Anyone listen to Crean's radio show??

[muhswarrior]

nm

[MU71]

Guess the response you've received shows how much people want to hear what Tom has to say.

[mu_hilltopper]

I'm listening to it now .. http://all-access.cstv.com/cstv/player/player.html?code=marq .. select Men's basketball at the top, then TV/Radio. 

[mu_hilltopper]

.. Spoke about FT drills .. has seen guys make 30+ in a row .. has many drills ..you gotta make 22 in a row, you have 15 minutes to do it .. other drills where if they don't make 'em, they gotta run.

(I find it hard to believe any of these guys could make 20+ in a row at the Al, when they can't make 50% at the BC.)

.. Burke is done a great job .. really hungry .. great job with his body.

Today (Monday) was Jerel and Wes' first full practice back since bonking heads ..

.. fans were great, lots of gold .. they get frustrated with FTs, hang with us.. these kids have the weight of the world on them .. fragile, young .. not an excuse .. gotta get thru this stretch.

[mu_hilltopper]

Terry Sanders is working in Grand Ave, making smoothies.  "They are refreshing and filling and are a substitute for a meal."  His favorite is Mango and Banana.  But everything they serve is good, he says.

Wow.  Quite a commercial for TS.

[Harrison]

I agree have not listened or watched a Tom crean show in 4-5 years.  Dont even listen after games.  Same sound bites, terrible interview you learn nothing.  but hey when you get a lifetime contract and the administartion is apparently happy with 3 NCAA's in 8 years then you have the world by the balls.

[4everwarriors]

Do you have to have a college degree to make smoothies? Man O' man, I don't even want to say it. Does he own the shop or something?

[Sir Lawrence]

He and his wife own the shop. 

[Harrison]

I heard he just calls in everyday from his yacht in the Med. to see how much cash money he made.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I agree have not listened or watched a Tom crean show in 4-5 years.  Dont even listen after games.  Same sound bites, terrible interview you learn nothing.  but hey when you get a lifetime contract and the administartion is apparently happy with 3 NCAA's in 8 years then you have the world by the balls.

Haven't listened to him in 4 or 5 years yet an authority on what Crean has to say.

Ladies and gentlemen, if that doesn't say it all.

3 NCAAs in the last 7 years including inheriting a pitiful program where anyone outside of you should be giving the new coach a few years to put his players in (3 NCAAs in the last 5 years and it would have been 4 if Diener doesn't get hurt)....this is the 8th year numbnuts and even UCLA hasn't earned a bid yet this season. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Do you have to have a college degree to make smoothies? Man O' man, I don't even want to say it. Does he own the shop or something?

Yes, they own it and it's doing quite well.  I applaud anyone that is a small business owner and is out there CREATING JOBS for people and putting sweat equity into their business.

Congratulations to Terry and best of luck to him and his wife on their venture.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Chicos - defend Crean's record all you want...you have some very good points. He's got his good qualities and his bad. But defending his qualities as an interview subject is just plain futile.

Harrison is right on the money here. When he shows up for post game interviews at all, the guy isn't very dynamic, which may be a reason our recruiting is spotty. Constant references to Dwyane Wade and Tony LaRussa eventually fall on deaf ears.

[MarquetteVol]

Did you guys listen to the post-game interview after the Syracuse game? I think the naysayers would have enjoyed it. It was candid and critical...something many posters here can relate well to.

[mu_hilltopper]

MarquetteVol is correct. .. There was another game this year, can't remember which, where it was obvious Crean was pissed off at the effort. 

I don't consider it a bad quality in a coach to priase in public, chastise in private.  It may not make for an exciting interview, but that's pretty far down on his responsibility list.

