SB Nation User Blog: dcrockett17

Season Retrospective: Jamelle Horne

dcrockett17 — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:41:24 -0000

This is the fourth installment of a series of player-by-player look-backs at the 2008-2009 Wildcats basketball team. Click the links to see previous installments.

Chase Budinger

Jordan Hill

Nic Wise

Horne played the most minutes of any Wildcat not named Budinger, Hill, or Wise this past season.

Key Stats. In just under 29 minutes per game Horne was something of an athletic "glue guy" for the team. Unfortunately, he had two outright end-of-game brain locks that cost Arizona chances to win. Despite obvious holes in his game, especially on offense, he managed to be a solid contributer. Statistically, Horne looks a bit better to the naked eye than he does on paper. His statistical profile (thanks to DraftExpress) over the first two years borders on dreadful. It was honestly much worse looking than I anticipated. His shooting is very poor (TS%: 48% as a frosh and 49% as a soph), owing mostly to the fact that he really doesn't have a well-developed game. He's not much of a three point threat. Nor is he a strong enough ball handler to be a slasher. Thus, he doesn't get to the FT line very often.

My big issue with Horne's offense is that despite his limitations he's a gunner. His FGAs/possession (95% as a frosh and 86% as a soph) are... umm... not modest. (Yes, you're reading that right. As a frosh Horne shot the ball on 95% of his possessions, and 86% this past season. And it's not like Horne is a post player. He's a jump shooting swingman.) I'd be a bit more charitable about his shot selection were he a better rebounder. Seven-plus pace-adjusted boards per40 isn't horrible for a swingman, but it's far from elite. For a guy with Horne's explosive athleticism and long arms he should be a better rebounder. The thing is, Horne's a high motor player. He just hasn't chosen to emphasize going to the glass.

Because I like Horne, I want to say "well, stats don't capture what he brings to the table," and there is some truth to that. (I'll return to that point.) However, he should be better in many statistical categories, like TS%, rebounding, and assists. About his only real positive statistical contribution is that he doesn't turn the ball over. Even that's sorta damning with faint praise. In Horne's case, he rarely tries to pass. So his turnovers are misleadingly low.

Overview. Having said all that, I still like Jamelle Horne. When I first saw him play I had visions of him developing into the next Richard Jefferson. He's really more like Washington's Quincy Pondexter. Both are long, athletic players that had to move to the wing to play at a high major program. Neither has developed ball skills, and consequently both struggle to play perimeter halfcourt offense. Horne's real value, like Pondexter's, is his defensive versatility. Horne doesn't block many shots or create steals but he's an excellent position defender--a VERY underrated skill that is difficult to capture with conventional stats. Because he can guard any SG or SF, along with many PGs and undersized PFs he gives a coaching staff a lot of options defensively. He's a useful guy to have around.

The big issue with Horne is that right now his offense is so dreadful that it's hard to believe his poor shooting alone doesn't offset virtually anything he produces defensively. Arizona's coaching turmoil has impacted his development perhaps more than any other player. He has obvious athleticism and skills, but he just hasn't developed offensively. Coach Pennell would have loved for Horne to step up and become the 4th starter, but his play never warranted it.

Looking Forward. My sincere hope is that Miller's staff can help develop him, but the prospects are not fantastic when you consider a couple factors. First, gone are any grandiose notions of him turning into Richard Jefferson. He doesn't have that kind of talent, and he will already be 21 in November. He's basically who he's going to be as a player right now in the sense that it's unlikely he's going to add new skills. He has to concentrate on improving the ones he has. Second, when you consider that Miller has recruited wing talent expected to contribute right away, odds are that Horne won't get the attention he needs to reach is potential. But, that's high profile college sports for you. Not nearly as much teaching goes on as one might hope.

