Sean Miller

[ByJoveByJingle]

We are bigger than Sean Miller. We always have been.

Don’t make me find another ugly Tim Floyd photo.

[azcat49]

Better hope UCLA doesn’t get Calipari or we will need a whole staff of Sean Millers who can recruit

[Spaceman Spiff]

Another thing about Miller. In the last 24 months, he's not only had the FBI/ESPN cloud, he has lost his 3 best recruiting assistant coaches. That can have a tremendous impact alone, and he not only integrated basically an entirely new recruiting staff, he did it and pulled a #1 class.

That isn't just normal recruiting for any school.

[84Cat]

Anyone know what assistant coaches we are looking at to fill out the coaching staff?

[Newportcat]

Arizona's profitability ultimately just subsidizes sports that operate at a loss. I mean, I think we're a very good job, but our revenue advantage on UCLA isn't a great reason to claim we are better than UCLA. Their main advantages are location and prestige

True, but one could argue that AZ has as good a location and as much prestige as UCLA. Tucson is a stone’s throw from SoCal, a little farther from NoCal, and more and more elite recruits have been coming out of AZ (Bagley and Mannion, just to name a couple recent ones). AZ is also a short plane ride to other western recruiting hotbeds in WA and OR. And as far as prestige, AZ has produced nearly as many pros as UCLA recently. Lonzo has really been their only truly top tier player recently, whereas we’ve had multiple lottery picks (and the #1 overall pick in Ayton).

This is all to say: I don’t think the difference between the AZ and UCLA jobs is all that big, and there are likely quite a few coaches who would prefer AZ’s robust fan support and top billing in Tucson. At AZ, you’re the biggest fist in a relatively small aquarium. In L.A., you’re not only a much smaller fish but chances are most locals don’t even know your name.

I'm not criticizing Arizona. UCLA is in the actual city that produces a lot of talent. I don't think the ability to sell pros is hugely different. UCLA still has guys like Love and Westbrook.

I'm just saying the profitability of the program isn't why people think UCLA is a good job. The built in recruiting advantages are the dominant one. Look at history, UCLA has had different success levels, but even their worse coaches have recruited well. It's hard to miss at UCLA.

I think UCLA is easier to recruit to then Arizona in many ways but I think we are a better job for a coach and its not even close.

Shit, at UCLA Miller would have been fired by now. Not even a question. They fired Howland after he took them to three final fours and was coming off winning the PAC 12 title.

Arizona could be one of the best jobs in the country simply based on how loyal we are to coaches. Its crazy.

UCLA is a tough job because their fans expectations are WAY out of wack. It will be like Alabama fans after Saban. Nobody is ever good enough

I also think the majority structural advantages Wooden had while at UCLA are not as large anymore. Lakers are about 1 million times bigger now in LA. When Wooden was around, Lakers were not nearly as big. You will be hard pressed to ever sell out at UCLA given how awful the traffic is up there. So you atmosphere will always suck compared to a school like Arizona.

Its a very good job but so is Arizona. And I could see why many would prefer Arizona.

[Newportcat]

Another thing about Miller. In the last 24 months, he's not only had the FBI/ESPN cloud, he has lost his 3 best recruiting assistant coaches. That can have a tremendous impact alone, and he not only integrated basically an entirely new recruiting staff, he did it and pulled a #1 class.

That isn't just normal recruiting for any school.

Sean Miller is an excellent recruiter who has an excellent product to sell. Anyone doubting that is a moron but I think anyone thinking other coaches could not recruit strongly at Arizona too is also not seeing the big picture.

Coaching...leaves a lot to be desired

[Spaceman Spiff]

Another thing about Miller. In the last 24 months, he's not only had the FBI/ESPN cloud, he has lost his 3 best recruiting assistant coaches. That can have a tremendous impact alone, and he not only integrated basically an entirely new recruiting staff, he did it and pulled a #1 class.

That isn't just normal recruiting for any school.

Sean Miller is an excellent recruiter who has an excellent product to sell. Anyone doubting that is a moron but I think anyone thinking other coaches could not recruit strongly at Arizona too is also not seeing the big picture.

Coaching...leaves a lot to be desired

I disagree. I think people underrate how hard game coaching is because hindsight is easier and generally, it's hard to understand how practices are from the fan perspective.

[Newportcat]

Another thing about Miller. In the last 24 months, he's not only had the FBI/ESPN cloud, he has lost his 3 best recruiting assistant coaches. That can have a tremendous impact alone, and he not only integrated basically an entirely new recruiting staff, he did it and pulled a #1 class.

That isn't just normal recruiting for any school.

Sean Miller is an excellent recruiter who has an excellent product to sell. Anyone doubting that is a moron but I think anyone thinking other coaches could not recruit strongly at Arizona too is also not seeing the big picture.

Coaching...leaves a lot to be desired

I disagree. I think people underrate how hard game coaching is because hindsight is easier and generally, it's hard to understand how practices are from the fan perspective.

I think the do what we do stuff has gotten old. He never adjusts anything. Great coaches always adjust.

I find his brand of basketball very boring and very different then Arizona basketball under Lute too.

And where I struggle, is this do what do....its not like Miller ever used this system to make a final four as a player or assistant coach.

Whether people want to admit it or not, the fan base is very divided at this point. I know plenty of boosters who would like a change.

Lot riding on Miller next year. He better perform

[Newportcat]

We are bigger than Sean Miller. We always have been.

Don’t make me find another ugly Tim Floyd photo.

True but we would have fired Tim Floyd and eventually hit on a big coach

Lute discovered something great in Tucson. He developed something that I firmly believe can stand the test of time, a rapid fan base that will support a program as well as any in the country at all levels. A city that loves its Wildcats. Alums who love its Wildcats. Old rich people who love their wildcats.

Look at the football board compared to this one. No one is even posting because no one gives a shit.

I do not see that passion ever going away anytime soon. Again, I never worry about certain sports at U of A because I know over time they will be fine. Men's basketball is one of them. To use a business analogy, we have so much to sell

[Captain Obvious]

Another thing about Miller. In the last 24 months, he's not only had the FBI/ESPN cloud, he has lost his 3 best recruiting assistant coaches. That can have a tremendous impact alone, and he not only integrated basically an entirely new recruiting staff, he did it and pulled a #1 class.

