Bring back Bobby Lutz!

Answers:
He was successful at Charlotte before.

Although he had a couple of down years at the end, he concluded with a 19 win season. Toward the end of his last year, his team was projected to be an NCAA tournament team and would have been had it not been for the losing streak at the very end of the year. With four returning starters plus recruits and players being developed on the bench, who knows what the success would have been in the following year.

His next year could have been very special. It pains me to read the comments that people are making saying look how his time here ended. In my opinion, he was far from done.

Most coaches, including the great ones, generally have a few down years along the way. Have any of you noticed that we never talked about managing our expectations while Bobby Lutz was the coach? That started afterward.

Yes, being away from something can make you stronger. You can recharge and also realize how much you really enjoy it. He gained additional experience that he would not have gained otherwise.

The culture at Charlotte has now changed with the introduction of Mike Hill. Lutz and Hill could be an awesome combination. I see them as similar personalities with a deep desire to succeed. They are both competitors and winners.

Lutz has what it takes to succeed at ‘this’ University. There have been many programs that feared playing Charlotte while he was the head coach here. Many left the arena with their tails tucked down between their legs.

Hill should at least interview Lutz to check the box. I think he would walk away being extremely impressed and have a tough time finding a better choice.

Lutz value. I think we will be hard-pressed to find a higher caliber coach for anywhere near the price we could get him for. Remember, we still have another coach to pay. Lutz will know when it’s time to go and can transition the program to a new coach. This eliminates the need to dismiss a coach, have them coach outside of a long-term contract, or risk losing players to transfer due to a sudden staff change. A transition would be much better for this program.

Interviewing Lutz and giving him serious consideration would go a long way with a tremendous number of loyal, committed Charlotte 49ers fans. I look around and do not see anywhere near the number of fans that I did in our fairly recent past. This would go a long way in winning back a lot of them… myself included. I personally have not left but I’m nowhere near “All In” like I have been in the past. I want to be.

Lutz surrounded by strong assistants that can recruit could turn this program around in short order. And, yes, there is plenty of evidence to support that.

There is nothing wrong with releasing a coach with the expectation of doing something better. However, there is something wrong with refusing to consider rekindling a relationship for all the right reasons and at the appropriate time to make our program better. We all have the same goals and objectives.

Lutz does not need to be the 20-year plan, or even the 10-year plan for this University. He can be the turnaround guy that could quickly return us to respectability. He could transition the program over to our next great coach at the right time. He could do it with class and dignity and be a long-time contributor to this University long after his retirement. We need that kind of blood circulating throughout this University. Not giving Lutz serious consideration would be a slap in the face to a significant % of our fan base.

Finally, Bobby Lutz is a winner! I know one thing about winners, they always finish strong. If this University is bold enough to give him a chance, just sit back and watch what happens. I, for one, will enjoy the ride and the return to respectability if we can find a way to make this happen.

It is just a really risky move for Hill to bring Bobby in with CHP as his boss. The last thing we need is CHP micro-managing things, which would happen if success wasn’t immediate. I say we give Hill a chance to find a successful coach, but I wouldn’t be disappointed to see Bobby back on the sidelines here.

Ultimately…everyone would have to like the move if for no other reason…hiring Lutz would show that Mike Hill is allowed to make his own decisions without any influence from Phil.

Phil’s influence is still the wet blanket that hovers over the AD…hiring Lutz would prove that the wet blanket is not micro managing or interfering at all which would be THE BEST NEWS EVER regardless of if you like a Lutz hire or not.

I know it won’t happen…because I know Phil is still gonna have his hand in everything. But hiring Lutz would be a sign that Phil is leaving the Athletic decisions completely to the new AD which is exactly what we all want.

It was a risk for Hill to even come here and work under Phil !
All I ask is Hill AND Phil meet with Bobby and hear his plan and see if Phil can “see the light”!
Then let Hill make a decision !
At least if nothing else, to satisfy the high % of fans that want to see it happen and be excited again !

A couple of months ago I thought Bobby might be a good answer to our problem, but our circumstances have changed. A lot. Now I want the net cast far and wide. I want this hire to announce to the NCAA-world that Charlotte is back and we are serious about being a contender. I am not sure hiring Bobby sends that message.

