[paradox]

Athlon's College BB publication is out:

1. They picked us 3rd behind WU and HPU.
2. Mclean is their All Big South center.
3. McKay is described as a pedigree head coach.
4. They say that McKay has enough talented players to win the Big South in his first year.
5. Bannister is the pass-first PG that LU has been lacking for years.
6. Anthony Smith was valued highly as well.

Also, Winthrop has a 6-9 big man coming in from Germany. He may actually be a UMass
transfer with four years remaining--but this part was unclear to me.




And do we have enough talent to win the big south as they say ? ? ?


..

[LUconn]

umass center with 4 years left. That makes very little sense. But that would be par for Athalon.

[paradox]

It was really unclear to me. It read something like... originally committed to UMass.

What does that mean? Was it just a verbal and UMass passed on him or did UMass actually have him, redshirted him, and then he transferred?

[Realist]

That's Andy Beuchert. German Center. He was offered by UMass out of high school, then hurt his knee and went to JUCO. Then offered by Miami (FL.) among others last year. He will be a junior.

[paradox]

Thanks

Would you happen to know anything about his JuCo numbers?

[paradox]

I also found this:

Signings did not include Andy Buechert, who had given UMass a verbal in 10/06. It is assumed that the Minutemen are no longer pursuing Buechert. ...

As it turns out, he was only a verbal at UMass.




http://umasshoops.com/recruit/

...

[paradox]

I'm not citing Athlon as a major authority or anything. So, take this with a grain of salt: they did seem to differentiate McKay from the other big south coaches, defining him as a higher pedigree.



When is the last time a national publication said something like that about one of our head coaches?




....

[Cider Jim]

When is the last time a national publication said something like that about one of our head coaches?
....

Probably not since Mel Hankinson.

[paradox]

When is the last time a national publication said something like that about one of our head coaches?
....

Probably not since Mel Hankinson.

Did they?

He was just an assistant from UWV, and an old one at that.

I really don't recall the publications hyping it up? What was there to hype up?

I do remember the LU athletics website puffing him quite a bit, though

Also, Mel puffed himself up pretty well in his opening press conferences... LOL

[Cider Jim]

Well, and don't take this the wrong way, but Hanky's pedigree appeared to be as good or better than Rocco's at the time. Plus, Hanky had been a head coach and was a widely published author on X's and O's, and even NBA coaches had read his books. But, you're right--he was OLD. And his son was, I think, the director of operations for the University of Houston basketball team, and became one of his assistants.

[lueer]

That's WVU. Thanks.

[paradox]

Rutigliano got quite a bit of national press when he made the move. It seemed like everybody wanted to interview Sam back in his early coaching days here.




I guess the real question is: when was the last time that a publication thought that we had a coaching advantage over our conference competitors?

It will be intersting to see what some of the other publications state... perhaps a consensous will build around McKay.

[paradox]

Well, and don't take this the wrong way, but Hanky's pedigree appeared to be as good or better than Rocco's at the time. Plus, Hanky had been a head coach and was a widely published author on X's and O's, and even NBA coaches had read his books. But, you're right--he was OLD. And his son was, I think, the director of operations for the University of Houston basketball team, and became one of his assistants.

Maybe he was regarded as the top guy in the conference at the time? -- but correct me if I'm wrong, I think his only D1 head coaching experience happened at Samford, and it wasn't all that great of an experience, if I'm not mistaken.


We may have had him on a higher pedestal because he was a respected teacher. I'm sure a publication or two bought into it as well.




In the end, I guess the initial hype means nothing. What matters most is whether or not the individual produces once he gets here.

We should know this all too well at LU.

[JK37]

Well, and don't take this the wrong way, but Hanky's pedigree appeared to be as good or better than Rocco's at the time. Plus, Hanky had been a head coach and was a widely published author on X's and O's, and even NBA coaches had read his books. But, you're right--he was OLD. And his son was, I think, the director of operations for the University of Houston basketball team, and became one of his assistants.

Maybe he was regarded as the top guy in the conference at the time? -- but correct me if I'm wrong, I think his only D1 head coaching experience happened at Samford, and it wasn't all that great of an experience, if I'm not mistaken.


We may have had him on a higher pedestal because he was a respected teacher. I'm sure a publication or two bought into it as well.


In the end, I guess the initial hype means nothing. What matters most is whether or not the individual produces once he gets here.

We should know this all too well at LU.

All well-put, dox. Coach Hank could recruit pretty well, and his intricate knowledge of the game was extremely good, making him one of the best scouting coaches in any of the major conferences at the time he came out of WVU and came to Liberty. (WVU head coach Gale Catlett gave him full credit for their last-second upset victory over Bob Huggins and #2-seeded Cincinatti in the 1998 NCAA's Tourney.)