That isn't just normal recruiting for any school.

Sean Miller is an excellent recruiter who has an excellent product to sell. Anyone doubting that is a moron but I think anyone thinking other coaches could not recruit strongly at Arizona too is also not seeing the big picture.

Coaching...leaves a lot to be desired

I disagree. I think people underrate how hard game coaching is because hindsight is easier and generally, it's hard to understand how practices are from the fan perspective.

I think the do what we do stuff has gotten old. He never adjusts anything. Great coaches always adjust.

I find his brand of basketball very boring and very different then Arizona basketball under Lute too.

And where I struggle, is this do what do....its not like Miller ever used this system to make a final four as a player or assistant coach.

Whether people want to admit it or not, the fan base is very divided at this point. I know plenty of boosters who would like a change.

Lot riding on Miller next year. He better perform

I couldn't agree more. The fan base is very divided with Miller right now. What I don't understand is this distorted and silly notion that Arizona basketball can't go on without Miller posited by many on this forum. I don't want excuses, I want results and I think the results are long overdue. My patience is wearing thin and I speak for a great many. If you want to partake in the kumbaya circle jerk excusing mediocrity and underachievement so be it. Millers round peg in a square hole approach to coaching is antiquated,boring, and inflexible to the point where even top tier recruits can't succeed in his 'system'. Call out all the metrics you want to excuse Miller's pattern of underachievement. I'm calling out the most important metric and the only one that matters; winning. Miller is a Rolls Royce level recruiter but a chrysler level coach.

[ByJoveByJingle]

I’m just curious why the people with vehement positions about Miller’s coaching inadequacies think top recruits and their families are so stupid they can’t see the same inadequacy?

The reality here is that despite arguments otherwise, it’s the people with this viewpoint who are so certain of their position, not the so-called pro-Miller camp. Speaking for myself, the trends are worrying but explicable. And thankfully Miller has a chance to prove that the trend was a blip, not an accurate measure of his abilities. If the trend doesn’t reverse itself then it may be time to eat sunk costs. In the meantime, I’m not hiring any of you to manage my money in the stock market because you don’t have the balls needed to steer through stormy seas. Some people always sell at the wrong time and buy at the wrong time. Those people would do better in a money market account.

[Longhorned]

I want results and I think the results are long overdue. My patience is wearing thin and I speak for a great many. If you want to partake in the kumbaya circle jerk excusing mediocrity and underachievement so be it. Millers round peg in a square hole approach to coaching is antiquated,boring, and inflexible to the point where even top tier recruits can't succeed in his 'system'. Call out all the metrics you want to excuse Miller's pattern of underachievement. I'm calling out the most important metric and the only one that matters; winning. Miller is a Rolls Royce level recruiter but a chrysler level coach.

Isn't Miller the fifth fastest coach of all time to reach 250 wins at school? With five conference championships, three conference tourney championships, and three Elite Eight appearances? When you say your patience is wearing thin and results are long overdue, aren't you really just referring to Final Fours and National Championships? Just trying to clarify what you mean by results.

[MrBug708]

Arizona's profitability ultimately just subsidizes sports that operate at a loss. I mean, I think we're a very good job, but our revenue advantage on UCLA isn't a great reason to claim we are better than UCLA. Their main advantages are location and prestige

True, but one could argue that AZ has as good a location and as much prestige as UCLA. Tucson is a stone’s throw from SoCal, a little farther from NoCal, and more and more elite recruits have been coming out of AZ (Bagley and Mannion, just to name a couple recent ones). AZ is also a short plane ride to other western recruiting hotbeds in WA and OR. And as far as prestige, AZ has produced nearly as many pros as UCLA recently. Lonzo has really been their only truly top tier player recently, whereas we’ve had multiple lottery picks (and the #1 overall pick in Ayton).

This is all to say: I don’t think the difference between the AZ and UCLA jobs is all that big, and there are likely quite a few coaches who would prefer AZ’s robust fan support and top billing in Tucson. At AZ, you’re the biggest fist in a relatively small aquarium. In L.A., you’re not only a much smaller fish but chances are most locals don’t even know your name.

I'm not criticizing Arizona. UCLA is in the actual city that produces a lot of talent. I don't think the ability to sell pros is hugely different. UCLA still has guys like Love and Westbrook.

I'm just saying the profitability of the program isn't why people think UCLA is a good job. The built in recruiting advantages are the dominant one. Look at history, UCLA has had different success levels, but even their worse coaches have recruited well. It's hard to miss at UCLA.

I think UCLA is easier to recruit to then Arizona in many ways but I think we are a better job for a coach and its not even close.

Shit, at UCLA Miller would have been fired by now. Not even a question. They fired Howland after he took them to three final fours and was coming off winning the PAC 12 title.

Arizona could be one of the best jobs in the country simply based on how loyal we are to coaches. Its crazy.

UCLA is a tough job because their fans expectations are WAY out of wack. It will be like Alabama fans after Saban. Nobody is ever good enough

1978 called, they want their take back. (From an article on the 247 site)

The Bruins have had just three coaches in the last 23 years, for an average tenure of a little under eight years. The average tenure of coaches in the entirety of college basketball is right around five years, which puts UCLA well above the norm in terms of the amount of time it gives coaches to be successful. In terms of the actual expectations, judging by the last three coaching tenures at UCLA, fans and the administration would be more than happy with competing for the conference championship every year and making a deep tournament run every few years.

Lavin, who was an awful coach whose recruiting was tanking by the end of his tenure, still managed to forestall the inevitable over his last three years by pulling out miracle Sweet 16 runs in two of them. In only one of his seven years at UCLA did he win the Pac-10, and in three seasons he had double digit losses. His teams were on a clear downward trend, having won the conference his first year, and then finishing progressively lower each year until his 02-03 team finally bottomed out with a losing overall record (10-19), the worst for UCLA in 50 years. Only after completely cratering the program was he fired, even though it was plain to see that he wasn't a good coach after his fourth season and would have little shot at ever competing for a National Championship. He left a fairly untalented husk of a program for his successor, Ben Howland.

