut him off, he said, "You'll never catch me, Jimmy-boy! Nyaah nyaah nyaah nyaah!"

-Jason "I may have imagined that part" Evans

He might not have to if Duke's 2010 title is vacated...

[Duvall]

He might not have to if Duke's 2010 title is vacated...

Good luck this season in the CBI.

[UConnJack]

Good luck this season in the CBI.

Touche'

Although I don't we can play in that either.

[greybeard]

No, I do not drink or use drugs, I have not had a stroke, do not have a brain tumor and have lost no brain function at anytime since birth. It is called a retinal macular pucker; I have one in my left eye. If I close my right eye and look out of my left, vertical lines have a significant bulge that moves with the reorientation of my eye. Looking out of both eyes I do just fine, although I have to say that the degeneration of infrastructure we read so much about has reached telephone poles, all of which, regardless of age, have a slight warp to them in the same direction. Reading, however, is a different story. I read best when I find just the right orientation of my head, and need to "lock in" with the muscles surrounding my eyes to different degrees depending on print size and spacing. When typing and composing in small, tight formats presented here this eye condition plays havoc with my vision that I am not sure I can do justice to, but I'll try. Let me first say that the distortions that I will now attempt to describe do not always arise, but their dimension has increased with the width of the pucker. Also, I cannot say that I am aware of all that happens that disturbs my vision when locking in on reading and also to think through what I want to say starts to strain the muscles that lock in requires (that is a process I have deduced, not something my opthomologist or retinal specialist has put forth. Here goes.

As my lock in focus begins to overload and lock in begins to progressively wane, letters, words in smaller than larger (as long as an entire line) clusters begin to randomly replicate or worse still move, which is to say disappear and then reappear elsewhere. The replicating and moving The replicating and moving occur when I go back into the text as every writer does to move forward consistent with what he or she has written and how. Deleting the second phantom repetition is not the way to go way to go, because then you are left with no way to go. If you think you can always remember that, take a couple of deep breaths. The need to go back, especially if the moving occurs during the course of editing is a nightmare that I am sure you can imagine. Actually, not. Things get particularly pernicious when the end of one sentence and the beginning of the next sentence disappear, leaving me with no clue as to what I said. Reading further is stepping deeper into the mire as the missing words pop up in the midst of an ensuing sentence, often making that sentence jibberish. Of all this sounds disturbing sit for a moment in my shoes and you will know disturbing. The problem is that the process is like getting caught in an under current that you try to fight against thinking that you can overcome it. The harder you work the more frustrated and confused you become until you finally come to appreciate that you should have stopped wading in further when you felt the first tugs, which is to say too late. Sometimes you actually win some of these battles but in the process you can forget how to spell "I"--only a minor overstatement, and end up fighting to find a word that comes close in meaning to use as a substitute only it ruins any chance that what you have written reads.

I could go on but I think you've gotten the jist. I began finding bizzare half spelled words or words so badly spelled that they were unrecognizable in short posts that I reread after the fact. The posts were to the point, were understandable, and often carried a worthwhile thought. I decided I could live with the cost. It was not until I went back to reread a lengthy post about a month or so ago and found it to be horrific jibberish that I understood where this pucker had taken me, or should I say, I had taken it. I toyed with the idea of posting a thread setting forth the explanation I am providing now but decided against it. I resolved instead to keep my posts to a single thought tersely written in a paragraph, maybe two. When I found myself writing something not in integrity with my intention I would leave the webpage, get up from the computer and save us all. There have been times when button pushing issues have arisen that I lost myself in the moment.

I thought I had "manned up" when I decided against the thread but have been made to see (thank you all) that the opposite was true. Where I go from here, I am not sure. I will probably see if now I can stick to my resolve. Should I wish to write something that goes beyond that limiting constraint, I will work in a word document with larger letters and greater spacing.

The good news is that the surgical intervention always fixes the pucker problem and is an easy recovery. The bad news is that in one percent of the cases, an infection sets in that leaves you with one less problem to worry about, if you catch my drift. So far, I am following my expert team's recommendation to live with it. We'll see.

