Ranking college basketball's 10 best jobs

[DRBackup]

This is quintessential Jim Calhoun and why he is the GOAT. No whiny crap, no victimhood, no excuses. The butt kissing and welcome press conference are over... Take off your coat and tie, roll up your sleaves and get to freaking work.

As Calhoun said at his initial UConn press conference so many years ago (in 1986, to be exact) "It's doable". And you know what? He was right. Danny got the message loud and clear and has now dragged us back to the top of the mountain.

We are so lucky to have had Jim Calhoun and now have Danny Hurley as the head coaches of our program. We lead a charmed life in the circles of men's college basketball fandom for sure.

 

[DRBackup]

Hurley did an amazing job building this program back up, from the ashes. In that sense I get why people might take issue with the quote as it paints a different history.

Here's the thing - I think we all agree its probably a top 5 job, now, top 10 at least, but certainly there are gonna be outsiders who like teams like bears or cats, that might disagree. So when someone makes an argument that puts UConn at #5, but it includes a blatant factual inaccuracy, its natural that people would get defensive about it, in a sense. I'd rather read an ironclad argument for us at #5 than one that includes parts that are just wrong.

Hell, I'd say giving Hurley credit for digging the program out of the dump and actually gives some credit to the brand itself that he was able to take a struggling program and recruit national championship level players, at least in part because of the status of the UConn brand.

 

[ctchamps]

The fact that article says that is proof that the author doesn't know the first thing about college basketball, so I wouldn't bathe in his praise. There's plenty of compliments about our program to be found on the internet, made by people who know Danny dug this program out of a hole. It's not just that winning another title was a question mark -- being a competitive program was. We were recruiting dudes off YouTube.

Praise is praise.

Certainly there is a value for recruits and transfers to know the Herculean job Hurley has accomplished in his short tenure at UConn.

There's also a value for emphasizing we have a long history of being a top program and deemphasizing the negative period. It creates more mystique, more buzz, which attracts a national following. The larger the viewership the more desirable we are to the media.

I weigh the positive this article creates more than the omitted negative period that is focused on in this thread. The predominant number of sports fans are not as interested in historical accuracy as those of us in this forum who are fanatical in our following.

 

[B1GEast]

Blue Bloods?

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Nobody said, “we recruited 5 guys off YouTube” or “we recruited half our team off YouTube.”

I'm confident that you didn't say this. And I doubt anybody did. So why are you presenting a winning argument around something nobody said?

I asked if anybody other than Kwintin Williams was sourced from YouTube. Nobody has educated me to believe the answer is Yes.

I seem to be getting push back for raising the question. I found nothing objectionable or false in someone offering that the team had fallen to the bottom half of all D1 schools.

I merely questioned two different claims that YouTube videos were used for multiple players. I wouldn't mind learning if that were the case, and I've admitted that I only know of one.

I've also given partial answer as to why it's unnecessary to make the primary point that people are wishing to advance, which roughly speaking goes like this: "The reporter was ignorant, stupid, dishonest, under-researched, poorly-fact checked and/or some other explanation in asserting that Hurley's has done a good job in maintaining UConn's high standards by doing well with a program he joined at a time things were going well."

I haven't expanded on the matter, because I think it's inessential and moves things irrelevantly in the direction of something that remains emotionally unsettled within a fanbase that I think has legitimate reason to operate in a more aligned fashion currently. As such, I see a low-value, low-info, low-quality article delivering on its mission to draw attention to boost its publisher's revenue, but also possibly having a collaterally negative impact by resulting in two people with similar educational training and professional capabilities paying attention to somebody else's invitation to be distracted, when we both know the article bad and UConn immediately prior to Hurley was not doing well.

The only think for me to do is acknowledge that you've soundly defeated arguments I haven't made, and leave it there.

And, of course, I retain my open mind to learn that there were verifiable multiple efforts to recruit off of YouTube, but that UConn lost the other recruiting battles. Again, it wouldn't bother me to learn this as much as I'd appreciate having learned something new.

 

[nomar]

I'm confident that you didn't say this. And I doubt anybody did. So why are you presenting a winning argument around something nobody said?

I asked if anybody other than Kwintin Williams was sourced from YouTube. Nobody has educated me to believe the answer is Yes.

I seem to be getting push back for raising the question. I found nothing objectionable or false in someone offering that the team had fallen to the bottom half of all D1 schools.

I merely questioned two different claims that YouTube videos were used for multiple players. I wouldn't mind learning if that were the case, and I've admitted that I only know of one.

I've also given partial answer as to why it's unnecessary to make the primary point that people are wishing to advance, which roughly speaking goes like this: "The reporter was ignorant, stupid, dishonest, under-researched, poorly-fact checked and/or some other explanation in asserting that Hurley's has done a good job in maintaining UConn's high standards by doing well with a program he joined at a time things were going well."

I haven't expanded on the matter, because I think it's inessential and moves things irrelevantly in the direction of something that remains emotionally unsettled within a fanbase that I think has legitimate reason to operate in a more aligned fashion currently. As such, I see a low-value, low-info, low-quality article delivering on its mission to draw attention to boost its publisher's revenue, but also possibly having a collaterally negative impact by resulting in two people with similar educational training and professional capabilities paying attention to somebody else's invitation to be distracted, when we both know the article bad and UConn immediately prior to Hurley was not doing well.

The only think for me to do is acknowledge that you've soundly defeated arguments I haven't made, and leave it there.

And, of course, I retain my open mind to learn that there were verifiable multiple efforts to recruit off of YouTube, but that UConn lost the other recruiting battles. Again, it wouldn't bother me to learn this as much as I'd appreciate having learned something new.

“The only think for me to do is acknowledge that you've soundly defeated arguments I haven't made, and leave it there.”

Mission accomplished!

 

[Tyler2Rings]

Lol, thanks for the view from the NIT.

What NIT? They got Cream Abdul Jabbar'd last night