Howland, who is and was a very good coach, had a spectacular run rebuilding the program to an elite level through his first five years, and then, in equally spectacular fashion, over the next five years brought the program nearly down to the level it was when his tenure started. He won two NCAA Tournament games over his last five years, had another losing season, and experienced double digit transfers to the point where his final team had just eight scholarship players on it, including three transfers from North Carolina and four freshmen. His next season was arguably going to be his cratering moment, with recruiting dead in the water and a good chance at having only six or seven scholarship players on roster. He had earned a reputation in recruiting circles as a chore to play for, and his own players tried to leave as soon as possible, especially over the last five years. Even after an extremely damaging Sports Illustrated story came out toward the end of his last season, detailing all of the issues in the program, Howland was retained. It was only after his 10th season, where he lost two more players to transfer and was virtually guaranteed to have even more serious roster issues next year that he was fired.

Steve Alford, for his part, is demonstrably not a good high major coach. He's failed to instill accountability in the program, resulting in season after season of poor defense and undisciplined offense. He hasn't been ranked in the top 10 in a single week outside of the Lonzo Ball season, and he has the lowest winning percentage through five seasons of any UCLA coach not named Walt Hazzard. The Bruins have never won a Pac-12 regular season title under Alford, and they have never advanced past the Sweet 16. Assuming this year finishes as it is tracking right now, the Bruins also will miss the 64-team field of the NCAA Tournament for the third time under Alford. Unlike Howland and Lavin, recruiting has still been fine for Alford, which makes it even more apparent how weak of a coach he is. Legitimately, though, his teams have obviously underachieved in four of his six seasons.

The point is that both Howland and Lavin were given the opportunity to crater the program before they were ultimately fired, and Alford has had fewer good seasons than either of them. If UCLA were the basketball championship factory that so many seem to think it is, each of these guys would have been fired at the first sign of any downward trend. For Howland, that could have come as early as after his seventh year, after his second losing season, but more likely after his ninth season. For Lavin, it could have come at any time in his last three years. For Alford, it could have come after year three, when the Bruins had one of their worst seasons ever, but certainly after last year. That both Howland and Lavin were allowed to take the program to the cliff's edge, and that Alford has lasted for 5+ seasons, speaks to extraordinarily low expectations for an elite program.

Comparatively, the blue blood programs that do have ridiculously high expectations don't ever wait this long to fire a coach. When Kentucky realized it had a clunker in Billy Gillispie, it fired him after two seasons. Matt Doherty lasted just three seasons at North Carolina. Indiana has pulled the trigger as comparatively quick on various coaches, including Mike Davis (six seasons) and Tom Crean (nine seasons), and not counting Kelvin Sampson (who they fired amidst a scandal).

[zonagrad]

Another thing about Miller. In the last 24 months, he's not only had the FBI/ESPN cloud, he has lost his 3 best recruiting assistant coaches. That can have a tremendous impact alone, and he not only integrated basically an entirely new recruiting staff, he did it and pulled a #1 class.

That isn't just normal recruiting for any school.

Sean Miller is an excellent recruiter who has an excellent product to sell. Anyone doubting that is a moron but I think anyone thinking other coaches could not recruit strongly at Arizona too is also not seeing the big picture.

Coaching...leaves a lot to be desired

I disagree. I think people underrate how hard game coaching is because hindsight is easier and generally, it's hard to understand how practices are from the fan perspective.

I think the do what we do stuff has gotten old. He never adjusts anything. Great coaches always adjust.

I find his brand of basketball very boring and very different then Arizona basketball under Lute too.

And where I struggle, is this do what do....its not like Miller ever used this system to make a final four as a player or assistant coach.

Whether people want to admit it or not, the fan base is very divided at this point. I know plenty of boosters who would like a change.

Lot riding on Miller next year. He better perform

I couldn't agree more. The fan base is very divided with Miller right now. What I don't understand is this distorted and silly notion that Arizona basketball can't go on without Miller posited by many on this forum. I don't want excuses, I want results and I think the results are long overdue. My patience is wearing thin and I speak for a great many. If you want to partake in the kumbaya circle jerk excusing mediocrity and underachievement so be it. Millers round peg in a square hole approach to coaching is antiquated,boring, and inflexible to the point where even top tier recruits can't succeed in his 'system'. Call out all the metrics you want to excuse Miller's pattern of underachievement. I'm calling out the most important metric and the only one that matters; winning. Miller is a Rolls Royce level recruiter but a chrysler level coach.

Mediocrity? What's been so mediocre about Miller at Arizona? He's had Arizona at the top of the conference for ten years. TEN! He won back to back conference tourney championships when people were bitching that he was only winning the regular season. He's been to three Elite 8's in 10 years. He just endured an anomaly of a season for reasons that don't need further explanation. If you want to blame him for Book Richardson or his associations with Dawkins, etc... then fine. But please don't say Miller has been mediocre at Arizona when the facts show otherwise. Two years ago we were in the Sweet 16 and blew an 8 point lead with 2 minutes to play. Part of that is on the coach. Part of it is also on the players on the court who didn't perform under pressure. But Miller owns that, just as he owns last year's loss to Buffalo in the first round. Take a look at the incoming roster. You've got the Minnesota HS Player of the Year coming here in Nnaji. He's 6'11" and he's barely getting any attention because recruits Nico Mannion, Josh Green and Terry Armstrong are getting the headlines. Miller just pulled a monster class. If Jeter, Lee and Williams all return healthy, we're gonna be a really good team next year. Definitely top 15 team and set up nicely to win the Pac 12 (again). I'll take that "mediocrity" every day and twice on Sunday.

[Newportcat]

I’m just curious why the people with vehement positions about Miller’s coaching inadequacies think top recruits and their families are so stupid they can’t see the same inadequacy?

The reality here is that despite arguments otherwise, it’s the people with this viewpoint who are so certain of their position, not the so-called pro-Miller camp. Speaking for myself, the trends are worrying but explicable. And thankfully Miller has a chance to prove that the trend was a blip, not an accurate measure of his abilities. If the trend doesn’t reverse itself then it may be time to eat sunk costs. In the meantime, I’m not hiring any of you to manage my money in the stock market because you don’t have the balls needed to steer through stormy seas. Some people always sell at the wrong time and buy at the wrong time. Those people would do better in a money market account.