[tommy]

No, I do not drink or use drugs, I have not had a stroke, do not have a brain tumor and have lost no brain function at anytime since birth. It is called a retinal macular pucker; I have one in my left eye. If I close my right eye and look out of my left, vertical lines have a significant bulge that moves with the reorientation of my eye. Looking out of both eyes I do just fine, although I have to say that the degeneration of infrastructure we read so much about has reached telephone poles, all of which, regardless of age, have a slight warp to them in the same direction. Reading, however, is a different story. I read best when I find just the right orientation of my head, and need to "lock in" with the muscles surrounding my eyes to different degrees depending on print size and spacing. When typing and composing in small, tight formats presented here this eye condition plays havoc with my vision that I am not sure I can do justice to, but I'll try. Let me first say that the distortions that I will now attempt to describe do not always arise, but their dimension has increased with the width of the pucker. Also, I cannot say that I am aware of all that happens that disturbs my vision when locking in on reading and also to think through what I want to say starts to strain the muscles that lock in requires (that is a process I have deduced, not something my opthomologist or retinal specialist has put forth. Here goes.

As my lock in focus begins to overload and lock in begins to progressively wane, letters, words in smaller than larger (as long as an entire line) clusters begin to randomly replicate or worse still move, which is to say disappear and then reappear elsewhere. The replicating and moving The replicating and moving occur when I go back into the text as every writer does to move forward consistent with what he or she has written and how. Deleting the second phantom repetition is not the way to go way to go, because then you are left with no way to go. If you think you can always remember that, take a couple of deep breaths. The need to go back, especially if the moving occurs during the course of editing is a nightmare that I am sure you can imagine. Actually, not. Things get particularly pernicious when the end of one sentence and the beginning of the next sentence disappear, leaving me with no clue as to what I said. Reading further is stepping deeper into the mire as the missing words pop up in the midst of an ensuing sentence, often making that sentence jibberish. Of all this sounds disturbing sit for a moment in my shoes and you will know disturbing. The problem is that the process is like getting caught in an under current that you try to fight against thinking that you can overcome it. The harder you work the more frustrated and confused you become until you finally come to appreciate that you should have stopped wading in further when you felt the first tugs, which is to say too late. Sometimes you actually win some of these battles but in the process you can forget how to spell "I"--only a minor overstatement, and end up fighting to find a word that comes close in meaning to use as a substitute only it ruins any chance that what you have written reads.

I could go on but I think you've gotten the jist. I began finding bizzare half spelled words or words so badly spelled that they were unrecognizable in short posts that I reread after the fact. The posts were to the point, were understandable, and often carried a worthwhile thought. I decided I could live with the cost. It was not until I went back to reread a lengthy post about a month or so ago and found it to be horrific jibberish that I understood where this pucker had taken me, or should I say, I had taken it. I toyed with the idea of posting a thread setting forth the explanation I am providing now but decided against it. I resolved instead to keep my posts to a single thought tersely written in a paragraph, maybe two. When I found myself writing something not in integrity with my intention I would leave the webpage, get up from the computer and save us all. There have been times when button pushing issues have arisen that I lost myself in the moment.

I thought I had "manned up" when I decided against the thread but have been made to see (thank you all) that the opposite was true. Where I go from here, I am not sure. I will probably see if now I can stick to my resolve. Should I wish to write something that goes beyond that limiting constraint, I will work in a word document with larger letters and greater spacing.

The good news is that the surgical intervention always fixes the pucker problem and is an easy recovery. The bad news is that in one percent of the cases, an infection sets in that leaves you with one less problem to worry about, if you catch my drift. So far, I am following my expert team's recommendation to live with it. We'll see.

Grey,

Thanks so much for your post. I'm sure it wasn't easy for you to reveal all of that. While I'm sure all of us will continue to have our own opinions, and enjoy the debate, I for one will no longer be giving you a hard time for your spelling and syntax/structure related issues in your posts, as obviously there is a reason for it that is not your fault. Maybe one option would be to write first in Word, and use the spellcheck and other editing features, then when it's in good shape, copy/paste it into a post on DBR. I don't know, just an idea. In any event, best of luck to you in your battle with this condition, and I look forward to continued spirited, positive, and respectful debates with you.