Things don't have to end poorly for Horne, who can still develop into a very useful player while improving his draft prospects. It's just that now is the time to recognize what he is and what he isn't. He has two virtually identical seasons under his belt and they strongly suggest that he doesn't excel at any one area offensively, and that much of his value is on the defensive end. That's the player he is right now, and at 20 going on 21 it will be very difficult for him to reinvent himself. It might be wisest for him to concentrate on enhancing his skills. The surest route to the NBA for him is through defense and better rebounding. That's where Horne should start. He must also, however, continue to develop into a more efficient offensive player so that he's no such a liability in the halfcourt. That almost certainly will begin with shooting less.

Season Retrospective: Nic Wise

dcrockett17 — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:07:28 -0000

This is the third instalment of a series of season retrospectives on Wildcats men's basketball players. Click the respective links for previous installments on Jordan Hill and Chase Budinger.

Nic Wise is the third member of Arizona's "big three". Though less heralded nationally than Budinger and Hill, astute Wildcat fans know that Hill may have been the starting pitcher with the nasty fastball and slider, and Budinger the crafty setup man, but Wise was the closer. At the ends of games he had the ball in his hands more often than not, looking to drive, to dish, or to get to the FT line.

It will be interesting to see how Wise is remembered in the annals of Arizona guards from the Olsen era. A lot of his legacy will depend on the decision he makes this summer. Should he return, and make the kind of progress one might expect, I have little doubt that he will take his place on a long list of high quality PGs to play under Lute Olsen. Though it is unlikely he will have the Final Four hardware of some of his counterparts, Nic Wise has worked himself into an excellent ballplayer. (In fact, I'd say he's really about all Arizona has to show for its pipeline into Houston.) Should Wise stay in the draft -- a question I will return to -- I think we'll need some distance to see just how good his three seasons at Arizona really were.

Key Stats. Before jumping into Nic's statistical profile (courtesy of the excellent database at DraftExpress.com), it is worth mentioning that the example he set about managing ego and maturing really should be put into a training video. Wise, considered a prize recruit for promising young assistant Josh Postner, came in a little full of himself figuratively and literally. Built more for comfort than for speed, his freshman season became something of a joke. He averaged fewer than 10mpg, and looked close to collapse half the time. Sometime during or after that first season the light came on. Wise put down the fries and picked up the effort. He came back for his sophomore season in phenomenal shape, and more than tripled his minutes to 29.4mpg!

In most respects Wise is a typical college combo guard. He's a scorer. But what makes him atypical is that he doesn't dominate the ball. In fact, he's played off the ball a fair bit alongside Jeryd Bayless and Chase Budinger. So he's not useless without the ball in his hands. Wise's strength is that he is an efficient scorer; he's not just doing it on volume. This past season he averaged 15.7ppg on a very efficient 59% True Shooting% (TS% accounts for the effects of 3-pointers and free throws). Wise was often the #1 option in tight games late because he gets to the FT line. In the flow, he shot FTs on 39% of his FGAs. Overall he shot just under a quarter of the team's FTs (24.5%), and hit them at just under 85%. So you wanted the ball in his hands down the stretch. Wise also shoots a high percentage from the arc (41.5% in 08-09 and 48.1% in 07-08). On the downside, Nic doesn't give you a lot defensively or on the glass. He doesn't have the size to bother a lot of the guards he faces though he certainly has improved in his ability to stay in front of them.

Overview. The stats back up what I generally saw and felt when watching the Wildcats play. Nic can score but he's not a ball stopper. He tallied an assist on 33% of his possessions (highest on the team) while using up far fewer possessions than either Hill or Budinger. In other words, Nic is an efficient and productive scorer that seems to have a good feel for when to move the ball and when to score. That's a very difficult balancing act for combo guards.

Looking Forward. I have read nothing that indicates that Nic would be anything better than a late 2nd round pick or a free agent. I suspect the scouts will say to him something like, "You have to play the point in the NBA at your size. We know you can score. We want to see you really run a team full time, minus those other two guys." At the same time though, Nic's game is in many ways perfect for the glorified pickup games that pass for talent evaluation in the NBA. So if he works out well he could easily come out of nowhere and get drafted.

So here's the issue for Nic. Can he improve his draft chances more in the workouts or by coming back to school? I certainly hope he comes back to Arizona for selfish reasons, but Nic has to do what's best for Nic.

