Good seasons

Good coaches ought to be able to manage "good" seasons most of the time. There are enough factors under their control that they should be able to do that. However, "great" seasons are often the result of factors beyond the coach's control, most notably avoiding the injury bug.

Coaching choices

It is always interesting to observe coaching hires and wonder to what extent they reflect the character of the institution. Single exceptions will happen, of course, but over time, if the coaches at a school are always in the news for the wrong reasons, you wonder about the school.

Finally - Javes

Now that Michael Javes is finally officially on the team, I feel much better about our prospects. We have that legit big man that can alternate (or maybe play at the same time as) Will Neighbour. I like our chances.

Coach gets the blame

A good manager gives his subordinates the credit when things go well, and takes the blame when things go wrong - and that should be a coach's attitude as well. However, as fans we need to give credit and blame where they are due. Players sometimes mess up, sometimes do not or will not carry out the game plan.

Interesting question

Why do we say "He won the game" when someone makes the winning shot; but we NEVER say "He won the game" when a player prevents what might have been the winning shot?

military academies

There are pluses and minuses to recruiting to a military academy. They can appeal to patriotism, can provide an unparalleled education at taxpayer expense, can offer the sort of discipline that will turn a boy into a man. On the other hand, the sad fact is that a lot of athletes do not possess the sort of discipline that the academies require, and do not wish to get it. Plus, the better players usually have at least a hope of going pro, and if they attend the academies they will have to serve their military committment first. I am sure the academy coaches put the best face on their recruiting, but it does have some limitations.

from ESPN about UCLA

Howland's style has always been rugged. His teams thrive on slow tempo, defensive brilliance and physicality. Things aren't pretty on the offensive end, but they don't have to be. They just have to be effective. In this case, "effective" means "good enough to score more points than your opponent, who probably won't score that many, because you're UCLA and your defense is usually pretty awesome."
(Remind you of anyone?)

Why I follow the teams I do

I follow 53 teams closely enough to keep up with their recruiting and study their stats in the off season. Why those particular teams? Well . . . I am glad you asked.

1. Some because they are Arkansas teams that have no connection with Fayetteville.
2. Some because they are academically-strong schools who do not bow to athletics (e.g. Northwestern)
3. Some because they are "at" teams (such as University of Missouri AT Kansas City)
4. Some because I like the coaches (e.g., Bowling Green)
5. Some because they play the style of ball that I like (e.g., Drexel)
6. Some because they are historically intersting (e.g., William and Mary)
7. Some just because they intrigue me (e.g., Maine)

And perhaps a few other reasons, but those are the main ones.

Incoming class

It is hard not to feel very good about the incoming recruiting class. They may not all pan out, of course, but on paper this is the best group since I have been a fan.

Early NCAA candidate?

Take a look at Drexel. They return four starters, including their two leading scorers. They play smothering defense and are a dominant rebounding team.

Not there yet

Shields has averaged 17.5 wins over the last four years. Not awful, but no where near where it needs to be. Take out that one horrible year, and it isn't so bad, but those years do get averaged in.