[Cameron]

I think it depends on whether you think the Coach's first loyalty should be to the program or to his assistant coaches. If the coach should be loyal, first and foremost, to the program/school then retiring at a time that gives the school time to do a proper search is the proper thing to do. There is nothing to say that you cannot strongly recommend your assistant for the job and even push for him to get it, but you are giving the program/school options at that point. Personally, I fail to see the loyalty in putting your school in a tough place.

-Jason

You're right, it all depends on your perspective of how you think the order of things should be -- should the coach show more loyalty to his staff or to the school he represents. I think the answer is probably a little bit of both.

In Dean Smith's case, I'm sure that he firmly believed he was making the best decision for both parties involved at that point in time in 1997. Being that North Carolina would never have entertained a national coaching search anyhow due to the basketball program's strong affinity for keeping things in the family, Dean obviously felt strongly that the school could do no better from within the organization at that particular juncture in the program's history than Bill Guthridge, who had spent 30 years at UNC as Smith's right-hand man. He was a Tar Heel lifer who had been a significant cog in two national titles and 10 of the Final Fours that the program achieved under Smith, so who better to transition the program into the post-Smith era than a man who learned from and embodied everything that Smith stood for.

Dean left behind one hell of a roster when he retired. That 1997-98 UNC squad had the ingredients to make for one of the greatest teams in college basketball history. We all know the names. Guys like Bersticker, Ndiaye and Newby. Just kidding With the core of the 1996-97 team that had reached the Final Four and won the ACC championship all coming back, there is no doubt that Dean believed it was in the best interests of the university to entrust the care of Antawn Jamison, Vince Carter and Shammond Williams in the hands of someone with the utmost familiarity to the program, someone like Bill Guthridge, who had given decades of dedicated service and had proven he deserved the opportunity.

I imagine that Jim Calhoun thinks similarly of Kevin Ollie.

[jimsumner]

For the record, I have no problem with Dean Smith being ahead of Jim Calhoun on the career-wins list.

[sagegrouse]

You're right, it all depends on your perspective of how you think the order of things should be -- should the coach show more loyalty to his staff or to the school he represents. I think the answer is probably a little bit of both.

This ain't no conundrum. Look at your paycheck, Calhoun. Who's it from? UConn, maybe? Read your contract, especially the general terms about "best effort," "sole loyalty," and so forth. Resigning or retiring in a way that is best for the program is a duty of the head coach. And, no, I don't expect Jim Calhoun to acknowledge this, but he should.

sagegrouse

[uh_no]

You're right, it all depends on your perspective of how you think the order of things should be -- should the coach show more loyalty to his staff or to the school he represents. I think the answer is probably a little bit of both.

In Dean Smith's case, I'm sure that he firmly believed he was making the best decision for both parties involved at that point in time in 1997. Being that North Carolina would never have entertained a national coaching search anyhow due to the basketball program's strong affinity for keeping things in the family, Dean obviously felt strongly that the school could do no better from within the organization at that particular juncture in the program's history than Bill Guthridge, who had spent 30 years at UNC as Smith's right-hand man. He was a Tar Heel lifer who had been a significant cog in two national titles and 10 of the Final Fours that the program achieved under Smith, so who better to transition the program into the post-Smith era than a man who learned from and embodied everything that Smith stood for.

Dean left behind one hell of a roster when he retired. That 1997-98 UNC squad had the ingredients to make for one of the greatest teams in college basketball history. We all know the names. Guys like Bersticker, Ndiaye and Newby. Just kidding With the core of the 1996-97 team that had reached the Final Four and won the ACC championship all coming back, there is no doubt that Dean believed it was in the best interests of the university to entrust the care of Antawn Jamison, Vince Carter and Shammond Williams in the hands of someone with the utmost familiarity to the program, someone like Bill Guthridge, who had given decades of dedicated service and had proven he deserved the opportunity.

I imagine that Jim Calhoun thinks similarly of Kevin Ollie.

I think uconn is in a different boat...I'm pretty sure they're gonna be starting a few of the players off the women's team... :P

That said, they have a few good guards, but are hugely lacking in size...i doubt they make the tournament next year...OH WAIT...that's already been decided