[Harrison]

Dont get me wrong I dont have a problem with a coach not ripping himself or his players on air.  If that is his method than fine.  There are more than one way to skin a cat and I simply want Crean to put a successful product on the floor if that means ripping in the media or not I dont care.  My only point was his interviews are very boring nad he says the same things over and over since day 1 so why listen?  All I said. 
Now in response to Chicos.  Ok I can give Crean abreak on years 1 and 2.  But my issue is why in years 5 and 6 which is longer than many coaches even get are putting a product on the floor for two staright years that is absolutely woeful!  We had arguably 3-4 true D1 players on those teams.  Incuding only 1 PG.  Most coaches end their 6th year with ateam that goes into the NIT and cannot even score 40 points.  A team that ends up with 19 wins after personally spotting themselves 13 cupcakes and then cannot finish .500 in C-USA.    In year 6 that is a pink slip in most programs.  Crean got a huge extension that he would have never gotten had HC or Mizzou hit another shot or 2.  Then after 2 abyssmal years he get another one becuase we had one good year.  Crean gets the credit for a couple good years but the rest have been stinkers anyway you wnat to cut it.  years 5-6-7-8 if we do not dance this year will make 1 in the last 4 that far into a tenure is pretty damn bad and we are saddled with 10 more years?  spin that!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos - defend Crean's record all you want...you have some very good points. He's got his good qualities and his bad. But defending his qualities as an interview subject is just plain futile.

Harrison is right on the money here. When he shows up for post game interviews at all, the guy isn't very dynamic, which may be a reason our recruiting is spotty. Constant references to Dwyane Wade and Tony LaRussa eventually fall on deaf ears.

PRN, if the guy hasn't listened to him in 4 or 5 years then he has ZERO credibility in saying how his press conferences are conducted in 2007.  ZERO.  I listened to the post game presser after Syracuse and there was no coach speak, he was damn pissed off and called an ace an ace.  No question his pressers are a lot of coach speak most of the time but let's not paint to broad a brush which is Harrison's forte.  I got news for you, Ben Howland out here at UCLA is no different.  Neither is Tim Floyd.  That is how these guys are trained to deal with the media...and believe me they are TRAINED.  Consultants often work with them (as they do players) on how to answer questions, etc.  It's a cold reality.  We did it with the Angels.  We did it at Indiana.  I'm fairly certain the MU players are given a "do's and don'ts" of interviewing and the coaches are consulted on this as well.

Consider the source, the guy is twisting (aka LYING) in his quote that says 3 NCAAs in 8 years when year 8 is only half over...but anything to prove his point apparently.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Tim Floyd is not that bad. I actually liked him (personally) as coach of the Bulls, although it was a disastrous situation.

Incidentally, Jerry Wainwright is borderline hilarious. Now that guy is a good interview!!

[ecompt]

I interviewed countless coaches in my 33 years as a journalist. Most if not all gave the same, bland speeches after the game, crediting the opponent, praising the opponent's coach, blah, blah. TC seemed genuinely pissed off after the Syracuse game, and it was good to see that he could drop the salesman mode and be genuine.

[Final Four or Bust]

3 NCAAs in the last 7 years including inheriting a pitiful program where anyone outside of you should be giving the new coach a few years to put his players in (3 NCAAs in the last 5 years and it would have been 4 if Diener doesn't get hurt)...

I am sorry Chicos, this comment is off base.  The program was not "pitiful" when he inherited it, no where close.  Deane made plenty of NCAAs, and had some success in the NIT (which is not where we want to be, but is far from a pitiful program).  He had some players who, frankly, would help this program a lot right now.  I am sorry, I am sick and tired of people suggesting this program was in the toilet when he took over -- heck didn't Deane win 19 or 20 games in his last year and the discussion was whether he should have even been fired?  I will give you the program was not going in the direction some of us wanted, but it was hardly in the crapper.  Kevin O'Neill took over a program that was pitiful, not Crean.  I have plenty of very good memories of those teams in the 90s -- it was hardly horrible.

The failure to make NCAAs is unacceptable to me and many people.  If he doesn't make it this year he will really feel the heat, and rightfully so. 

[mutpm]

heck didn't Deane win 19 or 20 games in his last year and the discussion was whether he should have even been fired? 

Deane went 14-15 in his final season here.  Deane went to 2 NCAA's and 2 NIT's in his 5 years.  The NCAA appearances were with KO's players (Crawford, Amal, Pieper).  He averaged 20 wins a year and that's why a lot of people didn't want to see him go. 

[CTWarrior]

I listened to the UConn post game call in show as I drove home and had a laugh.  It was like our posters were calling in pretending to be UConn fans.

"Our guards were lost against the zone.  They just dribbled around at the top of the key."

"Our interior players have to step up.  How many times did they drop passes?  There's no way we should get outrebounded by a team like that."

