Does factual evidence not include the most NCAA tournament appearances in school historyâŚor 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. Itâs 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]
Youâre digging for excuses you canât even validate to discount his success and yet you keep pounding the âlast 5 yearsâ drum without even acknowledging that PHIL changed how Lutz could recruit and operate upon his arrival. When did Phil arriveâŚ5 years before Lutz was fired!!!
My excuse for Lutzâ last 5 year downturn (Philâs influence) is MUCH more valid than the lame grasping at straws excuses youâre grasping at to discount what Lutz did here pre-Phil.[/quote]
WellâŚPhil is still here, so⌠I think you just argued against bringing Lutz back. If he canât do s*** under Phil, why would we want him with Phil here? Just wondering.[/quote]
Iâll playâŚperhaps the hope is that CHP has learned from his mistake.
Does factual evidence not include the most NCAA tournament appearances in school historyâŚor 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. Itâs 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]
Youâre digging for excuses you canât even validate to discount his success and yet you keep pounding the âlast 5 yearsâ drum without even acknowledging that PHIL changed how Lutz could recruit and operate upon his arrival. When did Phil arriveâŚ5 years before Lutz was fired!!!
My excuse for Lutzâ last 5 year downturn (Philâs influence) is MUCH more valid than the lame grasping at straws excuses youâre grasping at to discount what Lutz did here pre-Phil.[/quote]
WellâŚPhil is still here, so⌠I think you just argued against bringing Lutz back. If he canât do s*** under Phil, why would we want him with Phil here? Just wondering.[/quote]
Iâll playâŚperhaps the hope is that CHP has learned from his mistake.[/quote]
No, the hope is that Hill gives zero consideration to making Lutz the HC.
Does factual evidence not include the most NCAA tournament appearances in school historyâŚor 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. Itâs 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]
Youâre digging for excuses you canât even validate to discount his success and yet you keep pounding the âlast 5 yearsâ drum without even acknowledging that PHIL changed how Lutz could recruit and operate upon his arrival. When did Phil arriveâŚ5 years before Lutz was fired!!!
My excuse for Lutzâ last 5 year downturn (Philâs influence) is MUCH more valid than the lame grasping at straws excuses youâre grasping at to discount what Lutz did here pre-Phil.[/quote]
WellâŚPhil is still here, so⌠I think you just argued against bringing Lutz back. If he canât do s*** under Phil, why would we want him with Phil here? Just wondering.[/quote]
Iâll playâŚperhaps the hope is that CHP has learned from his mistake.[/quote]
No, the hope is that Hill gives zero consideration to making Lutz the HC.[/quote] speak for yourself
Does factual evidence not include the most NCAA tournament appearances in school historyâŚor 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. Itâs 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]
Youâre digging for excuses you canât even validate to discount his success and yet you keep pounding the âlast 5 yearsâ drum without even acknowledging that PHIL changed how Lutz could recruit and operate upon his arrival. When did Phil arriveâŚ5 years before Lutz was fired!!!
My excuse for Lutzâ last 5 year downturn (Philâs influence) is MUCH more valid than the lame grasping at straws excuses youâre grasping at to discount what Lutz did here pre-Phil.[/quote]
WellâŚPhil is still here, so⌠I think you just argued against bringing Lutz back. If he canât do s*** under Phil, why would we want him with Phil here? Just wondering.[/quote]
I put it in another response already but Iâll say it againâŚif Hill hires Lutz it will show that Phil is not involved and is letting Hill make his own decision. Which is a good thing.
Judy was Philâs puppetâŚwe all know that and we know that needs to change with Hill.
Regardless of who is hiredâŚit needs to be WITHOUT Philâs micro-management.
A Lutz hire would definitely mean Phil is not involved.
If Phil is not involved and letting Hill run the ADâŚthen Lutz can succeed again.
Iâd rather Hill just hire someone else. Nothing against Bobby Iâd love for him to have a place with his alma mater just not as head menâs basketball coach.
Does factual evidence not include the most NCAA tournament appearances in school historyâŚor 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. Itâs 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]
Youâre digging for excuses you canât even validate to discount his success and yet you keep pounding the âlast 5 yearsâ drum without even acknowledging that PHIL changed how Lutz could recruit and operate upon his arrival. When did Phil arriveâŚ5 years before Lutz was fired!!!
My excuse for Lutzâ last 5 year downturn (Philâs influence) is MUCH more valid than the lame grasping at straws excuses youâre grasping at to discount what Lutz did here pre-Phil.[/quote]
WellâŚPhil is still here, so⌠I think you just argued against bringing Lutz back. If he canât do s*** under Phil, why would we want him with Phil here? Just wondering.[/quote]
I put it in another response already but Iâll say it againâŚif Hill hires Lutz it will show that Phil is not involved and is letting Hill make his own decision. Which is a good thing.
Judy was Philâs puppetâŚwe all know that and we know that needs to change with Hill.
Regardless of who is hiredâŚit needs to be WITHOUT Philâs micro-management.
A Lutz hire would definitely mean Phil is not involved.
If Phil is not involved and letting Hill run the ADâŚthen Lutz can succeed again.
Is that simple enough for you?[/quote]
Lutz isnât, and shouldnât come back. Is that simple enough for you? What is with the Charlotte sports teams wanting to rehire people that you fired? Good businesses donât work that way. The Charlotte 49ers need new blood. Thatâs what Iâm hoping this new AD brings.