Season Retrospective: Jordan Hill

dcrockett17 — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:45:51 -0000

This is the second installment of a series of player-by-player look-backs at the 2008-2009 Wildcats basketball team. Click the links to see previous installments.

Chase Budinger

To the extent that the Wildcats had a "meal ticket" it was Jordan Hill.

Key Stats. You can see Hill's comprehensive stats on DraftExpress. Hill's is a fascinating tale of a guy who came in raw--and still is kinda raw by NBA standards--but who added a little more to his game each season. Impressively, he managed to increase his pace-adjusted per 40 rebounding by a good bit from a fairly high baseline (11.1 his first two seasons to 12.7). He improved his free throw shooting from below 50% to the mid-60s as a junior . The one area where he showed significant decline is in true shooting percentage, where he dipped to 56% after shooting 64% and 62% his first two seasons. I suspect that the dip was primarily the result of him incorporating a (respectable) mid-range jump shot. His FTA/FGA number declined each season as he a) took more jumpers, and b) became a better free throw shooter. Even though I'm not crazy about the fact that he drifted away from the rim I understand it. First, Hill is a power forward--not a center. He can post up, but he can't do that exclusively. Second, defenses were more intentional about denying him the post. It's very easy in the college game to effectively deny post play. Third, Arizona a motion offense with a lot of screen-roll action. What I love about Hill though, is that when he's in the paint he's a power player. You never see him put up flippy, scoopy nonsense when he's in the paint. He's either going to ram it down, the defender is going to foul him, or both. Defensively, Hill isn't Hasheem Thabeet but he was steady throughout his career, averaging 3 combined steals and blocks each season (comparable to Blake Griffin). Unfortunately he's foul prone. (Like a lot of college big men he doesn't start to defend until his man already has the ball.) He managed to show some improvement in this area, but he still fouls a ton.

Overview. Though lightly recruited out of Atlanta (a real feather in Josh Postner's cap), he will take his place alongside Bison Dele, Loren Woods, Channing Frye, and Sean Rooks as the best big men of the Lute Olsen era. It's too easy to overlook a career like Hill's because he never advanced past the Sweet 16. However, he is a player with immense physical gifts who put in the work to develop them. He went to the gym and got better every year. How often does that happen, especially with big guys who often just cannot develop properly in the college game?

Looking Forward. What makes Hill an excellent NBA prospect is his athleticism and how that translates into production. Hill is a very good athlete but not a jaw-dropping one, along the lines of Chris Wilcox. With young bigs the best indicator of whether they can play is whether they block shots and rebound. (When big guys don't block shots and rebound it's a solid indicator that they're not NBA caliber.) Hill uses his athleticism and size to do things that are always useful. So the debate about how valuable a prospect he is not so much about whether he can play; it's about how much value GMs put on a "high floor" versus "perceived upside". Jordan Hill is not great in any one area. And since he's somewhat old for this draft class (21), it's a safe bet that he'll never develop into an all-NBA caliber player. That said, if he never improves outside of natural maturation he should at least be comparable to Anderson Varajao--but with a respectable 15-footer. Should he continue to improve with coaching, like with his footwork in the post, he should develop into a quality starting PF (or backup who plays a lot). His value in this draft, I think, lies in the fact that he's a fairly low-risk pick.

Seeing a Route to the Promised Land

dcrockett17 — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:16:29 -0000

[UPDATE: Promoted to Front Page. Great work, DC.]

PowerMizzou has a nice little piece up today on MU's interest in a LB prospect from Florida. It includes this heartening little quote:

The addition of Josh Henson to Missouri's coaching staff has opened up whole new pipelines to the Tigers' recruiting process. One state that Missouri is targeting early on is Florida, and Henson's role has already influenced a standout linebacker from the Sunshine State.