We pay well, we have top notch facilities, and we have fan support unmatched on the west coast

You think Kobi Simmons or Rawle or Stanley of Aaron Gordon or rondae came here strictly due to Sean Millers coaching? You think rich kids get into college on their own merits too?

It is proven over time it’s better to put your money in index funds anyways as no one can time the market well especially nowadays given the high velocity trading algothrims. I would not trust anyone money manager

In real estate, we have a saying, every day you are not selling an asset you are making a decision to buy it.

Let me paint everyone a picture, Miller stays. We get hit with some sanctions, and next year we crap out early in the tourney. Fan base is pissed and we are forced to make a change. That puts us in a really shitty buying position for a new coach. It’s what most programs do. I get it

I am just more the type to get ahead of something rather then wait ie in 2006 I would have been telling you to sell real estate ASAP

[Newportcat]

Arizona's profitability ultimately just subsidizes sports that operate at a loss. I mean, I think we're a very good job, but our revenue advantage on UCLA isn't a great reason to claim we are better than UCLA. Their main advantages are location and prestige

True, but one could argue that AZ has as good a location and as much prestige as UCLA. Tucson is a stone’s throw from SoCal, a little farther from NoCal, and more and more elite recruits have been coming out of AZ (Bagley and Mannion, just to name a couple recent ones). AZ is also a short plane ride to other western recruiting hotbeds in WA and OR. And as far as prestige, AZ has produced nearly as many pros as UCLA recently. Lonzo has really been their only truly top tier player recently, whereas we’ve had multiple lottery picks (and the #1 overall pick in Ayton).

This is all to say: I don’t think the difference between the AZ and UCLA jobs is all that big, and there are likely quite a few coaches who would prefer AZ’s robust fan support and top billing in Tucson. At AZ, you’re the biggest fist in a relatively small aquarium. In L.A., you’re not only a much smaller fish but chances are most locals don’t even know your name.

I'm not criticizing Arizona. UCLA is in the actual city that produces a lot of talent. I don't think the ability to sell pros is hugely different. UCLA still has guys like Love and Westbrook.

I'm just saying the profitability of the program isn't why people think UCLA is a good job. The built in recruiting advantages are the dominant one. Look at history, UCLA has had different success levels, but even their worse coaches have recruited well. It's hard to miss at UCLA.

I think UCLA is easier to recruit to then Arizona in many ways but I think we are a better job for a coach and its not even close.

Shit, at UCLA Miller would have been fired by now. Not even a question. They fired Howland after he took them to three final fours and was coming off winning the PAC 12 title.

Arizona could be one of the best jobs in the country simply based on how loyal we are to coaches. Its crazy.

UCLA is a tough job because their fans expectations are WAY out of wack. It will be like Alabama fans after Saban. Nobody is ever good enough

1978 called, they want their take back. (From an article on the 247 site)

The Bruins have had just three coaches in the last 23 years, for an average tenure of a little under eight years. The average tenure of coaches in the entirety of college basketball is right around five years, which puts UCLA well above the norm in terms of the amount of time it gives coaches to be successful. In terms of the actual expectations, judging by the last three coaching tenures at UCLA, fans and the administration would be more than happy with competing for the conference championship every year and making a deep tournament run every few years.

Lavin, who was an awful coach whose recruiting was tanking by the end of his tenure, still managed to forestall the inevitable over his last three years by pulling out miracle Sweet 16 runs in two of them. In only one of his seven years at UCLA did he win the Pac-10, and in three seasons he had double digit losses. His teams were on a clear downward trend, having won the conference his first year, and then finishing progressively lower each year until his 02-03 team finally bottomed out with a losing overall record (10-19), the worst for UCLA in 50 years. Only after completely cratering the program was he fired, even though it was plain to see that he wasn't a good coach after his fourth season and would have little shot at ever competing for a National Championship. He left a fairly untalented husk of a program for his successor, Ben Howland.

Howland, who is and was a very good coach, had a spectacular run rebuilding the program to an elite level through his first five years, and then, in equally spectacular fashion, over the next five years brought the program nearly down to the level it was when his tenure started. He won two NCAA Tournament games over his last five years, had another losing season, and experienced double digit transfers to the point where his final team had just eight scholarship players on it, including three transfers from North Carolina and four freshmen. His next season was arguably going to be his cratering moment, with recruiting dead in the water and a good chance at having only six or seven scholarship players on roster. He had earned a reputation in recruiting circles as a chore to play for, and his own players tried to leave as soon as possible, especially over the last five years. Even after an extremely damaging Sports Illustrated story came out toward the end of his last season, detailing all of the issues in the program, Howland was retained. It was only after his 10th season, where he lost two more players to transfer and was virtually guaranteed to have even more serious roster issues next year that he was fired.

Steve Alford, for his part, is demonstrably not a good high major coach. He's failed to instill accountability in the program, resulting in season after season of poor defense and undisciplined offense. He hasn't been ranked in the top 10 in a single week outside of the Lonzo Ball season, and he has the lowest winning percentage through five seasons of any UCLA coach not named Walt Hazzard. The Bruins have never won a Pac-12 regular season title under Alford, and they have never advanced past the Sweet 16. Assuming this year finishes as it is tracking right now, the Bruins also will miss the 64-team field of the NCAA Tournament for the third time under Alford. Unlike Howland and Lavin, recruiting has still been fine for Alford, which makes it even more apparent how weak of a coach he is. Legitimately, though, his teams have obviously underachieved in four of his six seasons.

The point is that both Howland and Lavin were given the opportunity to crater the program before they were ultimately fired, and Alford has had fewer good seasons than either of them. If UCLA were the basketball championship factory that so many seem to think it is, each of these guys would have been fired at the first sign of any downward trend. For Howland, that could have come as early as after his seventh year, after his second losing season, but more likely after his ninth season. For Lavin, it could have come at any time in his last three years. For Alford, it could have come after year three, when the Bruins had one of their worst seasons ever, but certainly after last year. That both Howland and Lavin were allowed to take the program to the cliff's edge, and that Alford has lasted for 5+ seasons, speaks to extraordinarily low expectations for an elite program.