"These guys have got to stop firing up 3's all the time when they can't make them.  2 points are good, too."

"Is Calhoun going for the all-time substitution record?  Why doesn't he let people stay in the game and get in the flow?"

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Ok I can give Crean abreak on years 1 and 2.  But Crean got a huge extension that he would have never gotten had HC or Mizzou hit another shot or 2. 

I think you are right, but I think this works both ways, if MU hits a couple more shots against Tulsa, that MU team might have gotten on a roll and won in the next round, or if Novak makes a WIDE OPEN 3 (on a play that Crean designed) they might have gotten on a roll last year too.

The point I'm making is, sometimes the tourny isn't the best way to judge overall success at a program like MU. The coach has to prepare them, and make in-game decisions, but sometimes its just the bounce of the ball.

Obviously we all want MU to win the national title every year, but just because they don't doesn't mean the coach hasn't made a significant positive impact.

Crean's second year record wasn't much different than Deane's final couple of years... but you know what the difference was? Hope. Excitement. Attendance. School Spirit. Marketing. etc. etc.

At the end of the day, coaches are mainly judged by their record, but I think in MU's case, they are looking at the whole body of work and recognizing that it has a MAJOR benefit to the school. Record attendance, record student ticket tales, record enrollment, record applications, great recruitng classes, NIKE contract, more MU clothing available, great turn-outs at Al's Run, players doing charity work, etc.

Record is important, but the "program" is important too. Remember: This is COLLEGE sports, not the NBA. Crean isn't just paid to win, he's paid to run a PROGRAM. He has to wear a lot of hats, teacher, coach, father, interviewee, charity spokesman, fundraiser, etc.

The program is growing and getting better. Enjoy it.

I realize we all want results now, but I think if you use some perspective and exercise some patience, you will be happy with the results.

You may not like Crean for whatever reason (too tan, seems "slick", hard to work for, etc.), and you may think other coaches are better... but for the most part the guy has done what few coaches have done... awaken a basketball tradition that had laid dormant for some time.

SJU, DePaul, Villanova, St. Louis, Xavier, etc. have all had runs of success in the past 20 years, but they have not been able to maintain it. 

I think with Crean and the administration's continued commitment to basketball, there is a goodchance that MU can maintain a strong program. It isn't just about the first 8 seasons, its about the next 15.

 

[The Lens]

Lets not forget that Mike Deane's 1998 team would have made the NCAAs if not for injuries to Lovette and Hutch (they started out 10-0).

If we're going to play the injury card...

So then TC took over a program that had one losing season and 5 NCAAs in 7 years plus a NIT runner up...really pitiful.

You don't have to listen to every TC postgame to get the story

Wade
Novak
Diener
LaRussa
Alvarez
Repeat

Does Howland constantly reference Jordan Farmar or Chevy Troutman?

[herboturbo]

Lets not forget that Mike Deane's 1998 team would have made the NCAAs if not for injuries to Lovette and Hutch (they started out 10-0).

If we're going to play the injury card...

So then TC took over a program that had one losing season and 5 NCAAs in 7 years plus a NIT runner up...really pitiful.

Well those weren't Deane's recruits either.  What did Deane do with a team of his own people the next season?  I think the administration saw the writing on the wall with where we were going with Deane as head coach and tried to move in a different direction.  I would say it's worked out pretty well. 

[The Lens]

I'm not arguing Deane was winning with his own players AND I would agree that the program was trending down AND I would agree that TC has done a good job.  I just was contesting Chico's point that TC took over a pitiful program.

[Final Four or Bust]

I'm not arguing Deane was winning with his own players AND I would agree that the program was trending down AND I would agree that TC has done a good job.  I just was contesting Chico's point that TC took over a pitiful program.

Same here -- I expect results at the highest level and he wasn't producing them, so a change was in order.  That said, the program wasn't on its last gasps.

[ecompt]

We all know that Deane's record wasn't the only reason he was let go.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

We all know that Deane's record wasn't the only reason he was let go.

BINGO.

Remember, it's about a PROGRAM, not just W's and L's.

Crean has built a pretty good program in all aspects and it has significantly benefited MU with higher donations, enrollment, attendance, etc. etc.

