UW Hoops
Comments
-
I wasn't replying to you directly. I was more or less making a point that the AD should be more worried about coaching than a single influx. Meaning, that it would suck to lose some big recruits in a class, but long term, the program would be miles ahead with a good coach.RoadDawg55 said:
I wish we would have fired Romar years ago.greenblood said:
I agree, but what good are big time recruits when you have a checked out coach? When Oregon fired Ernie, they had nothing in the coffers, but Altman utilized the senior transfer program and put on a competitive team with almost zero talent.RoadDawg55 said:I gave up on Romar getting fired years ago. It will never happen when he has two more big recruits coming in next year. I'm excited for Murray and Chriss to go pro after the NIT. I look forward to next year's NIT with Fultz and Timmins before they go pro.
Basically, a good coaching hire with limited talent puts you in the same spot as you are now with great talent and a useless coach. At least in the first scenario, you can improve.
It's pretty ridiculous how they can't see the big picture. But why should I talk, our football program STILL hasn't finished reading the book on Helfrich yet. -
I totally agree with the retire angle, but he doesn't want to retire. If we hired a strong AD who could tell him he's either retiring from UW or getting canned then it would be something, but I obviously have zero confidence in that.ThomasFremont said:
I don't disagree.FreeChavez said:It's downright embarrassing in the age of coaches being on the hot seat for sucking for a couple years that UW isn't willing to can a coach who can't make a 68 team fucking tourney for the 5th straight year. Not to mention the fact that he has run his own program into the ground and still has the same moronic faults that everyone who has an ounce of basketball knowledge could see even when they were winning. What more does anyone need to see?
I don't care what anyone says. If romar was white he would have been fired 2 years ago. But everyone is scared shitless that somehow firing romar will drive all recruits away. I'm not sure if anyone noticed but almost everyone romar recruited the last few years left the team while he was still here. If the season nose dive continues I will be very concerned that a few more players will go to the nba or transfer regardless of whether romar is retained. Romar has been the central point of a whole lot of teams which cancerous cores. I thought this team was different but having a lot of losses can change things in a hurry.
The players that are here are not all going to just pull up roots and leave if romar is fired. The people who scare you with that shit just don't follow how transfers work. They aren't going to go somewhere to redshirt when they look around at the talent. It's also saying that we? can't bring in anyone who would actually convince them to stay. Anyone who would leave was probably leaving if romar stays anyhow based on PT or just wanting to get out of the shitshow. We all saw it last year with the mass exodus of players.
But firing Romar now all but guarantees we not only lose Fultz, but Murray and Chriss both go pro for sure.
Maybe they go pro anyways, I don't know.
At this point, encouraging Romar to retire seems like the more realistic route to change.
Making decisions on whether or not players go pro, transfer, or not attend(ie fultz) is spadoFS. Romar has had talent here and done jack shit with it. He had 3 first round players and couldn't make the tourney. Why is anyone scared of possible turmoil that may never arise?
We could all play this game and say, what if UW hires Archie Miller? If he comes in and talks to fultz and convinces murray and others to stay now all of a sudden not only did you keep these guys you have a much better coach and a chance to build a stud recruiting class off of a huge upcoming season. Conversely we? sit around with romar and know exactly how the season plays out even with the talent and prolong the inevitable.
What's the worst that happens if romar is canned? we? miss the ncaa's b/c players/recruits leave? Weird, that sounds awful familiar to the last 5 years....... -
Hasn't Fultz already signed his LOI?
-
Yes, but there has been times when a player is released if the coach is let go and allowed to leave.Tequilla said:Hasn't Fultz already signed his LOI?
-
And why should I care about that?FreeChavez said:
Yes, but there has been times when a player is released if the coach is let go and allowed to leave.Tequilla said:Hasn't Fultz already signed his LOI?
Why should 17-18 year old kids dictate what grown ups be doing? -
I'm not saying UW should let him out. I could care less. One player who will be here one year isn't going to change the direction of a program. The coach will. So whether fultz comes or not isn't going to matter in the grand scheme of fixing husky hoopsTequilla said:
And why should I care about that?FreeChavez said:
Yes, but there has been times when a player is released if the coach is let go and allowed to leave.Tequilla said:Hasn't Fultz already signed his LOI?
Why should 17-18 year old kids dictate what grown ups be doing? -
Then why bring up the LOI?Tequilla said:
And why should I care about that?FreeChavez said:
Yes, but there has been times when a player is released if the coach is let go and allowed to leave.Tequilla said:Hasn't Fultz already signed his LOI?
Why should 17-18 year old kids dictate what grown ups be doing?
If Romar goes Fultz will get out of his LOI. If you think Romar should go regardless I agree, but Fultz's LOI means nothing. -
Purely for those saying that Fultz is guaranteed to leave if Romar leaves.dnc said:
Then why bring up the LOI?Tequilla said:
And why should I care about that?FreeChavez said:
Yes, but there has been times when a player is released if the coach is let go and allowed to leave.Tequilla said:Hasn't Fultz already signed his LOI?
Why should 17-18 year old kids dictate what grown ups be doing?
If Romar goes Fultz will get out of his LOI. If you think Romar should go regardless I agree, but Fultz's LOI means nothing.
He may ... but he's also already signed his LOI. We don't have to let him out of it. We can be nice and do so ... but we hold the leverage on it ... not Fultz.
And as has been stated ad nauseam, the right coach matters 1000x more anyway.
Go look around the country at the number of "basketball schools" ... the thing you'll notice with them all is that it is tied to the quality of the coach. -
NIT hopes are still alive you negas. Already have my tickets!
-
Nobody holds kids to their LOIs when a coach is canned. If Romar is gone, Fultz will be too.Tequilla said:
Purely for those saying that Fultz is guaranteed to leave if Romar leaves.dnc said:
Then why bring up the LOI?Tequilla said:
And why should I care about that?FreeChavez said:
Yes, but there has been times when a player is released if the coach is let go and allowed to leave.Tequilla said:Hasn't Fultz already signed his LOI?
Why should 17-18 year old kids dictate what grown ups be doing?
If Romar goes Fultz will get out of his LOI. If you think Romar should go regardless I agree, but Fultz's LOI means nothing.
He may ... but he's also already signed his LOI. We don't have to let him out of it. We can be nice and do so ... but we hold the leverage on it ... not Fultz.
And as has been stated ad nauseam, the right coach matters 1000x more anyway.
Go look around the country at the number of "basketball schools" ... the thing you'll notice with them all is that it is tied to the quality of the coach.