Comparatively, the blue blood programs that do have ridiculously high expectations don't ever wait this long to fire a coach. When Kentucky realized it had a clunker in Billy Gillispie, it fired him after two seasons. Matt Doherty lasted just three seasons at North Carolina. Indiana has pulled the trigger as comparatively quick on various coaches, including Mike Davis (six seasons) and Tom Crean (nine seasons), and not counting Kelvin Sampson (who they fired amidst a scandal).

You are completely right. I guess I did not realize how stupid UCLA has been holding on to two bad coaches in Lavin and Alford for so long

I still think Arizona is as good a job as UCLA

Also I think you just proved my point that it’s smarter to get rid of coaches quickly then let them hang on. I guess been one of UCLA’s main issues. I had forgotten about how long they held on to lavin for

True blue bloods catch and release quickly and it pays off for them I guess

Thank god back in the day Ced only gave Ben Lindsey one year

[97cats]

ya the mediocrity take is not only curious is stupid - Miller has been a lot of things, including stubborn and maybe even careless, but the results on the floor have not been mediocre - NOT even close.

in fact, it’s the high level results on the floor thats saved his ass through all this self inflicted bullshit.

so while the style may not be as pretty, the schedule as interesting, and the final fours missing, the mediocrity argument is down right lazy.

[pc in NM]

ya the mediocrity take is not only curious is stupid - Miller has been a lot of things, including stubborn and maybe even careless, but the results on the floor have not been mediocre - NOT even close.

in fact, it’s the high level results on the floor thats saved his ass through all this self inflicted bullshit.

so while the style may not be as pretty, the schedule as interesting, and the final fours missing, the mediocrity argument is down right lazy.

My thoughts exactly....

[Longhorned]

ya the mediocrity take is not only curious is stupid - Miller has been a lot of things, including stubborn and maybe even careless, but the results on the floor have not been mediocre - NOT even close.

in fact, it’s the high level results on the floor thats saved his ass through all this self inflicted bullshit.

so while the style may not be as pretty, the schedule as interesting, and the final fours missing, the mediocrity argument is down right lazy.

Yes.

The irreproachable take for criticism remains how Miller has staffed the point guard position. It’s the argument that makes complete sense on the face of it. If someone’s issue is tourney disappointments, every one of those games - Wichita State, Xavier, Buffalo - would have gone differently with a point guard.

That’s the nugget. Not the intangible “no results” argument.

[CalStateTempe]

Will we ever know why pjc wasnt recruited over/what pjc had on Miller?

[ChooChooCat]

Anyone know what assistant coaches we are looking at to fill out the coaching staff?

Can't do shit until Phelps's contract runs out, but if I'm Miller I go get me an experienced coach to fill the void of losing Phelps, especially since the current assistants are both very green still. I'd pick Tim Miles.

[ChooChooCat]

Will we ever know why pjc wasnt recruited over/what pjc had on Miller?

Are you familiar with why Ben Howland couldn't recruit the west coast by the end of his tenure? If so, it was a very similar situation.

[PieceOfMeat]

Will we ever know why pjc wasnt recruited over/what pjc had on Miller?

Are you familiar with why Ben Howland couldn't recruit the west coast by the end of his tenure? If so, it was a very similar situation.

are you saying this? (quoted from up above)

He had earned a reputation in recruiting circles as a chore to play for, and his own players tried to leave as soon as possible, especially over the last five years.

[ChooChooCat]

Will we ever know why pjc wasnt recruited over/what pjc had on Miller?

Are you familiar with why Ben Howland couldn't recruit the west coast by the end of his tenure? If so, it was a very similar situation.

are you saying this? (quoted from up above)

He had earned a reputation in recruiting circles as a chore to play for, and his own players tried to leave as soon as possible, especially over the last five years.

Nope. It had to do with how he handled Kendall Williams who ended up at New Mexico.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Another thing about Miller. In the last 24 months, he's not only had the FBI/ESPN cloud, he has lost his 3 best recruiting assistant coaches. That can have a tremendous impact alone, and he not only integrated basically an entirely new recruiting staff, he did it and pulled a #1 class.

That isn't just normal recruiting for any school.

Sean Miller is an excellent recruiter who has an excellent product to sell. Anyone doubting that is a moron but I think anyone thinking other coaches could not recruit strongly at Arizona too is also not seeing the big picture.

Coaching...leaves a lot to be desired

I disagree. I think people underrate how hard game coaching is because hindsight is easier and generally, it's hard to understand how practices are from the fan perspective.

I think the do what we do stuff has gotten old. He never adjusts anything. Great coaches always adjust.

I find his brand of basketball very boring and very different then Arizona basketball under Lute too.

And where I struggle, is this do what do....its not like Miller ever used this system to make a final four as a player or assistant coach.

Whether people want to admit it or not, the fan base is very divided at this point. I know plenty of boosters who would like a change.

Lot riding on Miller next year. He better perform

Eh. Coaches like Wooden, Knight, Smith and Boeheim run/ran extremely consistent/predictable systems. Saying great coaches flex systems isn't borne out historically.

As far as making a Final Four...no coach has made a Final Four with their system until they do. If Ashley's foot stays intact, Horne's 3 goes down, etc., is Miller's system that much better or different?

I agree the fan base is divided. I also think the fan base is a terrible gauge of whether a coach should go. Fan bases are frequently prone to uninformed, knee jerk reactions.

Heck, a lot of fans think Mark Schlabach's article is dead on and Miller should go because of that. It's bizarre to me people say Miller isn't successful when he's been historically successful. He hasn't made a Final Four. That's it.

[PieceOfMeat]

Will we ever know why pjc wasnt recruited over/what pjc had on Miller?

Are you familiar with why Ben Howland couldn't recruit the west coast by the end of his tenure? If so, it was a very similar situation.

are you saying this? (quoted from up above)

He had earned a reputation in recruiting circles as a chore to play for, and his own players tried to leave as soon as possible, especially over the last five years.

Nope. It had to do with how he handled Kendall Williams who ended up at New Mexico.

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification

[MrBug708]

Will we ever know why pjc wasnt recruited over/what pjc had on Miller?

Are you familiar with why Ben Howland couldn't recruit the west coast by the end of his tenure? If so, it was a very similar situation.

are you saying this? (quoted from up above)

He had earned a reputation in recruiting circles as a chore to play for, and his own players tried to leave as soon as possible, especially over the last five years.