I like Deane as an X and O guy, and I chatted with him a couple of times. He was a cool guy and a good coach. But, he just wasn't as into all of the other aspects of the job like Crean seems to be. Can't say I blame Deane because he was hired to be a basketball coach, not a salesman. It's a tough gig.

I give Crean a lot of credit. He has done a good job promoting the program and recruiting better than every MU coach not named "Al".

[NCMUFan]

I like putting things in perspective.  I say lets get rid of Crean when we can find a coach that will guarantee every year 25 wins, 12 Big East conference wins , a top 15 ranking and a NCAA berth.  Until then, live in reality.

[Final Four or Bust]

I like putting things in perspective.  I say lets get rid of Crean when we can find a coach that will guarantee every year 25 wins, 12 Big East conference wins , a top 15 ranking and a NCAA berth.  Until then, live in reality.

I only care about one of those things -- NCAA berths.  Regular NCAA berths is not something that shouldn't be expected most years at a program with the money we are putting into it.  Its certainly been pretty regular for UW these last years.

[Marquette84]

I only care about one of those things -- NCAA berths.  Regular NCAA berths is not something that shouldn't be expected most years at a program with the money we are putting into it.  Its certainly been pretty regular for UW these last years.

I think you realize UW and MU is an apples to oranges comparision.  We can pay twice as much for our coach, but that still leaves us without an Ag School or Culinary Program--to name two programs who have recently attracted top recruits to Wisconsin. 

As I see it, we pay our coach more so we don't wind up falling to the depths that, say, Loyola or DePaul or St. Johns or Providence or SLU have slipped. 

So let's limit the comparison to Cathoic schools. 

We could be like Gonzaga--regularly get to the NCAA on the basis of being top dog in a lousy conference.  In a really good year make a sweet 16.  Get a ranked home opponent one or twice a decade.

Or we could be like DePaul, Providence or Georgeotwn--play in a major conference and get to the NCAA about half the time, reach the sweet 16 in a good year, but go through rebuilding stretches with losing seasons and coaching changes two or three times each decade.

Or we could be like Xavier or Butler, more successful than average, lesser conferences, but also content to be a stepping stone program with coaches that stay for a few years, then leave.

Or we could be like MU--a team with a solid chance to get to the NCAA every year, at worst will win close to 20 games and make the NIT--at best get to the final four--sends players regularly to the NBA--plays in a major conference, regularly plays in elite tournaments like Alaska and Maui, has national recognition.

Can you tell me that you'd trade places with Creighton?  Creighton has been to 6 of the last 8 NCAAs.  Do you sense that they have more national respect than MU right now?  Creighton's performance sounds like its exactly what you want--yet there is no exitement over their program.

Tell me ONE other Catholic school you'd rather trade places with.  I don't see any.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I'd say it's more than a little arrogant to suggest a trip to the Sweet 16 for Marquette wouldn't be a really good year. We had a great run in 2003. Other than that, we've got 1994 and that's it in recent memory.

Also, this 20 win plateau that is continually cited around here is completely old fashioned. 20 wins signifies nothing.

Of our current 13 wins, nine include wins versus Hillsdale, Idaho St. (barely), Eastern Michigan, Northwestern St., Delaware St., UMBC, Oakland, Morgan St. and Savannah St. I'm not sure anybody on this board couldn't get almost halfway to 20 wins with that schedule. We have decent wins over Texas Tech, Duke, Valpo and UCONN. We're going to need more than 7 more wins to get to the tournament.

[Sir Lawrence]

[  We can pay twice as much for our coach, but that still leaves us without an Ag School or Culinary Program--to name two programs who have recently attracted top recruits to Wisconsin. 



Tell me ONE other Catholic school you'd rather trade places with.  I don't see any.



[/quote]

We don't have a culinary program?  I thought that's where the chefs at Real Chili came from.

One Catholic school I'd trade places with?  Not even Notre friggin' Dame!

[rocky_warrior]

Also, this 20 win plateau that is continually cited around here is completely old fashioned. 20 wins signifies nothing.

Signifies nothing?  Only 62 out of 334 programs won at least 20 games last year.

You'll really say anything to try to justify your "our schedule sucks" mantra - eh?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I only care about one of those things -- NCAA berths.  Regular NCAA berths is not something that shouldn't be expected most years at a program with the money we are putting into it.  Its certainly been pretty regular for UW these last years.

