Off- topic discussion about the phonetic alphabet
- Thread starter NJCat
- Start date
And yet they had success. Twice.
When successful, greatest coaches on earth.
When terrible, greatest coaches on earth hamstrung by admissions…
Longest running, non-sensible dog chasing its tail argument. Chicken? Egg? (If that age old question has been answered btw)
Yes, got to the tourney. But to compare the restrictions Collins works under at NU to who he could recruit at Duke is insane.
Please feel free to offer your logical explanation of NU’s basketball history, both past and present. One other item to consider - you shouldn’t say all of our coaches have sucked for 90 years.
He's spent an enormous amount of time talking to top recruits. Though the number of top recruits considering NU is way smaller, the skills he acquired should apply. He should have a good sense of how they think: Do I start? Can I shoot? How much TV time do I get? ... and how to help them make the right decision.
I don't think it's that complicated. CCC is a good coach, but not the greatest on earth. He is hamstrung by admissions which means a coach like him could probably make the tournament more than twice in 10 years at another school.
This has always been a problem and the admissions office is short sighted to see the benefit of not being so strict which can benefit the school in terms of applications for the general student population and good press for the school. With that being said let's hope Ty Davis and Andrew Crawford sign on as well as a few others as this will be a big class and we need some quality recruits in this class
Ok. Basketball recruiting is very imperfect science, especially rankings. Basketball results can be achieved as a sum of the parts over outstanding single players. (See Duke last year)
It takes very good coaching. Coaching that identifies talent or a system and then works towards unity between the two. Then good coaching develops the talent and excels at executing game plans with talent that has bought in. And these excellent coaches are rare - like rare great players or rare great anything.
Sometimes, people stumble into excellence. BC was a guy w a system but refused to recruit for his system and ignored rebounding. But he had some pretty good recruiting coaches that delivered some pretty flexible and talented players and BC had some success. He could not be consistent nor achieve the next level. He refused to do the work to recruit the perfect set of 13 guys fit for his system.
CCC seems to be unsure what he is. He chases exquisite talent that shuns him. He also has preconceived notion of what he wants to run and squeezes his roster to fill that notion. He too has stumbled into some talented players and last year, probably under duress, a defensive minded coach with a defense system. He let the coach develop the system and that guy built a very good defensive system that fit the talent.
They still had little on offense. The D carried the day. CCC stumbled into it.
So, TLDR, there are coaches, very few, that come in with their own system, comb the country for 13 players spread over five years of ages, that can get into NU (probably not highly recruited either) and succeed. And decent coaches can get lucky enough to succeed occasionally. Below average will have no success and bitch about admissions.
The first evidence I would offer was that coach at valpo that did exactly what I described. The second piece of evidence to support the notion that admissions doesn’t preclude success are the two dances in the last 15 years.
I put CCC in the BC bucket of good enough to get lucky somewhat but far from great and certainly not the ceiling for NU MBB.
Probably didn’t go to a class more than a few times in second semester.
Since you are bound to feel the wrath of some who totally disagree with you...
I'll say this. Well first of all, its cool that you expressed what you think. You are entitled to your opinion. But regarding the part about Collins - I actually think he is learning, or has learned from some of his mistakes.
Lowery may have been an experienced voice who helped Collins adjust his perspective (on more than defense, I mean). We have not had many "worldly" assistants before Lowery showed up - the kind of assistant with an alternate perspective who could say privately "Hey I think we did this wrong or are doing this wrong" or even "Hey Chris, lighten up, we played like crap, it happens." I don't think the Collins turnaround was primarily because Gragg put him on double secret probation.
On the recruiting front, I think Collins has always been pretty good, but as you say, had a tendency to try to get the top talent, sort of glossing over the fact that the competition is fierce for those guys, rather than focusing on talented players who already thought highly of NU. I do think he has made significant progress in adjusting his approach. The talent lately has been pretty good.
Time will tell on the other stuff. If we come out next season with Luke Hunger pretending he's Pete Nance out at the 3 point arc, I'll be depressed.
Like our larger population, people think and assign in polar grouping. I don’t think CCC is terrible - but I would give average at best.
Seems given admissions, you cannot choose between pushing a system or recruiting best talent on the planet. You have to install a system - an effective one in both sides of the ball. Then you have to recruit to your system and forget about rankings.
If you insist a stretch 4 system, or despise a giant on the post system, then recruit accordingly. If you want positionless ball, if your D is based on constant switch (as opposed to a host of options out there) then recruit only those players.
When you land some top talent but they don’t fit your system, it’s dumb to push square pegs into round holes. Nance and Young are recent reminders but there are many more.
My litmus test for next year will be the O. You have Boo and MN with a system and just growing more comfortable. BB has shown he might be more reliable option on O than Chase - got the three, got the drive. The base system, IMHO, should be an Utah Stockton Malone one.