Nope. It had to do with how he handled Kendall Williams who ended up at New Mexico.

I do t think he ever stepped foot on campus he had his acholarship revoked when he decided to get ejected from a high school basketball game when Howland came to visit. Other examples im just not sure one this particular one unless I missed something?

[EVCat]

Also, when your PG's dad lets it be known that if the coach offers PG recruit in the next class, his kid will be gone, leaving you with a year of having exactly no PGs other than a combo JUCO transfer, at a time when the senior transfer market wasn't quite as hot as it is now...

...I am going to assume that kind of pressure is exerted from parents all the time. What made it particularly painful at that time was the gap between when a transfer would happen and the recruit would arrive.

Was that the whole story? That, I don't know. Also don't know if that informed our recruiting decisions. But there certainly was pressure and the threat of being PG-less for a year. The closest we came to a PG in the class of 2016 was Kobi Simmons, and Barcello in the class of 2017, neither one a real PG. Seems kind of odd that we didn't even pull a lower top 100 PG in the 2016 class.

By 2017 class, we had Trevon Duval visit, and offered half the PGs in the class, but that was the only true PG to come that year, and would be a freshman PG in PJC's senior year.

[Chicat]

Another thing about Miller. In the last 24 months, he's not only had the FBI/ESPN cloud, he has lost his 3 best recruiting assistant coaches. That can have a tremendous impact alone, and he not only integrated basically an entirely new recruiting staff, he did it and pulled a #1 class.

That isn't just normal recruiting for any school.

Sean Miller is an excellent recruiter who has an excellent product to sell. Anyone doubting that is a moron but I think anyone thinking other coaches could not recruit strongly at Arizona too is also not seeing the big picture.

Coaching...leaves a lot to be desired

I disagree. I think people underrate how hard game coaching is because hindsight is easier and generally, it's hard to understand how practices are from the fan perspective.

I think the do what we do stuff has gotten old. He never adjusts anything. Great coaches always adjust.

I find his brand of basketball very boring and very different then Arizona basketball under Lute too.

And where I struggle, is this do what do....its not like Miller ever used this system to make a final four as a player or assistant coach.

Whether people want to admit it or not, the fan base is very divided at this point. I know plenty of boosters who would like a change.

Lot riding on Miller next year. He better perform

Eh. Coaches like Wooden, Knight, Smith and Boeheim run/ran extremely consistent/predictable systems. Saying great coaches flex systems isn't borne out historically.

As far as making a Final Four...no coach has made a Final Four with their system until they do. If Ashley's foot stays intact, Horne's 3 goes down, etc., is Miller's system that much better or different?

I agree the fan base is divided. I also think the fan base is a terrible gauge of whether a coach should go. Fan bases are frequently prone to uninformed, knee jerk reactions.

Heck, a lot of fans think Mark Schlabach's article is dead on and Miller should go because of that. It's bizarre to me people say Miller isn't successful when he's been historically successful. He hasn't made a Final Four. That's it.

I heard Jay Wright say something interesting. Basically he said when you have a veteran team you can introduce wrinkles into the game plan in the tourney and catch your opponents off guard, but when you have a bunch of first year players you don’t want to confuse them so you stick to the things you’ve been working on all year.

[ChooChooCat]

Will we ever know why pjc wasnt recruited over/what pjc had on Miller?

Are you familiar with why Ben Howland couldn't recruit the west coast by the end of his tenure? If so, it was a very similar situation.

are you saying this? (quoted from up above)

He had earned a reputation in recruiting circles as a chore to play for, and his own players tried to leave as soon as possible, especially over the last five years.

Nope. It had to do with how he handled Kendall Williams who ended up at New Mexico.

I do t think he ever stepped foot on campus he had his acholarship revoked when he decided to get ejected from a high school basketball game when Howland came to visit. Other examples im just not sure one this particular one unless I missed something?

Howland offered the scholarship, Williams committed, and Howland Romar'd him. Needless to say it didn't sit well with literally the entire California AAU scene as he was a very well liked kid, just like Parker Jackson-Cartwright.

[MrBug708]

Howland offered the scholarship, Williams committed, and Howland Romar'd him. Needless to say it didn't sit well with literally the entire California AAU scene as he was a very well liked kid, just like Parker Jackson-Cartwright.

Romar'd him because of attitude. PJC had other well document issues in HS which shows you the most well liked kids in AAU have some of the biggest baggage before they ever reach high school. We lost Artis to Oregon last minute as well from the Soldiers, though he ended up getting expelled for rape or something similar so wr might have lucked out.

[ChooChooCat]

Howland offered the scholarship, Williams committed, and Howland Romar'd him. Needless to say it didn't sit well with literally the entire California AAU scene as he was a very well liked kid, just like Parker Jackson-Cartwright.

Romar'd him because of attitude. PJC had other well document issues in HS which shows you the most well liked kids in AAU have some of the biggest baggage before they ever reach high school. We lost Artis to Oregon last minute as well from the Soldiers, though he ended up getting expelled for rape or something similar so wr might have lucked out.

Oh absolutely man, but regardless It still bit Howland in the ass and would've bit Miller in the ass if he did the same.

[MrBug708]

Kendall Williams was a pump brothers kid, and that was the only AAU program supplying Howland with kids so that makes it pretty ironic

[Newportcat]

ya the mediocrity take is not only curious is stupid - Miller has been a lot of things, including stubborn and maybe even careless, but the results on the floor have not been mediocre - NOT even close.

in fact, it’s the high level results on the floor thats saved his ass through all this self inflicted bullshit.

so while the style may not be as pretty, the schedule as interesting, and the final fours missing, the mediocrity argument is down right lazy.

I would never say Sean Miller has been mediocre for us. He is a good coach and great recruiter. I do think he is very careless by having Book on his staff for so long and very stubborn. Its clear Miller has a system he is fully committed to and believes in. I question that system a lot in terms of our program taking the next step which is Final Fours and a National Championship.

We are going to see next year for sure as he will have really dynamic players who can do so much.