Why is this thread still a thing? Seriously, y’all…

I loved Bobby. I love Bobby now. Bobby is a class act and a 49er legend. I was around for CUSA 1.0 like many of you. I attended some of those tournament games. It was wonderful. I also didn’t bump my head and suddenly forget about the end of Bobby’s tenure and the fact that it was time to move on. The fact that we went in a worse direction after his departure does not erase the fact that where were then was also not where we wanted to be. It’s easy to re-imagine the past through the lens of the present.

We do not need Bobby back as our head coach. Stop it. Turn the damn page.

All this talk and excitement about a new era, and we’re over here talking about chasing our tails right back around to nearly ten years go.

49ER9ER, you are spot on! Bobby has fire in his gut and he still bleeds green. If it can’t happen because of CHP, then Steve Forbes of ETSU should be considered but Bobby should be first choice. Mike, if you read this board, listen to this old man whose been a Niner since '71 !

[quote=“49ER9ER, post:521, topic:31267”]Answers:
Lutz surrounded by strong assistants that can recruit could turn this program around in short order. And, yes, there is plenty of evidence to support that.[/quote]

Again - where is there evidence of that? It’s not hard to believe that Bobby took over a highly successful program and ran with it for a few years and then there were some down seasons. There’s nothing showing that he’s ever rebuilt anything or has the ability to start from nothing and turn it into something. He’s never done it, never been a position to do it, etc. Of course, there also isn’t evidence that he can’t do it if he’s in that situation. All we have evidence of with Bobby is that he can take over a program and keep it going for a while, and he can have some bad stretches after being in a place for a while. That’s literally all of the evidence we have of anything with Bobby.

Even in that last season, we didn’t beat anyone outside of Louisville and Temple, and we did manage to lose to Duke by 42, ODU by 43, Dayton by 38, etc., while losing 7 of our last 8 games. Half of the wins that year were against UNCA, Elon, Yale, Hofstra, WSSU, EZU, Gardner Webb, Winthrop, and Mercer. Hell, Major had as many 20 win seasons in his 5 years here as Lutz did in his last 5 years, and Major was starting from a worse position (and, no, I’m not suggesting Major was nearly the coach Lutz is). Guessing at what his next team would do is just like guessing how good we might have been with Dorn, Woods, Thorne, Izundu, Clayton, etc.

We love Bobby, he loves Charlotte, he’s got fire, he’s an alum, and he would likely be cheaper. That doesn’t mean he’s the right guy for our current situation. There is a lot of hoping and wishing in this thread when it comes to thinking Bobby is the panacea for this program without much factual evidence. If it’s the assistants that would make him great, then that’s true for any coach who brings in great assistants. Not to mention he’d be a short term solution here at 60 years old, even if it does work out extremely well and he turns us around.

I agree with others that there are definitely worse things to imagine than Bobby on the sidelines again, but the idea that it’s some great certainty that he’s the guy to fix what’s wrong isn’t really grounded in evidence that we have. It’s just as likely that he’d be great as it is that he’d be mediocre (I certainly think the floor would be higher).

One thing Lutz would do is make every fan/donor feel vital to the program. He was always great at that. That’s the best argument for bringing him back, IMO.

Does factual evidence not include the most NCAA tournament appearances in school history…or the most wins in school history?

[quote=“ninerJ, post:524, topic:31267”]It was a risk for Hill to even come here and work under Phil !
All I ask is Hill AND Phil meet with Bobby and hear his plan and see if Phil can “see the light”!
Then let Hill make a decision !
At least if nothing else, to satisfy the high % of fans that want to see it happen and be excited again ![/quote]I’m on board with that.

Does factual evidence not include the most NCAA tournament appearances in school history…or the most wins in school history?[/quote]

Again - his NCAA tournaments came in a run when he took over a highly successful program. Does his trend/track record not include his last 5 years? Most wins in school history is by virtue of being the coach longer than anyone else while having the advantage of taking over a program with 3 NCAAs in its previous 4 years and having gone 42-20 in the previous 2 years. His average record was a fairly strong 18-13 for his whole tenure, but about .500 (16-15) his last 5 years with two NITs. It’s easy to remember the good times, but no - taking over a very successful program (and not having a great track record in the second-half of your tenure) is not evidence of the ability to build something up from a 6 win season.