Start w two man game - Boo and MN. Let BB slash and float, pray Berry and Lang can hit from three accurately when open and ride the game that the Jazz used successfully for a career (x2).
But if CCC starts pushing weird lineups, fails to ride the largest man in the B1G along with the oldest man in the league - then I think it simply reinforces - not a great coach. He has all the tools, experience, opportunity this coming year.
And why does an Utah seem wrong and a Utah sound better….
As I think about this longer, D has to respect Boo - he can drive with decent jumper. Can’t lag. You have to double MN. With the motion of the pick and roll and necessary double to Andre the Giant, MN should have one, sometime two, wide open options to pass out to.
When they don’t double, hammer time. Fail to play the pick and roll right and three potential outcomes.
This team starts (before injuries destroy my dreams) as a high O potential with a proven D system and players.
Glad you took me up on my offer - thanks.
Solid points, but have to say that Boo and MN are perfect examples that refute your opinions. Collins went after unheralded guys and developed them. With Boo, it’s on both sides of the ball. With MN, Collins found a way for a guy with no offensive skills to help an offense. And he made him a monster on D.
We know Nance and Young were not top recruits. That’s why we got them. But I would take them again any time.
You will never be convinced that having success despite admissions limitations is: 1) an amazing accomplishment, and 2) not proof that it is not a limitation.
Last point - your conclusion that CCC and BC are average implies that other NU coaches who had success prior to NU (Foster, O’Neill, Winter) but none at NU were poor coaches…
Because the letter "u" can represent several different sounds. English is a quite non-phonetic language, and when spoken has more than 40 separate phonemes (sounds) although written with only 26 letters.
"Utah" actually begins with a consonant sound, same as "yellow." So using the old rule of an before a vowel and a before a consonant, you're right: it should be "a Utah system."
(Pardon the pedantry. I had to teach the International Phonetic Alphabet for a number of years.)
Nance was the highest recruit in NU history, Young was 25. CCC arguably mismanaged MN in not playing him at all until he has no other options. Remember, he didn’t even start MN to begin last season.
Yes, CCC fell into a talented D coach that got the most out of some flexible and talented kids. No O. But have game changing D.
True - I will never agree with giving great credit for the good and hall pass for the bad. I do believe both success at NU as well as valpo, Princeton, Stanford have shown coaching, not admissions, controls.
Finally, all those guys weren’t any good as college coaches. KON? Find someone that endorsed him. Foster? Not at NU. Winter, like James, best suited in an assistant role. No good as head coach. Byrdsong? RIP but had a couple loose screws. Who else you got?
Remember, in my day, the Taylor days, athletics success was not important. At all.
Last edited:
Try Jim Calhoun. Said he could never win at NU - it’s a fact. He had a reason that you will not acknowledge. Taking it further in your view - the Hurleys’ are geniuses; the Collins’ are idiots. It’s just not true.
Love this. One of my favorite posts ever on the basketball board. Thanks for the education.
There's a big gap between "good" and "greatest on earth" and IMHO he has earned at least "great coach". His huge achievements speak for themselves. After last season, he had a lot of credibility elsewhere, too, but NU re-signed him - whew! - shows his dedication to what he's begun.
I doubt there's single NU fan who isn't psyched about CCC's team. Boo is too.
Because of the y sound at the start of Utah, which we should start spelling Yutaw, just to show them.
First, I don’t agree Calhoun was the GOAT or even great. He had a good run - has he been admitted into a college MBB HOF as a coach?
Also, it’s easy in life to argue the exception. Two dances for CCC. Now, that should raise the contention that it shows he’s a really good coach. Except the abysmal body of work beyond those two years and the external factors leading to hiring lowery.
But let’s see if PWB is right and he is adapting. Let’s see how he bounces back this time. Let’s see how he deploys a stacked squad. Let’s see who he signs for the next class. Let’s see how the additions meld into the D. Let’s see if he employs an O system that works.
You haven’t responded to my contention that this team is built to mimick the Stockton malone jazz. Probably because it’s so obvious that you pray CCC doesn’t screw it up.
But let’s talk strategy. How would you run this O next year? Besides critiques of me and PWB, any actual thoughts about what you think should happen?
Please get something right; it’s pointless to argue with someone who does not care about facts.
Jim Calhoun - Wikipedia
And lest you forget - I argued endlessly before last year that Collins was a good coach. That’s based on these “horrible years” that swayed your opinion but not mine. Again, pointless to discuss further.
We have no one like Malone…
I will leave it up to the experts to discuss strategy; at least I can recognize who the experts are.
You are a trip. Ok, I’ll concede Calhoun better than I was aware. Clearly I didn’t follow him - my only recollection of him came from UConn.Please get something right; it’s pointless to argue with someone who does not care about facts.
Jim Calhoun - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
And lest you forget - I argued endlessly before last year that Collins was a good coach. That’s based on these “horrible years” that swayed your opinion but not mine. Again, pointless to discuss further.