Here is my strong belief based on talking to you 97 and many other donors/boosters who are close to the program

I see two scenario's playing out

1. Miller is our coach next year, the threat of NCAA violations is still out there, our team is good but suffers an early loss in the tournament. Too many bigger donors and boosters put pressure on Robbins and Heeke and Davis family can not overcome it. Miller is let go because its just time. Call it a Dick Tomey firing but it happens. Everyone is worn out by everything. Maybe its not even a firing but both parties agree to move on. Its not you its me.

2. Miller is our coach next year, the threat of NCAA violations goes away, our team is very good and does very well in the tournament. Miller leaves because he is over Tucson and just needs a change and our program is in worse shape because most of the team leaves and goes pro and we are starting over. Albeit in a good place but still starting over

Now again I am not a rich enough donor yet to be influencing shit, so these are all worthless opinions, but if I had major influence I would push to fire Miller now for cause and hire Luke. Pray he can keep all our recruits which I bet he could. The AD department would go to the NCAA and say we cleaned house and beg for forgiveness with sanctions. I would let Luke come in with these recruits show success knowing he would be fully backed by all boosters and donors because he is Luke, and see where he can take us.

It just feels like a major crossroads is coming up. I am one to always get a head of things.

I completely see why anyone would disagree and respect it. I could be wrong on how things play out but I just do not envision a scenario where Sean Miller is still our coach in 1-2 years.

[CalStateTempe]

Thanks for the discussion guys, i learned something today.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I heard Jay Wright say something interesting. Basically he said when you have a veteran team you can introduce wrinkles into the game plan in the tourney and catch your opponents off guard, but when you have a bunch of first year players you don’t want to confuse them so you stick to the things you’ve been working on all year.

Look, this is catnip to me because I have a very similar opinion. I think fans underrate how hard it is to actually implement and execute systems. The advocacy for bouncing man to zone situationally overlooks how much development and practice time goes into each.

To casually play a zone without preparation can get you shredded because players have no idea what their responsibilities are.

[azgreg]

Sean still not fired?

[Chicat]

I heard Jay Wright say something interesting. Basically he said when you have a veteran team you can introduce wrinkles into the game plan in the tourney and catch your opponents off guard, but when you have a bunch of first year players you don’t want to confuse them so you stick to the things you’ve been working on all year.

Look, this is catnip to me because I have a very similar opinion. I think fans underrate how hard it is to actually implement and execute systems. The advocacy for bouncing man to zone situationally overlooks how much development and practice time goes into each.

To casually play a zone without preparation can get you shredded because players have no idea what their responsibilities are.

We’ve seen that in the 5-6 possessions of zone we’ve played the last two years. I think we’ve been scored on almost every time.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I heard Jay Wright say something interesting. Basically he said when you have a veteran team you can introduce wrinkles into the game plan in the tourney and catch your opponents off guard, but when you have a bunch of first year players you don’t want to confuse them so you stick to the things you’ve been working on all year.

Look, this is catnip to me because I have a very similar opinion. I think fans underrate how hard it is to actually implement and execute systems. The advocacy for bouncing man to zone situationally overlooks how much development and practice time goes into each.

To casually play a zone without preparation can get you shredded because players have no idea what their responsibilities are.

We’ve seen that in the 5-6 possessions of zone we’ve played the last two years. I think we’ve been scored on almost every time.

Yeah, competent execution matters. Something different isn't good if you don't execute well.

If you start prepping two defenses, you run into the issue I discussed where you're meh in two styles instead of above average in one.

[Beachcat97]

I'm a little surprised by how many here are ready to see Miller leave.

Spiff has pointed out the obvious: the only thing he hasn't done is reach a FF. That's it.

He meets and exceeds every other conceivable success metric. League titles? Check. Stellar recruiting classes? Check. Significant tourney runs (S16 or better)? Check (5 times). Big OOC wins? He's beaten Duke (twice), Kansas, Florida, Michigan (twice), Gonzaga (3x), Michigan State.

I understand the scandal has rocked this coach and this program, and maybe this is a little like when things went sour for Howland at UCLA. It seemed inconceivable that a program could fire a guy with three FFs, and that's what happened. Miller would undoubtedly be more secure with even a single FF, but his track record is still superb at AZ.

If the idea is just that AZ and Miller could both use a fresh start, fine. Though I do think if he gets to a FF next year, this conversation changes significantly.

I agree that AZ will be fine without Miller, but I'm also not naive enough to assume that the next coach would certainly be an upgrade. Hiring a new coach is always dicey AF, unless it's a Roy Williams/UNC situation where you're bringing in a guy who's already earned a spot in the HOF.

Indiana, Georgetown, UCLA, Kentucky...these are elite programs that have fallen off the map after making a bad hire. If you fire Sean Miller, you have to be willing to accept the possibility of seeing this program sink deeper than it currently is.

[cpt]

We are bigger than Sean Miller. We always have been.

Don’t make me find another ugly Tim Floyd photo.

You act like that’s what we were reduced to. We weren’t. That was a bonehead move by Livengood which no one supported.

[cpt]

I heard Jay Wright say something interesting. Basically he said when you have a veteran team you can introduce wrinkles into the game plan in the tourney and catch your opponents off guard, but when you have a bunch of first year players you don’t want to confuse them so you stick to the things you’ve been working on all year.

Look, this is catnip to me because I have a very similar opinion. I think fans underrate how hard it is to actually implement and execute systems. The advocacy for bouncing man to zone situationally overlooks how much development and practice time goes into each.

To casually play a zone without preparation can get you shredded because players have no idea what their responsibilities are.

We’ve seen that in the 5-6 possessions of zone we’ve played the last two years. I think we’ve been scored on almost every time.

Isn’t that an argument for learning it better and earlier?

[Chicat]

I heard Jay Wright say something interesting. Basically he said when you have a veteran team you can introduce wrinkles into the game plan in the tourney and catch your opponents off guard, but when you have a bunch of first year players you don’t want to confuse them so you stick to the things you’ve been working on all year.

Look, this is catnip to me because I have a very similar opinion. I think fans underrate how hard it is to actually implement and execute systems. The advocacy for bouncing man to zone situationally overlooks how much development and practice time goes into each.

To casually play a zone without preparation can get you shredded because players have no idea what their responsibilities are.

