What would make you show Shaka the door in March?

[Pakuni]

It gets debated endlessly from all sides, but I think this is another example of not recognizing this program's history.

Last year we definitely faded down the stretch and the no transfer stuff was a clear culprit as well. Shaka needs to adjust, and I've been critical. But if a 7 seed after 9-2-2 were a real issue you should've been teaming up with Ners to blast Wojo from the start of his tenure. The fade and subsequent Hauser transfers ultimately weren't any worse than last year, and that was Wojo's best year.

I'm trying hard to get what you're saying here, but I'm not quite there. Because I consider the way last season played out a disappointment, I should have called for Wojo's firing from the start of his tenure? That's a pretty wild non-sequitur.

Anyhow, when people like you say we should judge a season against the program's history, which history? The Bob Dukiet era? The Al era? Buzz era? Some of you seem pretty hung up on the Wojo era ... is that the bar for success? Was last season OK, because Wojo also had a season that started out great and faded? And didn't Wojo get ripped here and elsewhere because of the way that season ended, to the extent he had to shut down his social media? By and large, Shaka's been given a relative pass for the way last season ended.

I guess I chose to judge a team's performance and success based on what that team does, not what happened 10, 20 or 50 years ago.

[muwarrior69]

Yes. Obviously yes. If we didn't, we're DePaul accepting our lot but with a more overpaid coach.

Shaka earned a leash with 4 straight bids and a pair of 2-seeds, but he didn't walk on water. He didn't win a national championship. That is the only thing that gets a lifetime pass from me.

Two years of this would clearly demonstrate he cannot successfully transition to the new roster building paradigm and that 2022-25 was likely a lucky string with some generational players, most of which were transfers or recruited by another coach.

We're blaming Shaka, but could it be the Administration? We're 3-4 years in on NIL and in year one on revenue sharing which is just not men's basketball. Could it be that they're just figuring how they're going to divide up that pie (men's basketball, women's basketball and volleyball, etc.) to make it all work? Maybe Shaka just doesn't have the cash to get the players to be competitive? I think this off season might tell us in what direction the University will go. They dropped football in 1960. They just might decide that to be competitive at the high major D1 level in Men's basketball for National Championships is too costly in this new age of college athletics. When you have the AD and University President promoting RGV you have to wonder.

However, if we do have the cash, then it's on Shaka as we're certainly not getting an acceptable ROI.