We have no one like Malone…
I will leave it up to the experts to discuss strategy; at least I can recognize who the experts are.
And again, it’s quite weak to simply say we have no malone. Strength and growth comes from articulating areas we can analygize and distinguish. Maybe you should go sit with the self declared experts high on the purple koolaid.
I, and probably all the rational posters here, readily admit to not being an ‘expert.’ But what really makes an expert? Coaching experience? Playing experience? Watching experience? Barkley? Hummel? You? Ultimately, it’s a form of entertainment and requires fans financial support and interest. As one of those with some organized MBB experience and lots of Dan experience, I feel more than qualified to arrive at and share valid opinions 🤷♂️ I get you and CSC have your own set of standards. Like Durham said, I’m comfortable w my reputation among those that matter to me 😘
I see MN much like Malone. Hard nose D. Lived and earned off two man game w Stockton and the kick out. Developed more rounded game as he went on. I see Boo as that gritty ball handler that’s quicker than you expect and let’s him get to the basket through the trees w an underwhelming outside game.
They most certainly are not an NBA playoff caliber equivalent. But the mold is quite similar to me. Add the grit of BB - who could be compared to Hornacek and a variety of third options Utah deployed over the years. They also relied on sharpshooters for the kick - which we hope Berry and Lang will be.
That is a comparison, offered with thought and presented with supporting argument. I don’t expect much from you in return.
Good lord… Calhoun took a tiny cow college in nowhere Connecticut and turned them into one of the most successful programs in the last 20 years. He is legendary.
A trip is believing NU’s academic restrictions don’t put us at a disadvantage. That’s where this all started. Lest you forget and start firing insults per usual.
Sorry catcrazy, you're right, but I wanted to respond to Ignore about his views on next year's offense...
Personally, I don't see Nicholson as option #1 for Buie. Chris Collins is probably not designing an offense like that (like Purdue's use of Zach Edey, where he gets a touch in the low block nearly every time down). I suspect we will continue to see Matt (hopefully some others) setting ball screens for Boo, who will do his thing, driving the lane and improvising.
I would definitely like to see some variation in who sets the screen for Boo. If someone else sets the screen while Nicholson positions for a possible Buie lob or entry pass and the screener rolls to a shooting position, that would be (hopefully) useful. Nicholson did a damned good job setting screens and freeing Buie up, but thats a lot of work - he was all over the court on the offensive end and he'd get tired. Regardless, I'm sure the coaches are trying to expand the offense.
Martinelli and Barnhizer can both score inside... which is pretty different from Robbie Beran, so hopefully more screens off the ball and movement/passing around the basket. I think there's more versatility offensively now.
Its difficult to project what the new guys will bring to the table other than "expecting" Langborg to be an improvement from the perimeter.
We have a solid roster with respectable depth.
Personally, I don't see Nicholson as option #1 for Buie. Chris Collins is probably not designing an offense like that (like Purdue's use of Zach Edey, where he gets a touch in the low block nearly every time down). I suspect we will continue to see Matt (hopefully some others) setting ball screens for Boo, who will do his thing, driving the lane and improvising.
I would definitely like to see some variation in who sets the screen for Boo. If someone else sets the screen while Nicholson positions for a possible Buie lob or entry pass and the screener rolls to a shooting position, that would be (hopefully) useful. Nicholson did a damned good job setting screens and freeing Buie up, but thats a lot of work - he was all over the court on the offensive end and he'd get tired. Regardless, I'm sure the coaches are trying to expand the offense.
Martinelli and Barnhizer can both score inside... which is pretty different from Robbie Beran, so hopefully more screens off the ball and movement/passing around the basket. I think there's more versatility offensively now.
Its difficult to project what the new guys will bring to the table other than "expecting" Langborg to be an improvement from the perimeter.
We have a solid roster with respectable depth.
Then they should never succeed.
Sorry but great two years and godawful nine years is not excusable. That simple.
If the two good years were simply outliers, drop the program and spend the money on other equally deserving.
No? B1G money - ok. Spend a tiny fraction on the budget, no updates to facilities and no expectations and spend the rest of the money on the other nonrevenue athletes.
Big time money = big time and consistent results and expectations. No participation trophies.
Guess we will see whose thinking lines up. CCC saved his job (wonder why he had to save it if your concept that I’m an isolated idiot and the world agrees w you..). Up next - PF. More stubborn and less likely to bend a knee to the AD. So let’s see how that admissions argument saves his arse next…
I see your point but MN is young and looks pretty in shape. Seems like almost every half court set started with the pick and roll last year by B1G season.
With more age, muscle and experience, I expect it to be the same and better. Maybe a few tubs of kicking out ahead of the roll or even the pick as opponents cheat to defend it.
Curious how the bigs will be deployed.
Similar threads