I think you realize UW and MU is an apples to oranges comparision.  We can pay twice as much for our coach, but that still leaves us without an Ag School or Culinary Program--to name two programs who have recently attracted top recruits to Wisconsin. 

As I see it, we pay our coach more so we don't wind up falling to the depths that, say, Loyola or DePaul or St. Johns or Providence or SLU have slipped. 

So let's limit the comparison to Cathoic schools. 

We could be like Gonzaga--regularly get to the NCAA on the basis of being top dog in a lousy conference.  In a really good year make a sweet 16.  Get a ranked home opponent one or twice a decade.

Or we could be like DePaul, Providence or Georgeotwn--play in a major conference and get to the NCAA about half the time, reach the sweet 16 in a good year, but go through rebuilding stretches with losing seasons and coaching changes two or three times each decade.

Or we could be like Xavier or Butler, more successful than average, lesser conferences, but also content to be a stepping stone program with coaches that stay for a few years, then leave.

Or we could be like MU--a team with a solid chance to get to the NCAA every year, at worst will win close to 20 games and make the NIT--at best get to the final four--sends players regularly to the NBA--plays in a major conference, regularly plays in elite tournaments like Alaska and Maui, has national recognition.

Can you tell me that you'd trade places with Creighton?  Creighton has been to 6 of the last 8 NCAAs.  Do you sense that they have more national respect than MU right now?  Creighton's performance sounds like its exactly what you want--yet there is no exitement over their program.

Tell me ONE other Catholic school you'd rather trade places with.  I don't see any.

Can't agree with you more. We have more in common with SJU, Villanova, St. Louis, DePaul, Creighton, BC and Georgetown than UNC, Kansas, UW, U of I, UCLA, Arizona, etc. etc.

It is VERY hard for smaller schools to consistantly compete at a high major level. All the the private schools previously mentioned have a pretty good tradition (some outstanding), but you will have a hard time finding a private school that has the success of the large public schools. Obviously Duke has been able to do it, but I can name 100 private schools that haven't been able to.

Should MU's goal be to compete at a very high level? Absolutley.

But, let's also realize that expectations shouldn't be so out of whack that people aren't appreciating or enjoying what is right in front of their face!


 

[Untucked]

2002mualum said it best.

It's all about the program.

Crean is not a very good bench coach or a X and O guy, but he runs the program the correct way. Marquette is on the national college basketball radar once again. Deane recruited "regional" players, Crean has made the national recruits take notice of Marquette(although hasn't landed many of them).

Let's give Crean the credit that he deserves.

One more thing about Deane. His teams at Lamar and Wagner (going down the coaching ladder) are not good. I don't think he should be referred to as a good coach.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Also, this 20 win plateau that is continually cited around here is completely old fashioned. 20 wins signifies nothing.

Signifies nothing?  Only 62 out of 334 programs won at least 20 games last year.

You'll really say anything to try to justify your "our schedule sucks" mantra - eh?

rocky -- I am simply stating facts. We currently have 14 wins. If we were to win 6 more games, we'd finish 20-11, an overall record which looks decent on paper, but which is, in fact, a lousy record considering our schedule. Do you actually deny that? Twenty wins used to mean a near automatic bid into the tournament. If we reached exactly 20 wins, there's no way we'd get in and 21 we'd be borderline for sure. What is to debate?

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Deane recruited "regional" players, Crean has made the national recruits take notice of Marquette(although hasn't landed many of them).

Signing people who played high school ball outside of the midwest does not make them "national recruits" any more than recruiting somebody like Novak (who was recruited by several out of region schools) was a "regional recruit." For instance, I would not call Burke a "national recruit." Nor would I necessarily call Cubillan a "national recruit." Brian Butch was a national recruit. In fact, I think Crean should continue to establish Marquette as a "go to" destination for Wisconsin and Illinois preps before he signs another kid from St. Benedict's.

[Marquette84]

I'd say it's more than a little arrogant to suggest a trip to the Sweet 16 for Marquette wouldn't be a really good year. We had a great run in 2003. Other than that, we've got 1994 and that's it in recent memory.

What I think you're missing is that none of the other schools Catholic schools have had a 2003-like run in the last 15 - 20 years.  

Some have had a 1994-like run.  


