Forums

[UACFlyer]

Originally Posted by Avid Flyer For me the answer is simple. Coaches or more to point coaching tree. When did X take off and keep soaring. About 30 years ago they hired a good coach who hired good assistant coaches and the pipeline at X hasn't been interrupted since. We got 3 good coaches after JOB but none of them NOT ONE OF THEM had a head assistant in place to take over when the HC left. With each exit and rehire the program literally starts over, falls off as the recruits opt for other programs, and the new coach has to restart the recruiting pipeline. Gonzaga has had the same coach for decades, X and Butler hired top assistants who kept the program rolling without a beat. So basically it all falls on the coaches who failed to have a qualified AHC in place to keep the program going forward. With that in mind we really need to back off on AG for awhile and get behind him and support him in every detail as he is here because he wants to be here and is not looking for greener pastures. With AG we have the opportunity to keep the program in the same hands for literally a decade or two and with a good AHC in place to take over. Look no further than Indiana, they went outside their coaching tree to bring in whom they thought was the savior,( who may well be that in the end) but for now has taken a step back. tOSU has also taken a step back going outside the coaching tree. Most programs who play by the rules have had coaches or assistants in place for long periods of time. When a coach leaves and a new outside coach comes in it upsets the apple cart in every way possible. It is guesstimated it takes a new coach 3 years to get his players and develop his team. Unfortunately our last coaches left shortly after they got their team and recruits. Like AG or not he is possibly the one person who can put stability back into the coaching ranks at UD and stabilize recruiting as well. AM took us to 4 straight NCAA then left, now we see the results of that exit. No matter whom we hired the results would be the same, a startover.

Doesn't the AD have some responsibility for this? Can't Neil make it clear to AG that he (Neil) expects to see AG's successor sitting next to him.