Ute Hoops Schedule

[Portland Ute]

Actually if we had Boylen as coach we'd have had a good team instead of what Larry could hold together after blowing off all the parents of the players he had.

As for that schedule, you can't possibly defend it. There isn't even one team worth wasting time on. Hell even Majerus would give us one team.

Its pathetic and indefensible. And its not going to help to have crappy wins come conference time.

Man, you've sure found your cause and are sticking to it.

I haven't said anything over the past few weeks because I thought it might simmer down.

However, you seem pretty hell bent on criticizing the hell out of anyone and/or anything associated with Utah basketball right now EXCEPT it's past two coaches.

Who is it that you are trying to crucify here, Crim? Kryskowiak? Hill? Someone else?

I don't quite understand your defense of the past couple of failed coaches who PROVED how awful they were while excoriating Kryskowiak before he even coaches one game?

It smells to me like your animosity is really directed towards the administration that made the decision to get rid of Boylen and hire K. Am I right?

[Mr. Crimson]

So where were your complaints last year about the schedule. It isn't like last year's schedule was really that much better.

Actually last years schedule was much better, again doesn't fit with the lies you're trying to tell but that is reality.

[Mr. Crimson]

You're acting surprised at this. I've been saying for months the schedule would be dummied down like no other. If we didn't have obligations to finish deals with Boise, Fresno and Portland, plus our in-state commitments, I guarantee you we easily could have done worse. We essentially had five NC games to fill -- none of whom had an RPI higher than 250 and a non-D1 in SDCC.

I knew the schedule would be bad, but damn.

[Portland Ute]

Last year's NC schedule didn't need to be that much better, given the presence of four games against RPI top 10 teams in the MWC. Of course, that's a view made in hindsight, but a schedule is still a schedule, and last year's ranks among one of the toughest played at Utah in the last 25 years.

That's the one unqualified positive from Jimmy's time at Utah. The man clearly made the effort to schedule up from his predecessors.

Well, if you are going to lose, it might as well be to a recognizable name rather than enduring the embarrassment of losing at home to Oral Roberts, Idaho or Seattle.

You definitely want to schedule up to avoid as many of those losses as possible.

A loss to a name program is far less embarrassing than getting run at home by a nobody.

[Mr. Crimson]

I don't quite understand your defense of the past couple of failed coaches who PROVED how awful they were while excoriating Kryskowiak before he even coaches one game?

It smells to me like your animosity is really directed towards the administration that made the decision to get rid of Boylen and hire K. Am I right?

I don't defend Giac, I would have a serious discussion about his time at Utah, but no one is really interested in it.

I will defend Boylen because I flat out think he was screwed.

I'm pissed at Hill for screwing Boylen and then not getting us an upgrade at coach.

I'm pissed at Larry because he flat out pissed away what would have been a decent team. Maybe Clyburn was a lost cause, but we could have had JJ Obrien back and Glover and Lee and Josh Sharp. People want to rant that they weren't great but they're as good as anything Larry brought in only we lost the consistency. And he blew Obrien and Sharp because he wouldn't call their parents? What a stunning act of stupidity.

Now here we are facing the worst season in the history of Ute hoops, worse than anything Giac or Boylen brought us. And then we're supposed to get better with a guy from LSU who didn't average 10 PPG and a Big Sky PG.

I'm pissed because we were at the edge of getting consistent again and between Hill and Larry we're back at the bottom again and will be changing coaches in four years.

Yeah I'm pissed.

[Flattop]

I remember how Boylen was going to have a good team last year and how much improvement we were going to show after Boylen blew everything up. That sure worked out great. I have every reason to believe that you would be right again and that Boylen would have a good team had he just been given the chance. He proved he really is a great coach with that shared conference championship (in a weak year) and a first round beatdown by a 12 seed in the tournament.

I was only looking for 17 wins, an improvement of three over the previous year. Would that have been "good"? As it was, they only won 13, which is why I was OK with firing Boylen as long as we got an upgrade with a coach like Bennett or Gottfried.

I think we learned that bringing in 9 new players is not a way to bring dramatic improvement. Which might be why a few of us are dismayed that we will be doing something similar with a new coach who is not on the level of Bennett or Gottfried.

[Top Ute]

Well, if you are going to lose, it might as well be to a recognizable name rather than enduring the embarrassment of losing at home to Oral Roberts, Idaho or Seattle.