I would let Judy Rose coach our hoops team 3 years if in exchange Steve Spurrier inks a 3 year deal here as HC to build our foundation. Instant ESPN and national attn dwarfing FAU and Kiffin. Media frenzy. Recruiting frenzy. Bookend his career in N.C. We could sell 10,000 visors day 1.
Somebody please make this ignorance stop. If our new AD brings back a coach whose teams got worse over the course of the year for the last 5 years, then we hired the wrong AD. Yea, letâs rehire the coach that our failed AD firedâŚgreat optics.
Lutz is not it. If we want him involved, letâs hire him as the Associate AD of Marketing and let him promote our schoolâŚcoach is just dumb
Building a culture of success at a university is critically important to the success or failure of each athletic team. Recruiting a coach is not all about paying them the most money. Great coaches want to join a program that has a culture committed to success. Itâs not all about the money, they want to win and they realize the importance of culture.
It is a fact that some people can be a success at one business and quite the opposite at another due to the culture. Culture and atmosphere make a huge difference and Mike Hill has already addressed that and he will make that change.
I have said for many years that you can put a great person in a poor system and they will fail. Put an average person in a great system / culture and they can be extremely successful. The coaches (5) that followed Lutz did not all suck. However, they all failed. Why?
To question Bobbyâs ability is flat-out wrong. No one on here has made a viable case that Bobby is not a great coach, quite the opposite. Almost all coaches will hit a valley at some point. Our culture just changed with the introduction of Mike Hill. If Mike is truly allowed to run the show then Bobby is more than capable of returning the basketball program to success. .
Folks, culture matters! Lutz needs to be in the discussion.
[quote=â49ER9ER, post:553, topic:31267â]Building a culture of success at a university is critically important to the success or failure of each athletic team. Recruiting a coach is not all about paying them the most money. Great coaches want to join a program that has a culture committed to success. Itâs not all about the money, they want to win and they realize the importance of culture.
It is a fact that some people can be a success at one business and quite the opposite at another due to the culture. Culture and atmosphere make a huge difference and Mike Hill has already addressed that and he will make that change.
I have said for many years that you can put a great person in a poor system and they will fail. Put an average person in a great system / culture and they can be extremely successful. The coaches (5) that followed Lutz did not all suck. However, they all failed. Why?
To question Bobbyâs ability is flat-out wrong. No one on here has made a viable case that Bobby is not a great coach, quite the opposite. Almost all coaches will hit a valley at some point. Our culture just changed with the introduction of Mike Hill. If Mike is truly allowed to run the show then Bobby is more than capable of returning the basketball program to success. .
Folks, culture matters! Lutz needs to be in the discussion.[/quote]
Pretty well impossible to argue with a word of this. Iâm not saying Bobby is the answer, but Iâll be darned if that vimeo wasnât timed well.
I donât understand polars with Lutz. The hate crowd is being dumb, the maniac positive side is being dumb.
He would be a solid hire. Could do helluva a lot better or worse. Iâd rather have Lutz than Hubert Davis or unknown asst. on scale of 1-10 heâs a 7.
The hate crowd doesnât hate Bobby. They think he should be welcomed back to the university and treated like any other all time coach from a university. What they hate is the idea that he is the only one who can get us back to being relevant. Bobby did great things as an assistant and a HC for a while but was average towards the end. Whether you blame Phil, Judy, money, conference, whateverâŚthe fact is he struggled his last 5 years here. He hasnât been a head coach in nearly 10 years and his last stint as an assistant coach ended poorly. Metro is right. We can do worse and we can better. I am trusting Mike Hill with this hire. This is his specialty and area of expertise. With that said, I donât expect for Bobby to be in the mix at all. However, I hope to see him at as many Charlotte events, games, etc that he wants to be at.
[quote=âsportsman1417, post:558, topic:31267â]The hate crowd doesnât hate Bobby. They think he should be welcomed back to the university and treated like any other all time coach from a university. What they hate is the idea that he is the only one who can get us back to being relevant. Bobby did great things as an assistant and a HC for a while but was average towards the end. Whether you blame Phil, Judy, money, conference, whateverâŚthe fact is he struggled his last 5 years here. He hasnât been a head coach in nearly 10 years and his last stint as an assistant coach ended poorly. Metro is right. We can do worse and we can better. I am trusting Mike Hill with this hire. This is his specialty and area of expertise. With that said, I donât expect for Bobby to be in the mix at all. However, I hope to see him at as many Charlotte events, games, etc that he wants to be at.[/quote]Spot on.
[quote=âmetro, post:557, topic:31267â]I donât understand polars with Lutz. The hate crowd is being dumb, the maniac positive side is being dumb.
He would be a solid hire. Could do helluva a lot better or worse. Iâd rather have Lutz than Hubert Davis or unknown asst. on scale of 1-10 heâs a 7.[/quote]
This. We could do better and worse. Bobby with McGinnis and/or Dink is solid and while it wouldnât be my #1 choice it certainly isnât the worst we could do.
The issue here is the pro Bobby folks just want to look at his success the no Bobby folks just want to look at his last 5 years. He is both of those. Personally I think the future of our program will come from looking forward to back to our past.
My real issue is just not believing that DuBois will even entertain the idea of Bobby coming back. We didnât can him for performance. Add into that the fact we just hired a new AD who has been working in a program that recently won 2 titles and I would hope his contacts and abilities can land us some candidates that can get us going. If the best Hill can offer us is Bobby Iâll be a bit worried.