Toggle sidebar

The Future of Alabama Basketball and Anthony Grant

TIDE-HSV said:
My information, which comes from close to the BOT is we need to forget Pearl. The fear is that he is a loose canon and would endanger the football program by a dumb move. Take it FWIW...
Click to expand...

Don't know the source, but completely agree with the logic.

Pearl would attract NCAA scrutiny like nobody's business. Even if there's nothing to find, just having those guys hovering around is a distraction and would hurt all sports, not just basketball.

I've had all the NCAA fun I want for a lifetime. I think it's time to part ways with Grant. But Bruce Pearl is not the answer.
 
TIDE-HSV said:
My information, which comes from close to the BOT is we need to forget Pearl. The fear is that he is a loose canon and would endanger the football program by a dumb move. Take it FWIW...
Click to expand...

Pearl is an outstanding basketball coach BUT I have no desire for him to ever be the coach at the UofA. He is a NCAA violation waiting to happen, IMHO. It goes beyond what happened while he was a coach but also his personal life which from all accounts I've heard is a disaster. If a coach doesn't have control of his personal life then more than likely he will not have control over his professional life either.
 
4Q Basket Case said:
I'm reminded of a lesson from my dad. He said the time to terminate an employee is the first time you think seriously about doing so.

When you're not in a fit of anger or disappointment, and you are rationally and calmly evaluating whether to keep the person, you actually already have your answer...don't.

For those advocating one more year, I'd ask this question: Can you cite any examples of any team in any sport where, after five years of steadily declining performance, a coach suddenly and permanently turns the corner? I honestly can't.

And I repeat my earlier statement-- if not for Trevor Releford, we might not have won a game, and certainly wouldn't have won five.

As much as I thought Grant was a great hire five years ago, the evidence that that is wrong is overwhelming. It is time.
Click to expand...

This. I've had exactly the same thought, when has a coach on the brink of being fired has ever turned it around? The only situation that I can think of the even comes close is when AU tried to push out Tubbs so they could hire Petrino. The next year (I think) AU went undefeated and reeled off 2-3 very good seasons but then ultimately Tubbs was fired/resigned under pressure. I'm not sure that is a good comparison but it's as close as I can get. Most other situations ends with the coach being fired or "resigning" the very next year.
 
4Q Basket Case said:
I'm reminded of a lesson from my dad. He said the time to terminate an employee is the first time you think seriously about doing so.

When you're not in a fit of anger or disappointment, and you are rationally and calmly evaluating whether to keep the person, you actually already have your answer...don't.

For those advocating one more year, I'd ask this question: Can you cite any examples of any team in any sport where, after five years of steadily declining performance, a coach suddenly and permanently turns the corner? I honestly can't.

And I repeat my earlier statement-- if not for Trevor Releford, we might not have won a game, and certainly wouldn't have won five.

As much as I thought Grant was a great hire five years ago, the evidence that that is wrong is overwhelming. It is time.
Click to expand...


i wouldn't necessarily say that the 5 years coach grant has been the coach were "steadily declining" i understand he only took the team to the ncaa tournament once but during his tenure except for his first year, we have been pretty consistent and have been near the top of the sec (except for this year...but this is his only bad year in addition to the first)..... bottom line, its not like we have had a losing record every year coach grant has been here.....the only losing record has been this year....

who is a coach that you guys think we can realistically hire that you know for a fact can do the things you guys are expecting us to do? every time a coach is hired, there's always a question mark.....hell, the next coach we hire that everybody thinks is a good hire, may do a worse job than grant.....for everybody thinking "it can't get any worse than the coach we have now" my answer is simply, yes it can....grant may not be a great coach but he is far far from the worse (we could end up with someone like a mark fox or tony barbee who had winning records at their previous schools so the perception would be that they're good coaches) those two examples have been consistently bad since coming to sec and i don't think anyone on this board can say grant has been consistently bad
 
pchil86 said:
i wouldn't necessarily say that the 5 years coach grant has been the coach were "steadily declining" i understand he only took the team to the ncaa tournament once but during his tenure except for his first year, we have been pretty consistent and have been near the top of the sec (except for this year...but this is his only bad year in addition to the first)..... bottom line, its not like we have had a losing record every year coach grant has been here.....the only losing record has been this year....