Going back a few months, December to be exact, The Boy did an outstanding four part series comparing Gary Pinkel to his mentor "The Dogfather" Don James. One of the central points in the series is that it is extraordinarily difficult for a "working-class" or "middle-class" program (i.e., not one of roughly 10-15 traditional powerhouses) to work its way into the elite group. College football parallels social life--there's just not a lot of social mobility. The elite programs generally stay that way but there's a lot of volatiity for everyone else. Programs like Mizzou may see a stretch of relative success, generally when a recruiting class outperforms its incoming rankings. But, working- and middle-class programs cannot consistently land the four and five star recruits that portend long-term success (i.e., conference and national titles). The traditional powerhouses practically own the top recruits. It's as simple as that. (Actually, this is one reason I am not a huge playoff proponent. I'm not against *some* proposals, but I don't think the current system is the greatest injustice in the history of the world either--another topic for another time.)

One point that grew out of the comments in The Boy's series is that a potential route to upward mobility for non-elite programs is to broaden the recruiting base. When you cannot aspire to the elite status that often accompanies schools in talent-drenched areas like Texas, Florida, or SoCal you have to get more coverage. Think of it as more of a Tennessee model than a Florida model. UT probably has the shallowest in-state recruiting base in the SEC. Not surprisingly it has long had the broadest recruiting base in the SEC.

I thought Pinkel would do well, in the advent of Dave Christiansen taking the Wyoming job, to bring in a coach who could take the program into some new areas. Pinkel did exactly that when he brought in LSU's Josh Hensen, who gets us into traditional SEC areas. Who knows if Hensen will land this recruit? (He hasn't been highly recruited, though these things often change once bigger schools get involved.) Even if he comes, he certainly won't be the first lightly-recruited kid from Florida to play for Mizzou. Even if he comes, he may never develop. The point is that Henson is tapped into different networks for recruits than is traditional for the program; networks Mizzou has been unable to tap into previously.

When sociologists look at upward mobility what they often find is that one thing that separates those who move up from humble beginnings from those who do not is exposure to different social networks. That is, two kids may start out with identical amounts of poverty but one kid (sometimes by complete luck) gets tapped into people equipped to show him new information or new ways of doing things. A teacher, a social worker, a minister, etc. models and/or cultivates skills and habits that pay off for the kid down the line. The moments these super-critical connections are built are often the product of dumb luck, chance introductions. They are mundane and easy to overlook.

It may well be that hiring Josh Henson turns out to be one of those innocuous but important little moments in the history of this program. It has that ring to it. The odds are, of course, heavily stacked against it. But who cares? Every move Missouri makes to turn itself into an elite program from here on out has long odds attached to it.

Season Retrospective: Chase Budinger

dcrockett17 — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:49:59 -0000

I am going to try, during the oncoming slow time this spring and summer, to do a retrospective on each of the Wildcats that got significant playing time this season under coach Pennell.

I'll start with arguably the team's best player, certainly its most versatile, Chase Budinger.

Key Stats: Budinger ranked 4th in the Pac 10 in scoring at 18 ppg. Budinger was pretty efficient offensively, at 60% true shooting, TS. (True Shooting, for the uninitiated, accounts for the effects of 3-pointers and free throws.) Budinger is competent though not great from the arc (39.9%), well outside of the top 10 in both percent and makes. He got to the line a fair amount (.274 FTM/FGA), though his athleticism should result in a lot more FTs. Getting to the FT line is pretty much the entire difference between Chase Budinger and James Harden (.45 FTM/FGA). In other parts of his floor game Budinger remained steady. He was the 2nd leading rebounder on the team at 6.2 per game and had combined steals and blocks right about 2 per game.

Overview: What an odd career for Budinger. He came to the program hailed as the new Sean Elliott but played more like the new Michael Dickerson (their stats are pretty comparable). It's unfortunate that Lute Olsen miscast Chase as a "leading man", because really, what the hell is wrong with being the new Michael Dickerson? To its credit I think the Arizona fan base (ultimately) understood and appreciated who Budinger is better than the national media, who isn't quite ready to let him live down the fact that he's not Sean Elliott.

Looking Forward: Budinger's play this season most likely got him solidly into the first round of the NBA draft, with a chance to get into the lottery. After a 2007-2008 season that was in most respects a wasted year, 2008-2009 confirmed that the promise of his freshman season wasn't a complete illusion. Budinger also developed a toughness that he was said to lack. He grew into a leadership role out of necessity; not so much a rah-rah guy as he simply had to get it done. For Arizona to win most nights he, Hill, and Wise had to come through.