We’ve seen that in the 5-6 possessions of zone we’ve played the last two years. I think we’ve been scored on almost every time.

Isn’t that an argument for learning it better and earlier?

Please see Spiff’s follow up post.

Personally I’d like our team to play one system very well than two systems averagely.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The other thing I always wonder is why people think if a team screws up man concepts they'll magically understand zone concepts.

If you can't figure out the principles of packline, well, zone has fairly complex principles. Zone, IMO, is better for a smart, physically limited team. It places less stress on the individual defender because the entire setup is to have constant help from the other zones.

[Merkin]

Zone, IMO, is better for a smart, physically limited team. It places less stress on the individual defender because the entire setup is to have constant help from the other zones.

That's why I have always loved college ball over the NBA. With zone, a smart unathletic team has a chance to beat a superior athletic team.

[Newportcat]

Zone, IMO, is better for a smart, physically limited team. It places less stress on the individual defender because the entire setup is to have constant help from the other zones.

That's why I have always loved college ball over the NBA. With zone, a smart unathletic team has a chance to beat a superior athletic team.

Funny exact reason I prefer the NBA to college

[Newportcat]

I'm a little surprised by how many here are ready to see Miller leave.

Spiff has pointed out the obvious: the only thing he hasn't done is reach a FF. That's it.

He meets and exceeds every other conceivable success metric. League titles? Check. Stellar recruiting classes? Check. Significant tourney runs (S16 or better)? Check (5 times). Big OOC wins? He's beaten Duke (twice), Kansas, Florida, Michigan (twice), Gonzaga (3x), Michigan State.

I understand the scandal has rocked this coach and this program, and maybe this is a little like when things went sour for Howland at UCLA. It seemed inconceivable that a program could fire a guy with three FFs, and that's what happened. Miller would undoubtedly be more secure with even a single FF, but his track record is still superb at AZ.

If the idea is just that AZ and Miller could both use a fresh start, fine. Though I do think if he gets to a FF next year, this conversation changes significantly.

I agree that AZ will be fine without Miller, but I'm also not naive enough to assume that the next coach would certainly be an upgrade. Hiring a new coach is always dicey AF, unless it's a Roy Williams/UNC situation where you're bringing in a guy who's already earned a spot in the HOF.

Indiana, Georgetown, UCLA, Kentucky...these are elite programs that have fallen off the map after making a bad hire. If you fire Sean Miller, you have to be willing to accept the possibility of seeing this program sink deeper than it currently is.

I can see your points but again I have not heard from anyone credible they think Miller is here for the long haul. Just too much shit has happened. Regardless for what happens next year

Yes we could make a bad hire for sure if and when Miller leaves. That’s life. Got to roll with the punches

And to me last four years, shine has worn off Miller in my mind in many ways when you look at the body of work. Hopefully next year we have the horses to get back to playing like we did in 2014 and 2015

[dmjcat]

ya the mediocrity take is not only curious is stupid - Miller has been a lot of things, including stubborn and maybe even careless, but the results on the floor have not been mediocre - NOT even close.

in fact, it’s the high level results on the floor thats saved his ass through all this self inflicted bullshit.

so while the style may not be as pretty, the schedule as interesting, and the final fours missing, the mediocrity argument is down right lazy.

I would never say Sean Miller has been mediocre for us. He is a good coach and great recruiter. I do think he is very careless by having Book on his staff for so long and very stubborn. Its clear Miller has a system he is fully committed to and believes in. I question that system a lot in terms of our program taking the next step which is Final Fours and a National Championship.

We are going to see next year for sure as he will have really dynamic players who can do so much.

Here is my strong belief based on talking to you 97 and many other donors/boosters who are close to the program

I see two scenario's playing out

1. Miller is our coach next year, the threat of NCAA violations is still out there, our team is good but suffers an early loss in the tournament. Too many bigger donors and boosters put pressure on Robbins and Heeke and Davis family can not overcome it. Miller is let go because its just time. Call it a Dick Tomey firing but it happens. Everyone is worn out by everything. Maybe its not even a firing but both parties agree to move on. Its not you its me.

2. Miller is our coach next year, the threat of NCAA violations goes away, our team is very good and does very well in the tournament. Miller leaves because he is over Tucson and just needs a change and our program is in worse shape because most of the team leaves and goes pro and we are starting over. Albeit in a good place but still starting over

Now again I am not a rich enough donor yet to be influencing shit, so these are all worthless opinions, but if I had major influence I would push to fire Miller now for cause and hire Luke. Pray he can keep all our recruits which I bet he could. The AD department would go to the NCAA and say we cleaned house and beg for forgiveness with sanctions. I would let Luke come in with these recruits show success knowing he would be fully backed by all boosters and donors because he is Luke, and see where he can take us.

It just feels like a major crossroads is coming up. I am one to always get a head of things.

I completely see why anyone would disagree and respect it. I could be wrong on how things play out but I just do not envision a scenario where Sean Miller is still our coach in 1-2 years.

I respectfully disagree.

The boat has sailed for firing Miller. If we were going to do that, or self-sanction, the time for that would have been last year. At this point we have made our bed, and getting rid of Miller is unlikely to garner much sympathy from the NCAA.

I am also in the crowd that believes that we could have a very difficult time replacing Miller with a better, or even equivalent, coach.

I am also in the minority, apparently, who believe that we will eventually be punished by the NCAA.

[Newportcat]

I understand what you are saying.

At the end of the day we all want the same things. For Arizona to win. All of us want Arizona to make a final four, win a national championship etc. shit even Rise and Fire would be happy then...maybe

We just have different ideas on how to get there

My personality is one in which I think being pro-active is always best. And of course I am biased but I see Arizona basketball as a great job many great coaches would love to have especially in this day and age. It’s rare for programs especially on the west coast to have the support we do.

And again, I see no way Miller is our coach in 2 years regardless for how things play out

[Spaceman Spiff]

Honest, non-flame question for those who don't like Miller's game strategy, specifically zone offense.

What zone offense would you prefer us run? If you want to emphasize sets or principles instead of just a system name, that's cool. I'm just trying to unpack the general complaint about our zone offense into the specific things people would actually change to do better.

I see a lot of complaints about zone offense. I'm genuinely interested in what actual strategic changes people believe would benefit us.