No, it took him 11 years to make a final four - lost to IU in the final in 1987.It took Jim Boeheim 25 years.
No, it took him 11 years to make a final four - lost to IU in the final in 1987.It took Jim Boeheim 25 years.
Took HOFer Jim Calhoun 13 years at UConn to get to a Final Four, HOFer John Chaney never went to a single Final Four, Lefty Driesell never went to one, Pete Carril never got out of the 2nd round (though he was handicapped by coaching at Princeton).No, it took him 11 years to make a final four - lost to IU in the final in 1987.
How's that guy Hazell working out for you? I'm guessing you were one of the louder one's screaming for Hope's head.I'm going to say this again I don't have anything against painter. It's just time for someone else to get a chance to get this program to a final four . And I think my opinion best chance is with Cuonzo Martin.
There is so much that has to do with players within the rules of the time and such that I wouldn't know how to compare "if" I had the time. However, it is interesting since Zo was teh defensive player and Matt was the offensive player that their effectiveness would be on the other side of the ball. That said, I've seen it happen before where something comes easy to one and he just does it and the other he has to learn well enough and is able to teach it. Personally, I doubt the differences in coaches have anything to do with it, but it is an interesting propositionIn reference to Cuonzo Martin, I was thinking of something last night and maybe some one with a bit more knowledge (and time on their hands) can either substantiate it or prove it wrong. Has Purdue's offensive %'s and offensive efficiency gone down since Martin left? It seems to me that Martin may have been the offensive mind for the program while Painter was the defensive mind. I ask because it just seems to me that the defense really hasn't suffered that much since Martin left but the offense sure seems to go in to very long lulls in games and bouts of inconsistency from game to game at times.