You definitely want to schedule up to avoid as many of those losses as possible.

A loss to a name program is far less embarrassing than getting run at home by a nobody.

We've passed avoiding embarrassment as a metric for determining hoops success a long time ago, and we'll find out pretty quickly if Larry can get the team playing to its potential every night. With a young team, you want that potential and effort to be rewarded with wins against any D-1 teams.

The idea that there are style points to be earned with this year's team is outright silly. We're going to suck and everyone knows it. But scheduling up, IMO, is throwing in the towel on this season. You're giving yourself an out to justify a shitting record. Besides, we've got conference play to give us a better understanding as to how far away we are from being respectable.

Getting to 10 wins this year would be huge for this team, and anything on top of that is sheer gravy. If we're flirting with .500 after Feb. 1, it will be nothing short of a miracle. Quite frankly, I don't care how we get there.

[Portland Ute]

We've passed avoiding embarrassment as a metric for determining hoops success a long time ago, and we'll find out pretty quickly if Larry can get the team playing to its potential every night. With a young team, you want that potential and effort to be rewarded with wins against any D-1 teams.

The idea that there are style points to be earned with this year's team is outright silly. We're going to suck and everyone knows it. But scheduling up, IMO, is throwing in the towel on this season. You're giving yourself an out to justify a shitting record. Besides, we've got conference play to give us a better understanding as to how far away we are from being respectable.

Getting to 10 wins this year would be huge for this team, and anything on top of that is sheer gravy. If we're flirting with .500 after Feb. 1, it will be nothing short of a miracle. Quite frankly, I don't care how we get there.

Sorry, my post was sarcastic. That didn't come through very well.

Crim, you say were were to the point of being consistent? Consistent at WHAT???

[MartyFunkhouser]

I was only looking for 17 wins, an improvement of three over the previous year. Would that have been "good"? As it was, they only won 13, which is why I was OK with firing Boylen as long as we got an upgrade with a coach like Bennett or Gottfried.

I think we learned that bringing in 9 new players is not a way to bring dramatic improvement. Which might be why a few of us are dismayed that we will be doing something similar with a new coach who is not on the level of Bennett or Gottfried.

Are you kidding me 17 wins was acceptable to you last year when the coach brought in 3 JC players on the heals of bringing in 2 JC players. That is 5 JC players in 2 years you better damn well do a lot better than 17 wins if you are selling out the program's future for that year.

[Flattop]

Are you kidding me 17 wins was acceptable to you last year when the coach brought in 3 JC players on the heals of bringing in 2 JC players. That is 5 JC players in 2 years you better damn well do a lot better than 17 wins if you are selling out the program's future for that year.

More than 17 didn't seem terribly realistic.

[Top Ute]

Are you kidding me 17 wins was acceptable to you last year when the coach brought in 3 JC players on the heals of bringing in 2 JC players. That is 5 JC players in 2 years you better damn well do a lot better than 17 wins if you are selling out the program's future for that year.

17 would have been acceptable in that it would've set us up for a win-big year for Jimmy in what essentially would be a contract year for him. If we couldn't win big with an experienced team that had tasted success, you have an easy decision to let him go, as well as more interest in the job.

[Mr. Crimson]

17 would have been acceptable in that it would've set us up for a win-big year for Jimmy in what essentially would be a contract year for him. If we couldn't win big with an experienced team that had tasted success, you have an easy decision to let him go, as well as more interest in the job.

Regardless of what Jimmy did, I don't see how we're helped by bringing in Larry in this year. It seems next year becomes a more natural firing point if he fails and it allows us to get a real coach.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Regardless of what Jimmy did, I don't see how we're helped by bringing in Larry in this year. It seems next year becomes a more natural firing point if he fails and it allows us to get a real coach.

If you bring him back you are allowing a proven awful recruiter recruit 5 players.


Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Too many times in my working life I've had to fire younger lawyers. Usually the basic reason has been that regardless of the causes, the partners have lost confidence in the lawyer and it really is in the best interests of both sides of the relationship to move on, because the likelihood of restoring confidence was so minimal that it wasn't worth it to keep trying. That's pretty much where we were with Boylen, IMO. We can argue all we want about whether the decision was right, but it's all in the past now.

[Mr. Crimson]

If you bring him back you are allowing a proven awful recruiter recruit 5 players.


Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

As Larry has shown what you're saying is nonsense. A new coach could make as many changes as he wished.

One more time Funk is wrong.