Important Question, will the 11-12 Utes be as bad as the 1-25 Ingle Warriors

[Flattop]

You idiot. Boylen won a conference championship only two season before he was fired. Why can't anyone see that? Oh, wait....

Dear LA Ute,

Nuts

Flattop

[Flattop]

I this thread. It is like being in the Western Bank, as a Jew and watching three Palestinians beat the crap out of one another.

Could one of you Utes please start a similar thread in the Stadium about Whittingham.

Why would any of us beat others of us up over Whittingham?

[Art Vandelay]

Why would any of us beat others of us up over Whittingham?

I have no idea. However, I really have no idea what this thread is about either. I just like watching the steel cage deathmatch, from afar.

[Flattop]

It is general accepted wisdom that when the game gets late, such as under 5 minutes left, one abandons a slow down tempo if they are losing by 10 points.

The reality is Coach Boylen's Ute teams lost a lot of games. They lost a lot of games to programs Utah has no excuse losing to any year. They lost many of those games in the 4th year Boylen had been the HC. IMO it was obvious that Utah would never be very good with Boylen as the HC. That is not to say that I think the past two years are indicative that Boylen absolutely sucks as a HC. I believe that Utah was inflicted with some bad luck during his tenure, but I also think that he was probably responsible for some of that bad luck. Mister Crimson knows Gary Crouton was a bad coach and Gary Crouton also won a conference championship. The reality is probably that both Gary Crouton and Jimmy Boylen are neither as good as their conference championship pinnacles nor as bad as their doldrum cellar dwelling lowlights. Ergo, neither head coach was likely to ever lead their respecitve teams to success that the fans of both programs have enjoyed and have come to expect. I think both institutions made the right decisions in firing both.

Now I can accept that Utah is going to suck more next year than they would have had Boylen stayed, however I also believe Utah would never be much more than mediocre with Boylen long term. It Perhaps Krystkowiak is or isn't the right guy for the job, but it was obvious to me that Boylen was the wrong guy for the job. Often times picking HCs is a process of eliminating the wrong guys for the job with faith and eternal optimism that the next guy is the right guy for the job. I also think there is a component of luck and the law of averages indicate that Utah's luck should turn up sometime.

Like I said, Boylen dug himself a hole he couldn't climb out of. I was OK with firing him as long as we could get an established coach like Bennett at St. Mary's. Instead we hired Krystko. Considering it cost Utah $2 mil. it makes even less sense to fire Boylen and hire Krystko.

[LA Ute]

Dear LA Ute,

Nuts

Flattop

My jibe was directed at Mr. Crimson. I should have noted that!

[LA Ute]

I this thread. It is like being in the Western Bank, as a Jew and watching three Palestinians beat the crap out of one another.

Could one of you Utes please start a similar thread in the Stadium about Whittingham.

You're not supposed to enjoy this. It's wrong. And unbecoming. And generally beneath you. Not to mention annoying to me. (Wait, maybe I should have left that last one out.)

[YOhio]

Teach me Mr. Crimson.

Don't even try, Mr. Crimson. Despite his request for your tutelage, 'Star is the most obstinate person on the entire internet. Total waste of time.

[MartyFunkhouser]

It is general accepted wisdom that when the game gets late, such as under 5 minutes left, one abandons a slow down tempo if they are losing by 10 points.

The reality is Coach Boylen's Ute teams lost a lot of games. They lost a lot of games to programs Utah has no excuse losing to any year. They lost many of those games in the 4th year Boylen had been the HC. IMO it was obvious that Utah would never be very good with Boylen as the HC. That is not to say that I think the past two years are indicative that Boylen absolutely sucks as a HC. I believe that Utah was inflicted with some bad luck during his tenure, but I also think that he was probably responsible for some of that bad luck. Mister Crimson knows Gary Crouton was a bad coach and Gary Crouton also won a conference championship. The reality is probably that both Gary Crouton and Jimmy Boylen are neither as good as their conference championship pinnacles nor as bad as their doldrum cellar dwelling lowlights. Ergo, neither head coach was likely to ever lead their respecitve teams to success that the fans of both programs have enjoyed and have come to expect. I think both institutions made the right decisions in firing both.

Now I can accept that Utah is going to suck more next year than they would have had Boylen stayed, however I also believe Utah would never be much more than mediocre with Boylen long term. It Perhaps Krystkowiak is or isn't the right guy for the job, but it was obvious to me that Boylen was the wrong guy for the job. Often times picking HCs is a process of eliminating the wrong guys for the job with faith and eternal optimism that the next guy is the right guy for the job. I also think there is a component of luck and the law of averages indicate that Utah's luck should turn up sometime.

