I think it works in theory if you keep the top best half of your roster and circulate the bottom half each year.
That is fine.
If you aren't doing exactly that, and you end up circulating eligible guys at the top like Black, Finke instead and replace them with freshman ... then you might be getting into trouble.
#19 on 247 and #35 overall. 10/10 crystal balls for West Virginia.
Same concept as many corporations follow. Move up or move out. As long as you're replacing the lesser performers with better performers you're bound to improve.
I really don't care what it "looks" like as long as it's a winning strategy. People should understand it when they sign on, whether in business or basketball.
The player turnover on Huggins/Martin/Underwood coaching tree rosters is consistently huge.
More than any other teams in college basketball.
Its an intentional strategy and its not a factor of "rebuilding" a roster, as if it would somehow eventually lessen or stop once the roster is set ...
People just need to get used to it and accept it as reality.
Available scholarships are never going to be a problem.
We won't need to oversign because many players will leave every year.
Every. Single. Year.
This is not a coincidence:
Huggins adds 7 (2011); 3 (2012); 7 (2013); 5 (2014); 4 (2015); 3 (2016); 5 (2017); 6 (2018) - (this does NOT include transfers ... the numbers are actually higher)
Martin adds 6 (2011); 4 (2012); 7 (2013); 4 (2014); 6 (2015); 4 (2016); 5 (2017); 5 (2018) - (this does NOT include transfers ... the numbers are actually higher)
Underwood adds 6 (2013); 6 (2014); 6 (2015); 6 (2016); 6 (2017); 8 (2018) - (this DOES include transfers)
#19 on 247 and #35 overall. 10/10 crystal balls for West Virginia.
Huggins, Martin, and Underwood all like to push the pace, and press. In order to play that way, you have to push your players hard in practice and in the off-season to build the required endurance. My theory is that a lot of young guys like to watch that kind of basketball, and like the idea of playing at that pace. Then they get into it, and reality sets in... Endless sprints and full court drills aren't fun for everyone.
I'm not sure if it's outdated or just based on current offers. If UK doesn't end up offering, WVU is the team to beat. Kentucky has the luxury of being able to take their time.Most of what I have seen is the WVU consensus is outdated. UK seems to be the one to be the most concerned about. Hope that Wiseman commits on 9/7 during his visit because that likely takes UK out of the race
It seems that every time we get a coach, we find new love for the "coaching tree" and the patriarch, similar to Illinois boards falling in love with Keady in the honeymoon of the Weber era.
Personally, not a fan of the concept. Not a good look. But, hey if you win, all's well.:thumb:
I don't recall ever once hearing this from anyone. Not once. In fact, Keady's lack of tournament success had many people concerned about us long term.
I would expect Whitman has some input into how much turnover / consistency he would like to project... I wouldn't think this is purely a coach only strategy/method.
Time will tell but I think there is a difference with new coaches coming in and moving the program to their style. Once cleaned up, then that is the ongoing period I was referring to, not the initial adjustment - which could be 1 or 2 years to accomplish.Whitman must be ok with it because it happened in football and volleyball, as well as men's basketball (all with newly hired Whitman coaches).
I would expect Whitman has some input into how much turnover / consistency he would like to project... I wouldn't think this is purely a coach only strategy/method.
Who does anyone on this forum think Underwood "creaned". I believe those that transferred did because they saw lack of playing time in his sytem, with The exception of Finke.
Almost everyone that left would have gotten significant playing time so that's doubtful.I believe those that transferred did because they saw lack of playing time in his sytem, with The exception of Finke.
That is because you must be a "NewFan" on Illini boards...
When Weber was hired, a very strong "anti-Self" (or rather anti-$elf) sentiment that quickly developed back then on "Illiniboard" (the most popular) and other boards (Scout, Rivals). Bill Self (later to become "Bucknell Bill") became "evil", an incompetent coach who would never win anything, a cheater, a coach who had Illinois on the decline (if I just had a dime for every post mentioning the ND loss...). Most Illini fans greeted Weber with "hope", very few of us had great concern about personality and ability to recruit. Quite a few greeted Weber with relief that it was not Dana Altman (who was wrongly rumored on boards to have agreed to take the UI job). A very pro-Keady and pro-Keady tree sentiment developed throughout the early honeymoon years, supporting not only Weber as a coaching genius due to his Keady training, but praising other members of the tree (e.g., Stallings) and even Illini hirings like Jay Price (yeah... that Jay Price, who was "qualified" and overdue to become a head coach).
When very few of us expressed great concerns with Weber's recruiting failures in the early very good years, the responses back then was that Weber's motion offense and "system" (i.e., great passing, movement) would be able to beat better talent consistently. When this did not happen, it was the famous "it takes 5 years, like Jim Calhoun said, to get the recruiting benefits of the NC." That was the beginning to the end of Illini basketball, what we still pay today. As far as Weber concerns during the golden early years, there were again very few of us who had some great concerns over recruiting and personality. The only one who actually remained 100% consistent from day one claiming Weber was as a terrible UI hire in ALL aspects, was Larue (yeah, I know... you do not know or recall who Larue is... but some of us ol' timers know exactly what I am talking about). That is history for some of us, for others, you can certainly feel free to believe your own revisionist history and VR.
There is an understandable sentiment of hope, which I actually share, but there is a strong "change of position" and later lack of memory sentiment as well, as the whole support of "creaning" if it helps winning (replacing the over-sensitive earlier objections) and the new found affection for Huggins and his tactics indicate.