Budinger's value at the next level lies in his versatility. He doesn't dominate. That's not who he is. He can score in a variety of ways--efficiently. That's like left-handed relief pitching; there is always a place for that. Chase can handle like a guard and passes the ball well. He's also a solid rebounding small forward. On the downside, he can be an indifferent defender. (I've seen him practically control a game on that end, like UCLA, and I've seen him not show up defensively too.) It's unlikely that Budinger ends up in the lottery, though I'd hardly rule it out in what is shaping up to be a pretty weak draft. Virtually any team in the late teens or 20s taking Chase will get very good value.

A Few Thoughts on Pastner to Memphis

dcrockett17 — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:45:15 -0000

I'll start by saying that I wish Josh the absolute best. I really hope he tears it up at Memphis. I like him, and I think he has the makings of an excellent coach. However, I can't help the nagging feeling that Josh is being set up for failure.

Pastner found himself on Lute Olsen's staff shortly after his playing career, which began as a walk-on. He hardly embarrassed himself. Under his watch Arizona continued to get and develop its fair share of NBA-quality talent (e.g., Bayless, Hill, Budinger). Yet, I think it's fair to say that there was a considerable dropoff in the quality of Arizona's secondary stars and role players from prior seasons.

Pastner took the program's recruiting away from its historical roots in the West, particularly Southern California and the Northwest, to emphasize recruiting in Texas. One critique of Texas high school hoops talent is that it's fantastic at the top but weak at the next tier. I think that critique was borne out under Pastner's watch. Arizona remained reasonably competitive for top level talent nationwide, but became steadily weaker at the next level of talent. Secondary stars and role players like Salim Stoudemire, Richard Anderson, and Channing Frye were not considered "prized" recruits when they got to campus. (I won't even count Gilbert Arenas as the ultimate sleeper recruit.) By comparison, Nic Wise, Fendi Onobun, and Juwan McClellan, with all due respect, are a much weaker group.

Okay, so if a guy is pulling in the likes of Bayless and Budinger why does this other stuff matter? On the one hand it's not hard to identify top talent. Hell, McDonalds does that for you. You just hope you can sell them on your program. The real mark of a coach's eye for talent is in the secondary and role players he recruits. That's where coaches have a good bit of discretion. Those are the guys you hope come in unheralded and turn themselves into real players. Where Pastner has had the most discretion, his success has been a mixed bag.

As for Josh's strategizing and game management, we just don't know. There is every reason to believe the guy is bright, and of course he has learned under two very good coaches. So, I am certainly willing to give Pastner the benefit of the doubt. But, there is legitimate doubt.

So what you have at Memphis is a potentially combustible mix of inexperience, a roster that has gone from talent-rich to talent-depleted overnight, the pressure of following a legend, a contract that probably quadrupled his highest previous salary, and fans that are used to winning. Consider that the last time Memphis lost a conference game Hillary Clinton was the shoe-in Democratic nominee for president. Add all that up and the potential is high for things to go very, very wrong in an awful hurry.

Why would Memphis do this? Obviously, they must believe in Josh. No matter how cynical one might want to be about these matters no university--not even the Ivys--has $4 million to just piss away. Still, I'm surprised that Memphis didn't look for a young coach at a low major, or even a more experienced assistant. I have my suspicions about whether part of the AD's motivation was to keep at least some recruits from bolting the program. If true, that's not good for Josh long-term. If the bottom falls out for Memphis, and it may, those recruits won't be able to save his job.

I hope Josh can coach his way out of the circumstances, but this is a tough deal even for a veteran coach. The problem I foresee for Josh is that any number of things that really aren't his fault could go wrong and things might not work out. Unfortunately, he won't have much of a record to fall back on.

Good luck Josh. You're going to need it.