Damnit, why are people insistent on posting their opinions without also posting their athletic credentials. I have no clue whether or not their opinions have validity without this information.

[Top Ute]

Couple of thoughts, since I can't seem to leave this debate -- try as I might.

Jimmy knows basketball. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. That doesn't make him qualified to manage a game and run a program. Two things stand out that back my claim up in spades: The man had no concept of managing timeouts. None. Go back and look at how many times Jimmy used more than his use-it-or-lose-it timeouts in the first half. In tight games, we were consistently in a bind in managing the clock and substituting because we were always short on timeouts.

The second is player defection. I have never seen anything like it, and don't ever recall Kentucky post-Sutton and Baylor post-Bliss/Dennehy enduring this kind of turnover. And those programs were razor-thin close to the death penalty. The players should have welcomed a coaching change, not rebelled against it. If Larry was so quick to appease Chris Hill to get the job, why was he so quick to not to appease some of the current players? (On a side note, Larry said he failed with the Bucks because he couldn't control his players, but here he is as a HC reportedly being controlled by his AD from Day 1). Larry gets some of the blame for this turnover, but most of it goes on Jimmy. For a man who talked about trust as much as he did, it never stuck with his players. Not on the court and not off it.

I'll add one more thing to back up those who have already pointed it out: Using Majerus/1994 to back up Boylen is flat-out absurd. You lose every right to be taken seriously in this debate by even trying to make the comparison. Even at the end of that season, when we lost to BYU and the peroxide-drenched Reids by 30, we knew Utah was going to be a monster the next year. There was zero doubt.

1994 Utah beat everyone at home save for two teams: a Final Four outfit in Arizona (an 8-point game or so, IIRC) and BYU (on a Reid 3 from Jimmer range and a block-charge call that went against us). No losses to the likes of Oral Roberts or Idaho State. Heck, Utah even beat UNM that year, and the Lobos won the WAC outright. I don't ever remember Utah getting blown out away from the JHC, minus the aforementioned BYU game.

Someone mentioned that it was stunning how quickly the fanbase turned on Boylen after 2009. It shouldn't have been -- not with how Utah lost at home, and who Utah lost at home to. I have one friend who used to be a HC at a top-shelf mid-major club, laid out Utah's situation under Boylen in his first three years, and even he concluded DURING Year 3 there was no way he'd make it past Year 4 without a huge year. You simply cannot lose at home like Jimmy did and expect the fans to show any kind of patience. And we had those kinds of losses every year under Boylen. Majerus went over a decade without one.

All of my criticisms of Jimmy aside, we failed to significantly upgrade at HC. Utah is going to be so horrible next year, it's quite possible the program never sees the light at the end of the tunnel that warrants keeping a coach around one more year. And it's quite possible we're worse in Year 2 if we can't beef up inside, because Foster will be a huge loss. That makes Year 3 do-or-die, and how could you possible keep a coach for a fourth year without even 20 wins to his credit in his first three years.

And the same vicious cycle will begin all over again. Forget the BCS wins, the sold-out RES, the Pac-12 invite or increased recruiting -- that Chris Hill is apparently immune from any criticism whatsoever over the tanking of the basketball program is Exhibit A for me that Utah has made the complete transformation from hoops school to football school.

[Blueintheface]

Couple of thoughts, since I can't seem to leave this debate -- try as I might.

Jimmy knows basketball. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

That may be true but you didn't add support in this post. You conceded his mismanagement but didn't point out what made him "know" basketball. Seems to me that clock management and running sets are part of "knowing" basketball. Please elaborate.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Couple of thoughts, since I can't seem to leave this debate -- try as I might.

Jimmy knows basketball. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. That doesn't make him qualified to manage a game and run a program. Two things stand out that back my claim up in spades: The man had no concept of managing timeouts. None. Go back and look at how many times Jimmy used more than his use-it-or-lose-it timeouts in the first half. In tight games, we were consistently in a bind in managing the clock and substituting because we were always short on timeouts.

The second is player defection. I have never seen anything like it, and don't ever recall Kentucky post-Sutton and Baylor post-Bliss/Dennehy enduring this kind of turnover. And those programs were razor-thin close to the death penalty. The players should have welcomed a coaching change, not rebelled against it. If Larry was so quick to appease Chris Hill to get the job, why was he so quick to not to appease some of the current players? (On a side note, Larry said he failed with the Bucks because he couldn't control his players, but here he is as a HC reportedly being controlled by his AD from Day 1). Larry gets some of the blame for this turnover, but most of it goes on Jimmy. For a man who talked about trust as much as he did, it never stuck with his players. Not on the court and not off it.