NewNiner is making sense.

Lots of y’all are currently on a steady diet of 'Memberberries.

Does anyone think the conference change had an impact on Lutz last year’s? During previous Conference changes we kept the majority of our rivals and maintained relationships with member teams. Sunbelt to Metro to Conference USA kept many relationships intact.

When we moved to the Atlantic 10 Conference, it was all brand new teams. It had to have an impact on recruiting and style of play. If you ask me, Lutz was on the verge of completing that transition. Just a couple more wins at the very end of the season in Lutz final year would have had us back in the tournament.

I suppose it’s like anything else, it’s easy to find the negative if you are looking for it.

Does factual evidence not include the most NCAA tournament appearances in school history…or the most wins in school history?[/quote]

Again - his NCAA tournaments came in a run when he took over a highly successful program. Does his trend/track record not include his last 5 years? Most wins in school history is by virtue of being the coach longer than anyone else while having the advantage of taking over a program with 3 NCAAs in its previous 4 years and having gone 42-20 in the previous 2 years. His average record was a fairly strong 18-13 for his whole tenure, but about .500 (16-15) his last 5 years with two NITs. It’s easy to remember the good times, but no - taking over a very successful program (and not having a great track record in the second-half of your tenure) is not evidence of the ability to build something up from a 6 win season.[/quote]
Bobby would of made sweet 16s or higher had 2 things happened:

  1. Phil Dubois never hired. He destroyed basketball culture and frankly sports culture

  2. Budget allocation to keep revolving door of assistants. Had to pay the wbb instead.

Dubois first day on job was our last NCAA. That’s a fact. You can trace the downfall.

Does factual evidence not include the most NCAA tournament appearances in school history…or the most wins in school history?[/quote]

Again - his NCAA tournaments came in a run when he took over a highly successful program. Does his trend/track record not include his last 5 years? Most wins in school history is by virtue of being the coach longer than anyone else while having the advantage of taking over a program with 3 NCAAs in its previous 4 years and having gone 42-20 in the previous 2 years. His average record was a fairly strong 18-13 for his whole tenure, but about .500 (16-15) his last 5 years with two NITs. It’s easy to remember the good times, but no - taking over a very successful program (and not having a great track record in the second-half of your tenure) is not evidence of the ability to build something up from a 6 win season.[/quote]I am not sure he is the answer for now, BUT Lutz deserved a lot of credit for what happened in the past. He was the common link as an assistant from Mullins to Watkins to his era. Watkins flamed out at his next stop; and my understanding is that Lutz’s coaching as an assistant had a lot to do with success in late Mullins and Watkins tenure. Also, what has Phiffer done since he left

I think Jeff Mullins deserves to be consulted. I know many on here will try to indicate he is too far removed. However, true champions know how to identify winners. Mullins was our athletic director, head coach, NBA legend and successful entrepreneur. Lutz worked under Mullins, so Mullins could provide us with some tremendous guidance if we are willing to ask. He has certainly earned his seat at the consultation table and we need to keep people like him engaged in our program.

[quote=“NewNiner, post:528, topic:31267”][quote=“49ER9ER, post:521, topic:31267”]Answers:
Lutz surrounded by strong assistants that can recruit could turn this program around in short order. And, yes, there is plenty of evidence to support that.[/quote]

Again - where is there evidence of that? It’s not hard to believe that Bobby took over a highly successful program and ran with it for a few years and then there were some down seasons. There’s nothing showing that he’s ever rebuilt anything or has the ability to start from nothing and turn it into something. He’s never done it, never been a position to do it, etc. Of course, there also isn’t evidence that he can’t do it if he’s in that situation. All we have evidence of with Bobby is that he can take over a program and keep it going for a while, and he can have some bad stretches after being in a place for a while. That’s literally all of the evidence we have of anything with Bobby.