who is a coach that you guys think we can realistically hire that you know for a fact can do the things you guys are expecting us to do? every time a coach is hired, there's always a question mark.....hell, the next coach we hire that everybody thinks is a good hire, may do a worse job than grant.....for everybody thinking "it can't get any worse than the coach we have now" my answer is simply, yes it can....grant may not be a great coach but he is far far from the worse (we could end up with someone like a mark fox or tony barbee who had winning records at their previous schools so the perception would be that they're good coaches) those two examples have been consistently bad since coming to sec and i don't think anyone on this board can say grant has been consistently bad
Click to expand...


As far as Barbee and Fox, Both are at schools that are black holes for basketball. Sometimes it is not the coach so much as it is the athletes that program attracts. I actually have been fairly impressed with progress Barbee has made withe boogs. They are not great, but they are improving. Given that they can't attract more than 1000 fans most nights, that is an accomplishment. We are dangerously close to becoming like one of those programs.
 
Well I'll throw this in. Any younger coach has to develop his program, no matter who he is.
The three years before Coach K. took over at Duke, the Blue Devils, under Bill Foster, were 73-24.
Coach K's first three years they went 38-47.
His first five years they were 85-65. Won 20 games twice.
Coach Grant's first three years we were 63-39.
First five we are 97-70.
Won 20 games three times.
It's not like the guy is doing a horrific job. When you finish second in the conference and win 20 something games and don't get a tourney invite, that's a dumb committee, not bad coaching.
I mention this only because, had we been selected for that particular tournament, there may not be near as much, "find another coach" talk, quite yet.
sip
 
Alasippi said:
Well I'll throw this in. Any younger coach has to develop his program, no matter who he is.
The three years before Coach K. took over at Duke, the Blue Devils, under Bill Foster, were 73-24.
Coach K's first three years they went 38-47.
His first five years they were 85-65. Won 20 games twice.
Coach Grant's first three years we were 63-39.
First five we are 97-70.
Won 20 games three times.
It's not like the guy is doing a horrific job. When you finish second in the conference and win 20 something games and don't get a tourney invite, that's a dumb committee, not bad coaching.
I mention this only because, had we been selected for that particular tournament, there may not be near as much, "find another coach" talk, quite yet.
sip
Click to expand...

This ^ ......you would think the way some of the people talk about grant that he has done a horrible job coaching since he's been at bama
 
Alasippi said:
Well I'll throw this in. Any younger coach has to develop his program, no matter who he is.
The three years before Coach K. took over at Duke, the Blue Devils, under Bill Foster, were 73-24.
Coach K's first three years they went 38-47.
His first five years they were 85-65. Won 20 games twice.
Coach Grant's first three years we were 63-39.
First five we are 97-70.
Won 20 games three times.
It's not like the guy is doing a horrific job. When you finish second in the conference and win 20 something games and don't get a tourney invite, that's a dumb committee, not bad coaching.
I mention this only because, had we been selected for that particular tournament, there may not be near as much, "find another coach" talk, quite yet.
sip
Click to expand...

The committee made their decision when looking at the inexcusable early OOC losses. Every year Bama has had a bad OOC loss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RTR91 said:
The committee made their decision when looking at the inexcusable early OOC losses. Every year Bama has had a bad OOC loss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well, if you finish second in the SEC, you should make the tournament. That's just my opinion of course.
All I was saying is that if they had selected us, and Coach Grant had made the NCAA twice and the NIT once, he wouldn't be under such scrutiny. After the brilliant performance today against Arkansas, I'd really rather just celebrate a bit, which is what I Intend to do :)
 
i remember seeing a few posts in this thread that said coach grant had lost the team....i don't think that is true, especially with the win today and the way the guys played.....every game, even the losses, this team has still played hard...they haven't given up and i think thats a testament to the coaching staff
 
Some interesting stats on five years. For a lot of great coaches, the key year Was season three. Smith and K took longer. So did Wooden, who was fairly middling until 1964's 30-0 team rolled around.

