seems like the most realistic and probably the best guy we can get at his point. Think it's worth the gamble
Dudes been on the board since 06. Youve only been trolling since 2013... LOLZenigundam. You are clueless. 6 worthless posts! LOL
Called setting up his successor for failure. Or just sour grapes in absentia.So Willard spends a roster spot on a marginal prospect he will never even coach in a game. Sounds great.
I try to answer that: He talked to Mensa member Jerry Lucas at the '89 finals.Fair enough. But tell me this. What makes your post carry any weight?
My post is based up his statistics playing 2 years at KState. What is your opinion based on? I would really like to know because it seems like you are pulling it out of your ass.
Yikes! Should fit in well in KW's system, whatever that is.Excerpts from March 25 Kansas City Star article:
Thomas exits following a rocky season in which he led the Wildcats with 102 assists and averaged 4.5 points while starting 25 games, but also had to talk his way back onto the roster earlier this month when Weber briefly kicked him off the team before a road game against Texas.
From Kansas City Star
The Trove just spoke to Thomas last night. My writer noted he came off very intelligent during their talk.Yikes! Should fit in well in KW's system, whatever that is.
hallgrad80- Pat Lyons is the AD not the head men's basketball coach. But by your definition you make him the head basketball coach. You give him the power to shape the team to his liking not the coach's. According to your definition Lyons could give the ok only to players that he wants thereby affecting the entire make up of the team. The coach would have to use only Lyons' players and Lyons could dictate to the coach who starts, how many minutes each player can play, etc. ,thereby interfering in the everyday running of the team. The original question that was posed was whether a transfer who has to sit out a year should be given a scholarship over a transfer who would be immediately eligible. I believe that this is the coach's decision not the AD's.Because he's Willard's boss and has oversight responsibility for all the athletic programs at SH. By your definition Willard could, without checking with anyone , give a ship to a player who is under investigation for criminal activities. If you're suggesting that Pat has no say in who Willard recruits or in any other aspect of the BB program
then all the comments that's been posted on this Board that Pat sits down at the end of the season and goes over the results of the just completed season and discusses the pluses and minuses really doesn't happen. You would also have me believe that Lyons and Willard had no conversation on how he address the guard problem created by Gibbs departure especially given what has transpired this year.
While the AD should have little if any say who starts, who gets what minutes, the type of offense or defense a team plays any other aspect of the program are areas he can exercise his authority over and questioning the validity of using the last ship on a player who will not see the court for a year is a legitimate part of his responsibility.
hallgrad80- Pat Lyons is the AD not the head men's basketball coach. But by your definition you make him the head basketball coach. You give him the power to shape the team to his liking not the coach's. According to your definition Lyons could give the ok only to players that he wants thereby affecting the entire make up of the team. The coach would have to use only Lyons' players and Lyons could dictate to the coach who starts, how many minutes each player can play, etc. ,thereby interfering in the everyday running of the team. The original question that was posed was whether a transfer who has to sit out a year should be given a scholarship over a transfer who would be immediately eligible. I believe that this is the coach's decision not the AD's.
hallgrad- Just like you exaggerated my point of view and tried to put words in my mouth. The final question is should the AD interfere with the recruiting of a transfer who has to sit out a year and dictate that the scholarship should only be used by a transfer with immediate eligibility. What do you think?Come on Ray you're exaggerating my view when you suggest that only Lyons' players would make up the roster and in my response to your original comment I specifically commented that Lyons should have no say with respect to the on court decisions as to who plays, starts , gets minutes, etc and now you're stating that I would give Lyons the authority to make those decisions and that's just plain not true. Now to get back to the point I was making is that an AD has veto power over any coach's decision to offer a ship to a player or on other player issues and should exercise that authority in certain cases where he feels it's not in the best interest of the school and the program. We've seen over and over players suspended or dismissed from the team on the AD's decision where the coach disagrees. We've seen cases where players are offered ships and the school withdraws that offer over the objection of the head coach. I can think of one classic case involving SH and Lyons where a player was offered a ship and accepted and that player was Aquille Carr where , after the Gonzo era bringing in a player with his conduct issues was clearly questionable and would you have said it was wrong for Lyons if he said that we were withdrawing the ship over Kevin's objection .That scenario never had to be visited but it would have been interesting had AC met the standards for entrance . I'm sure neither of our positions will change on what Lyons' role should be vis a vis approving ships and his oversight responsibilities.
I will post some titbits here when the article is complete.
Rayhallgrad- Just like you exaggerated my point of view and tried to put words in my mouth. The final question is should the AD interfere with the recruiting of a transfer who has to sit out a year and dictate that the scholarship should only be used by a transfer with immediate eligibility. What do you think?
hallgrad80- I'm in full agreement that the AD should set boundaries such as partial qualifiers and personal conduct issues but that was not the point here. If the coach after being advised of the recruiting boundaries wants to recruit a player the AD should not interfere because it is the head coach's team not the AD's. If the AD doesn't like what the head coach is doing then the AD should fire him. Now if you are implying that JT has issues you should be advised that 6 players are transferring from KSU and many of these players along with a number of seniors were suspended during this current BB season. Now one or two players being given suspensions one can see and attribute the suspension to the player's actions but six, seven or more now there is a problem with the coach and the program. So possibly the issue wasn't with JT but with the coach and his program.Ray
I would say yes with certain qualifiers . I believe it is Ok for an AD to have the discussion with Willard as to why he's not going to bring in a player at a position of need who can play immediately rather then a player who is not eligible immediately. I would also see it appropriate for the AD to ask what other players are there out there that we're involved with that could play immediately and where we stand with them and if the response is positive that we could get one of them then I see nothing wrong with the AD saying let's hold off until the other , more beneficial scenarios play out.
The difference between our views is that you believe that what authority an AD has with respect to recruiting is interfering while I believe it's part of his job . For example I believe that it is certainly within an AD's authority to set recruiting boundaries , such as not taking partial qualifiers, not taking players who have personal conduct issues in their past as well as questioning why a program may be relying too much on transfers and why a program is not taking a player who can play immediately when doing so has a high priority especially for a clearly struggling program.