Even in that last season, we didn’t beat anyone outside of Louisville and Temple, and we did manage to lose to Duke by 42, ODU by 43, Dayton by 38, etc., while losing 7 of our last 8 games. Half of the wins that year were against UNCA, Elon, Yale, Hofstra, WSSU, EZU, Gardner Webb, Winthrop, and Mercer. Hell, Major had as many 20 win seasons in his 5 years here as Lutz did in his last 5 years, and Major was starting from a worse position (and, no, I’m not suggesting Major was nearly the coach Lutz is). Guessing at what his next team would do is just like guessing how good we might have been with Dorn, Woods, Thorne, Izundu, Clayton, etc.

We love Bobby, he loves Charlotte, he’s got fire, he’s an alum, and he would likely be cheaper. That doesn’t mean he’s the right guy for our current situation. There is a lot of hoping and wishing in this thread when it comes to thinking Bobby is the panacea for this program without much factual evidence. If it’s the assistants that would make him great, then that’s true for any coach who brings in great assistants. Not to mention he’d be a short term solution here at 60 years old, even if it does work out extremely well and he turns us around.

I agree with others that there are definitely worse things to imagine than Bobby on the sidelines again, but the idea that it’s some great certainty that he’s the guy to fix what’s wrong isn’t really grounded in evidence that we have. It’s just as likely that he’d be great as it is that he’d be mediocre (I certainly think the floor would be higher).

One thing Lutz would do is make every fan/donor feel vital to the program. He was always great at that. That’s the best argument for bringing him back, IMO.[/quote]

You seem to forget that Bobby was a HUGE part of that “successful program” before he “took it over”. In fact, he should get a lot of the credit for building the program as a Mullins assistant and AHC for Melvin. he didn’t just step into what someone else had built. He helped to build it.

Does factual evidence not include the most NCAA tournament appearances in school history…or the most wins in school history?[/quote]

Again - his NCAA tournaments came in a run when he took over a highly successful program. Does his trend/track record not include his last 5 years? Most wins in school history is by virtue of being the coach longer than anyone else while having the advantage of taking over a program with 3 NCAAs in its previous 4 years and having gone 42-20 in the previous 2 years. His average record was a fairly strong 18-13 for his whole tenure, but about .500 (16-15) his last 5 years with two NITs. It’s easy to remember the good times, but no - taking over a very successful program (and not having a great track record in the second-half of your tenure) is not evidence of the ability to build something up from a 6 win season.[/quote]

You’re digging for excuses you can’t even validate to discount his success and yet you keep pounding the “last 5 years” drum without even acknowledging that PHIL changed how Lutz could recruit and operate upon his arrival. When did Phil arrive…5 years before Lutz was fired!!!

My excuse for Lutz’ last 5 year downturn (Phil’s influence) is MUCH more valid than the lame grasping at straws excuses you’re grasping at to discount what Lutz did here pre-Phil.

Does factual evidence not include the most NCAA tournament appearances in school history…or the most wins in school history?[/quote]

Again - his NCAA tournaments came in a run when he took over a highly successful program. Does his trend/track record not include his last 5 years? Most wins in school history is by virtue of being the coach longer than anyone else while having the advantage of taking over a program with 3 NCAAs in its previous 4 years and having gone 42-20 in the previous 2 years. His average record was a fairly strong 18-13 for his whole tenure, but about .500 (16-15) his last 5 years with two NITs. It’s easy to remember the good times, but no - taking over a very successful program (and not having a great track record in the second-half of your tenure) is not evidence of the ability to build something up from a 6 win season.[/quote]

You’re digging for excuses you can’t even validate to discount his success and yet you keep pounding the “last 5 years” drum without even acknowledging that PHIL changed how Lutz could recruit and operate upon his arrival. When did Phil arrive…5 years before Lutz was fired!!!

My excuse for Lutz’ last 5 year downturn (Phil’s influence) is MUCH more valid than the lame grasping at straws excuses you’re grasping at to discount what Lutz did here pre-Phil.[/quote]

Well…Phil is still here, so… I think you just argued against bringing Lutz back. If he can’t do shit under Phil, why would we want him with Phil here? Just wondering.