In the five years before John Wooden won his first title at UCLA: 86-49.

In Dean Smith's first five years at Carolina: 66-47.

In Coach K's last year at Army and first three years at Duke: 47-63 (this is manipulating numbers because K took off in year 4 in Durham).

Pitino at Boston U: 91-51, including 13-14 in year 3.

C.M.'s first three at UA: 22-54. 18-8 in year 4.

Al McGuire's first three at Marquette before he took off: 43-39

Billy Donavan's first three at Florida: 49-41. Losing record first two years.

Izzo at East Lansing: 33-28 first two years before going 22-8 in year 3, and kaboom.

Jim Calhoun's first three at UConn: 47-46. Then he went 31-6, but followed that up with three years of 55-34.
 
Last edited:
Alasippi said:
Well, if you finish second in the SEC, you should make the tournament. That's just my opinion of course.
All I was saying is that if they had selected us, and Coach Grant had made the NCAA twice and the NIT once, he wouldn't be under such scrutiny. After the brilliant performance today against Arkansas, I'd really rather just celebrate a bit, which is what I Intend to do :)
Click to expand...

Most years, I would agree. However, the SEC hasn't been good. Therefore, the conference record didn't ease the pain of the poor OOC losses.

The last two to three weeks have confused me. The team seems to be playing better than it has all season. They should have won both games this week.

With the exception of the 2009-2010 season, every season under CAG has a "what could have been" feel. We saw glimpses of each team's potential. They never put it all together for 32 games. If they did, Bama would have at least 3 NCAA appearances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
pchil86 said:
i wouldn't necessarily say that the 5 years coach grant has been the coach were "steadily declining" i understand he only took the team to the ncaa tournament once but during his tenure except for his first year, we have been pretty consistent and have been near the top of the sec (except for this year...but this is his only bad year in addition to the first)..... bottom line, its not like we have had a losing record every year coach grant has been here.....the only losing record has been this year....

who is a coach that you guys think we can realistically hire that you know for a fact can do the things you guys are expecting us to do? every time a coach is hired, there's always a question mark.....hell, the next coach we hire that everybody thinks is a good hire, may do a worse job than grant.....for everybody thinking "it can't get any worse than the coach we have now" my answer is simply, yes it can....grant may not be a great coach but he is far far from the worse (we could end up with someone like a mark fox or tony barbee who had winning records at their previous schools so the perception would be that they're good coaches) those two examples have been consistently bad since coming to sec and i don't think anyone on this board can say grant has been consistently bad
Click to expand...

Here's my logic. You're right in that Grant hasn't been outright bad. He has, however, consistently under-achieved.

His teams have consistently played good defense to the exclusion of all else. Turnovers, rebounds and scoring have all been worse than even average, let alone provided a competitive advantage. Then there's the 5 to 7 minute scoring drought every game against every opponent even approaching a quality opponent. And he's consistently been a poor marketer, though one could argue that he's created a product that is hard to market. Either way, after five years, that's on his watch.

You make a valid point that the next hire isn't guaranteed success. Trouble is, we know for a stone cold fact that unless Grant is an exception in all of sport on the order of Frank Beamer (who owes his one true flash to a single player, has done precious little of national note since Michael Vick, and is therefore at best a shaky example of a shaky preposition), we can't expect a whole lot more than we have now.

So if your goal is to win championships of any description, the rational play is to switch horses. True, the future would be uncertain. But under present leadership, the future is all but certain to disappoint.

Rational evaluation of the situation dictates a switch.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back