He could have been a great teacher, but he had a lot of trouble communicating his message/intentions to his players. Every play in his plabook had 5-7 options out of it. By the time the players reached option 2, they were ready to just go and score, or had to because of the play clock.

In the end, Coach Hank's positive outlook to every season ("Next year" was always THE year they would break through.), pumped his teams up to a level they couldn't achieve. There's no doubt that his pedigree was as good as LU had hired to that point, but his inability to get his message across to his players sank him and the program to depths from which I believe they are still trying to recover somewhat.

[paradox]

JK, it's sounds as though, you were a lot closer to the Hankinson situation than most of us here on the board. You provided some very interesting information.

Everybody really liked MH when he first arrived here. The intial buzz was very strong, and I think that we defeated VA Tech twice in back-to-back seasons, if I'm not mistaken. And, I think we had a season or two where we beat some really good out of conference opponents and then imploded against Big South competition.

Also, there were quite a few big names that we were led to believe had signed with LU, but it didn't quite work out that way: Burks, Richmond, and Okafor to name a few. It was never clear to me what was going on with that. Back then, nothing was a sure thing, even it LU announced it as a signing.

[jimflamesfan]

I was a student during the Hankinson years.

It is correct that we normally started well, and then imploded in the conference. Hankinson did beat Tech twice...one year...LU was actualy 8-2 with wins over Tech, JMU, Townson, W&M, and some others...and I think I still have the Sports Illustrated somewhere where we were they listed 5 up and comming teams or something like that...

And then we got to conference and didn't win a Big South game until our last game against Highpoint, or something like that.

I think the thing was that match-up zone defence. It worked well against teams that had big guys that tried to go inside...but it left perimeter players opened...and it was hard to learn...the famous quote heading into the Big South Tournament...our guys have about 75 percent of the defence learned.

Also, Hankinson did not believe in the 3. A lot of times the game would be close...but we would refuse to shoot 3 pointers.

Anyway...that was my take on it.

[JK37]

Also, Hankinson did not believe in the 3. A lot of times the game would be close...but we would refuse to shoot 3 pointers.

That's very true. Also, as guard-heavy as the Big South is, his defiance to go away from the match-up zone that was so effective against bigger(size) teams led to his demise with the Big South, in my opinion. Plus, his teams didn't defend the 3 well, probably because they didn't shoot it very much themselves.

Bottom line, Coach Hankinson would make any program in a major conference great from an assistant's position, but for one or more reasons, things just never panned out at LU.

[paradox]

It's been fun thinking back on Hankinson and his interesting approach to coaching. In the end, it seems as though he over-coached in some ways and failed to adjust his style when needed, which ultimately led to his demise.




In McKay, we seem to have a much more balanced coach. Also, McKay appears to favor a more perimeter-oriented style of play and the Big South is usually dominated by perimeter play.

It seems as though McKay has what it takes to succeed in the Big South.

Any thoughts?

[LUconn]

It's been fun thinking back on Hankinson and his interesting approach to coaching. In the end, it seems as though he over-coached in some ways and failed to adjust his style when needed, which ultimately led to his demise.




Any thoughts?

I think it was his 36-77 record that did him in. Moreso his 5 wins in his final season.

[paradox]

Without a doubt Hankinson was a failure. He had some success outside of the conference with a couple of wins against Virginia Tech--but he always went belly-up in conference play.





I was trying to turn the conversation back to McKay who as a coach puts a strong emphasis on the perimeter game. This conference is perimeter-oriented. Hankinson ignored the orientations and prevailing styles of play in this conference and significantly underachieved as a result.

McKay, on the other hand, understands what it takes to compete against gaurd-heavy teams; and he seems to be putting together a team capable of dominating his Big South opponents on the perimeter.

[Realist]

Against two three star guards that just verballed WU? We stole another away from Clemson, USC, and UAB today. 6-6 shooting guard.

[paradox]

Against two three star guards that just verballed WU? We stole another away from Clemson, USC, and UAB today. 6-6 shooting guard.

Sure. Why not?


..

[JK37]

It's been fun thinking back on Hankinson and his interesting approach to coaching. In the end, it seems as though he over-coached in some ways and failed to adjust his style when needed, which ultimately led to his demise.




In McKay, we seem to have a much more balanced coach. Also, McKay appears to favor a more perimeter-oriented style of play and the Big South is usually dominated by perimeter play.

It seems as though McKay has what it takes to succeed in the Big South.

Any thoughts?

I agree with all of that completely. (And, I think that'sthe first time I've been able to say that about one of your posts, dox...haha!)