I'll add one more thing to back up those who have already pointed it out: Using Majerus/1994 to back up Boylen is flat-out absurd. You lose every right to be taken seriously in this debate by even trying to make the comparison. Even at the end of that season, when we lost to BYU and the peroxide-drenched Reids by 30, we knew Utah was going to be a monster the next year. There was zero doubt.

1994 Utah beat everyone at home save for two teams: a Final Four outfit in Arizona (an 8-point game or so, IIRC) and BYU (on a Reid 3 from Jimmer range and a block-charge call that went against us). No losses to the likes of Oral Roberts or Idaho State. Heck, Utah even beat UNM that year, and the Lobos won the WAC outright. I don't ever remember Utah getting blown out away from the JHC, minus the aforementioned BYU game.

Someone mentioned that it was stunning how quickly the fanbase turned on Boylen after 2009. It shouldn't have been -- not with how Utah lost at home, and who Utah lost at home to. I have one friend who used to be a HC at a top-shelf mid-major club, laid out Utah's situation under Boylen in his first three years, and even he concluded DURING Year 3 there was no way he'd make it past Year 4 without a huge year. You simply cannot lose at home like Jimmy did and expect the fans to show any kind of patience. And we had those kinds of losses every year under Boylen. Majerus went over a decade without one.

All of my criticisms of Jimmy aside, we failed to significantly upgrade at HC. Utah is going to be so horrible next year, it's quite possible the program never sees the light at the end of the tunnel that warrants keeping a coach around one more year. And it's quite possible we're worse in Year 2 if we can't beef up inside, because Foster will be a huge loss. That makes Year 3 do-or-die, and how could you possible keep a coach for a fourth year without even 20 wins to his credit in his first three years.

And the same vicious cycle will begin all over again. Forget the BCS wins, the sold-out RES, the Pac-12 invite or increased recruiting -- that Chris Hill is apparently immune from any criticism whatsoever over the tanking of the basketball program is Exhibit A for me that Utah has made the complete transformation from hoops school to football school.

Nice points all around, TU. Your comments about 1994 are spot on. That despite the w-l record you could see the genesis of a team. You could see that they understood what was expected of their role, what was expected of them in the system, and even though they did not win as much as other teams, you could see how they were going to get there. You cannot say the same about boylen's last two seasons.

[Flattop]

Even at the end of that season, when we lost to BYU and the peroxide-drenched Reids by 30, we knew Utah was going to be a monster the next year. There was zero doubt.

Sorry, but this strikes me as a huge overstatement. I remember that year rather well and at no point did I ever think Utah was going to "be a monster the next year." I thought Utah would get better, and Van Horn gave us reason to be confident, but the Utes needed another piece or two. If they were monster in 1995 it was probably because Utah got that additional piece in Brandon Jessie.

[Top Ute]

That may be true but you didn't add support in this post. You conceded his mismanagement but didn't point out what made him "know" basketball. Seems to me that clock management and running sets are part of "knowing" basketball. Please elaborate.

A simple look at Boylen's resume indicates he knows basketball. Anyone who makes a living in the game for as long as he has clearly knows the sport.

It was a point made by some of my fellow critics that really gnawed at me. Of course the man knows basketball -- you can't BS your way to the status Jimmy held in the game without knowing the sport cold.

[Top Ute]

Sorry, but this strikes me as a huge overstatement. I remember that year rather well and at no point did I ever think Utah was going to "be a monster the next year." I thought Utah would get better, and Van Horn gave us reason to be confident, but the Utes needed another piece or two. If they were monster in 1995 it was probably because Utah got that additional piece in Brandon Jessie.

Fine. Everyone knew we'd be better the following year. Getting Jessie made us a cinch-lock to be a monster next year. We beat out some heavyweights to get Jessie.

[LA Ute]

A simple look at Boylen's resume indicates he knows basketball. Anyone who makes a living in the game for as long as he has clearly knows the sport.

It was a point made by some of my fellow critics that really gnawed at me. Of course the man knows basketball -- you can't BS your way to the status Jimmy held in the game without knowing the sport cold.

I agree with this. BITF's point, I think, is that JB couldn't seem to execute as HC. Lots of lawyers, for example, know the law cold but just aren't good at thinking on their feet or speaking in public. Those are separate skills, just as being head coach is. Knowledge is only the beginning.