And Then, He Changed His Mind!

dcrockett17 — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:21:10 -0000

Multiple sources are now reporting that Miller has accepted the Arizona job! Apparently he slept on it and talked to Calipari. According to GoAZCats.com (subscription). Just when you think this thing can't get any weirder.

Sources say that Miller called some associates, including Kentucky head coach John Calipari, and told them he was once again undecided about what school he wanted to choose.

Calipari apparently told him what he was telling him all along: that he should come to Arizona.

Miller stayed up late re-thinking his decision and still hadn't made up his mind in the morning. Then he decided he was officially coming to Arizona, as was reported by Jeff Goodman of FoxSports.com.

Miller Says No

dcrockett17 — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:15:42 -0000

Bumped from the Fanposts:

Multiple sources are reporting that Sean Miller has decided to stay at Xavier.

All at once now, let the mass hysteria commence.

Okay people, get mad at Livengood all you want but two things have become apparent.

1. The market changed. Have you noticed that, other than Kentucky, nobody has made a splash this offseason with a coaching hire? Fox to Georgia? Meh. Bennett to Virginia. Vaguely interesting. Anthony Grant to Alabama. Pretty interesting. But let's not pretend that the Wildcat faithful would have been energized by any of those coaches, save maybe Grant. This offseason the market for coaches looks like the market for everything else. People are hanging on to what they have and playing things conservatively. It's just a tough time to be on the market for coaching talent. People in the top tier aren't moving, unless they get a mega-deal that removes all their risk. So, although Livengood, has made some mistakes in this search (every AD does unless he has unlimited resources), he is operating in a market that is fundamentally more difficult than the one he anticipated just a couple months ago.

2. Arizona is a massive rebuild. There comes a point when you have to be clear about who you are right now, and what kind of shape you are in right now. Not terribly unlike Notre Dame football, Arizona's brand name still has some cache. And cache gets coaching candidates to come to the table -- that's important; don't underestimate that. But, that doesn't mean they're rip-roaring to sign on the dotted line once they see what's facing them. The next coach will starts the job three recruiting classes in arrears in a league that should be much better going forward than it was last year. The next coach will be recruiting to a place with essentially no natural recruiting advantages. The state produces little D-I talent and throughout the entire region even some of the mid majors are competitive for top talent. (The higher caliber mid majors makes rebuilding a high major out West much harder than in the other regions.) Don't get me wrong. U of A is still a great job. Even though football is on the upswing it doesn't dominate basketball the way it does in the SEC (save at Kentucky). A coach can still sell Arizona's tradition of winning and of developing NBA talent. In hoops all you need is a couple recruits to get the ball rolling again. But, this job is a gamble, and people aren't much for leaving sure things for a gamble right now. Realistically, who can blame them?

So, who is Arizona right now? It's safe to say that Arizona is not a destination for top-tier coaching talent, certainly not without paying "Kentucky" money. For some perspective though, neither is a post-Cal Memphis. You would think NCAA sanctions were forthcoming the way recruits are fleeing that program. That's not schadenfraude. It's just an illustration of the environment we're living in right now. The time for a sense of entitlement has come and gone.

Livengood would do well to simply say, "screw it" and start over from scratch. We're down into the 2nd or 3rd tier of coaching talent, depending on how you define the tiers. Just like free agent classes are thin, this coaching class is thin because people aren't moving. Acknowledge that fact and reajust your goals. I'm not saying I'd really know how to proceed if I were in Livengood's shoes, but here are the things I'd keep in mind.