So the question--which you still haven't answered--is what you would want?

Would you like to be like Creighton--a nice consistent NCCA team that nobody cares about?  

Would you like to be like Gonzaga--for all your beefs about the schedule MU has had more good games at the BC in the last year than you'll see in a lifetime in Spokane.  

Would you like to be like DePaul--a sweet 16 every once in a while, puncuated by long stretches of futility.

Would you like to be like Loyola--a mere shadow of past greatness currently in its 25th year of rebuilding?  

Also, this 20 win plateau that is continually cited around here is completely old fashioned. 20 wins signifies nothing.

My guess is that the fans of last season's 12-15 DePaul, Providence or St. Johns teams would disagree with you.  Or maybe 13-17 Dayton.  Or 16-13 SLU.   Or 3-24 Duquesne.  or 16-16 Fordam.   What about 14-16 Detroit?  Or 17-11 Loyola?

Do you really think fans of those teams would agree that 20 wins signifies nothing?

Now, let me ask you another question.  In the Big 6 conferences, how many 20+ game winning teams  do you think missed the NCAA tourney--over the last eight years?

Three!  Just three!  

Colorado in 2006
Syracuse in 2002
Alabama in 2001

Difference between MU and these three?  Considering just our decent wins over Texas Tech and Duke, we have more decent non-conference wins than these three teams . . . .COMBINED.

And, no, I didn't include Ohio State--who won 20 games but was banned from the tourney..  

Still going to maintain 20 wins means nothing?

Of our current 13 wins, nine include wins versus Hillsdale, Idaho St. (barely), Eastern Michigan, Northwestern St., Delaware St., UMBC, Oakland, Morgan St. and Savannah St. I'm not sure anybody on this board couldn't get almost halfway to 20 wins with that schedule. We have decent wins over Texas Tech, Duke, Valpo and UCONN. We're going to need more than 7 more wins to get to the tournament.

Past history suggests otherwise.  Just three 20 game winning teams from a big 6 conference in the past 8 years haven't made the tourney.

[Marquette84]

rocky -- I am simply stating facts. We currently have 14 wins. If we were to win 6 more games, we'd finish 20-11, an overall record which looks decent on paper, but which is, in fact, a lousy record considering our schedule. Do you actually deny that? Twenty wins used to mean a near automatic bid into the tournament. If we reached exactly 20 wins, there's no way we'd get in and 21 we'd be borderline for sure. What is to debate?

Actually, its obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

But go ahead--find me all those 20-11 teams from Big 6 conferences that were left out despite schedules stronger than ours.

In fact, find me all of those borderline 21-game winners. 

I'd love to see your lists.

[rocky_warrior]

What is to debate?

Well, for one, Marquette went to the NCAA tourney last year with only 19 wins
(Lewis game didn't count)

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Last year we had 10 conference wins. Finishing with 20 wins this year would be a 7-9 Big East record. 21 wins would be an 8-8 conference record.

[Harrison]

i do not completely disagree with what PRN is saying.  I stated the other day that Creans 13-14 preconferecne wins when compared to what other Mu coaches did was apples to oranges as they typically, especially Pre- C-USa days played very difficult scheduels in Novemeber and December.  Nevertheless, we go 8-8 and we are in.  21 wiins and .500 in conference and we are in amy be aan 8-9-10 seed but we are in.  The 20 wins in a BCS conference has long been a standard and as has been shown the three that missed had preconference schedules that did not hold a candle to ours.  Not saying ours was great or anything in that order, but we beat Texas Tech both who will probably finish top 50 rpi...good enough. Those three schools were all like 0-10 against the top 100 rpi in those three years and that is precisely why they did not get in and if I recall had losing conference records. 

[Big Papi]

2002mualum said it best.

It's all about the program.

Crean is not a very good bench coach or a X and O guy, but he runs the program the correct way. Marquette is on the national college basketball radar once again. Deane recruited "regional" players, Crean has made the national recruits take notice of Marquette(although hasn't landed many of them).

Let's give Crean the credit that he deserves.

One more thing about Deane. His teams at Lamar and Wagner (going down the coaching ladder) are not good. I don't think he should be referred to as a good coach.

Furthermore. we don't have to worry about scandals, players being academically ineligible and shoes being discounted inappropriately.