Barford statement

[elksnort]

It's hard to build a program from mediocre to pretty doggone good with players leaving early that really aren't one-and-done hers to begin with

[Rome26]

It's hard to build a program from mediocre to pretty doggone good with players leaving early that really aren't one-and-done hers to begin with

This along with players transferring makes it much harder to build a program. It used to take 2 years to build a basketball program. Now it takes 3 or 4 years to build.

[Illinihog]

This along with players transferring makes it much harder to build a program. It used to take 2 years to build a basketball program. Now it takes 3 or 4 years to build.

No it doesn't.  Get the right players.

[ShadowHawg]

No it doesn't.  Get the right players.

Just heard some basketball guys on ESPN radio in the last couple of days say it takes 4 years to build a program in today's college basketball.

I think the difference that some of you don't grasp with regards to this is that your comment applies to building a TEAM when building a program is much different.

Crean had some really good teams in Indiana but failed to build a sustainable, successful PROGRAM. Different animals.

[TebowHater]

No it doesn't.  Get the right players.

Correct. Dana Altman had SIX players on his roster when he took over. Had them in the Sweet 16 in no time.

[ShadowHawg]

Correct. Dana Altman had SIX players on his roster when he took over. Had them in the Sweet 16 in no time.

Not having many guys in the program is a plus for an incoming coach, not a minus. Having fewer players means a coach is able to get more of HIS players right from the start. Guys that fit his system.

Sure it means they should struggle for a year or two, but it speeds up the implementation of the system by a lot. If that system is a successful one, then all that has happened is that the turnover of the roster that is necessary to moving forward has been sped up.

It would be different if the team was winning the year before and the players left along with the previous staff. But in cases where coaches are fired, the team probably sucked the year previous and returning those guys is not a plus.

[rude1]

Not having many guys in the program is a plus for an incoming coach, not a minus. Having fewer players means a coach is able to get more of HIS players right from the start. Guys that fit his system.

Sure it means they should struggle for a year or two, but it speeds up the implementation of the system by a lot. If that system is a successful one, then all that has happened is that the turnover of the roster that is necessary to moving forward has been sped up.

It would be different if the team was winning the year before and the players left along with the previous staff. But in cases where coaches are fired, the team probably sucked the year previous and returning those guys is not a plus.

This^^^. In the old days before the APR, coaches could come in and turn the roster over quickly with wholesale changes. Now with the APR you could get yourself in trouble quickly if you tried to do it that way today. Now you might be able to move a player or two, but mostly you are stuck trying to work with what you have and turn the roster as those players make their way out the program through using up their eligibility, this is why is most cases today you are  seeing it take longer to turn a program around. .

[Science Fiction Greg]

You can definitely tell the people that have absolutely zero experience in building a program, especially one that was in a shambles beforehand.  It is far from as simple as "just get the right players."