Gamble on upside not on retreads. The "experience" card is the most overplayed in all of sports. Just say no to the Seth Greenburgs of the world. That guy has a big enough body of work for us to conclude that he's mediocre. There's no upside to that hire. I'm not suggesting that Livengood ignore experience. Experience is important, but all experience is not created equal. For instance, Josh Pastner is too inexperienced. (I do not understand why people are so insistent on ruining this kid's career before it even gets started.) He hasn't made critical decisions yet. But, many other assistant coaches have.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Once you get down into the 2nd or 3rd tier of coaching talent you're no longer trying to win any press conferences. You're trying to find the diamond in the rough. You don't do that necessarily by following convention. The diamond in the rough may already be a head coach. He may be a lead assistant who is basically a co-head coach the way Mike Dunlap was this season. I want a guy who has won consistently on his level and who has recruited some of the top players at that level. That is, I want to see a class of players come through on a guy's watch that competes for conference championships, and see that players are recognized for their talents. As a for instance, consider Fran McCaffrey, the coach of the Siena Saints. I'm not endorsing him per se, but this is the kind of resume I want to see. McCaffrey has taken three different schools from one bid leagues to the dance, all-conference teams are filled with his players. If you didn't see Sienna play Louisville down to the last 3-4 minutes of their 2nd round game, his kids didn't look as outclassed athletically or intellectually against the Cardinals as we did. McCaffrey was the lead recruiter at Notre Dame going back to the days of LaPhonso Ellis, through Pat Garrity, and Troy Murphy.

If Capel is the Guy...

dcrockett17 — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:43:01 -0000

Let me start by saying that nothing is official yet.

If indeed Jeff Capel is the next coach it will take me a day or two to get over some initial disappointment. I've advocated for Gonzaga's Mark Few and also heard he was the leading candidate. Capel on the other hand has come out of nowhere. I am genetically programmed to generally hate all things OU. So it will take me a bit to set that to the side. I'm sure Capel's a nice guy, but this is gonna take some time.

A few words about Few... I won't be conceding anything until an official announcement is made. I prefer Few but he may be a lifer at Gonzaga. The major advantage on paper with Few, to my mind, is his tie to the West. Over the next couple seasons Arizona is going to have to shop Filene's Basement to find under-recruited guys with upside, like Kyle Fogg. There may be more guys like that "back East" or in the Midwest but Arizona's had the majority of its success finding under-the-radar guys in AZ, CA, OR, WA, and TX.

Some quick initial thoughts on Capel... If he does indeed become the next head coach there's little not to like, really. My big question is whether he can land the big recruit when going head-to-head with the heavyweights in the Pac10. That may sound like a weird thing to say about the coach of the consensus player of the year. However, as a practical matter Blake Griffin was coming to OU no matter who coached the team. Willie Warren and Tony Crocker are solid finds for Capel.

Given Livengood's dictum that he wants a coach that "wins the press conference" Capel may be well-equipped to do that. The story surrounding Capel at Oklahoma is that he blew people out of the water at his interview. Perhaps he's done the same with Livengood.

As a game strategist Capel doesn't have any glaring weaknesses. He seems to be the type that isn't dogmatic. I like that. He works around the players that he has.

Arizona Wildcats Basketball: How Much Weirder Can Things Possibly Get?

dcrockett17 — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:20:49 -0000

[Note by SoCalStites, 03/30/09 11:55 AM PDT ] DCRockett17's thoughts on the basketball season.

Although it wouldn't be the most marketable slogan, it would have been some serious truth in advertising. The Cats had a classic up-then down-then back up-then back down-then soaring-then crashing in flames season. It was hard to even set expectations for the team because of all the unknowns coming into the season. It's harder still to decide whether the team underperformed, met expectations, or exceeded them even after it's all over. Ultimately, I think we can all agree that the guys played hard until the very end, and made a nice little dash to the Sweet Sixteen as a reward for their efforts. That was satisfying because this group really deserved something good after going through so much. In a way I'm glad the last game was a dud rather than some gut-wrenching loss. At least there are no what ifs. This team and coaching staff absolutely maxed out, and that makes it much easier to say goodbye to one of the weirdest seasons ever and move forward.

A couple semi-coherent thoughts on what lies ahead...

1. The Coaching Carousel - To my mind, the next coach needs to "fit" what Arizona has been about historically: athleticism and up tempo. Between Howland, Floyd, and Bennett the conference has enough grind-it-out teams, thanks for asking. So, no Jamie Dixon (style). No Lon Kruger (re-tread). And, most likely no Jeff Capel (not sold yet), Travis Ford (can he recruit?), or Mike Anderson (too soon, but I'm a Mizzou undergrad and I love Anderson). The next coach also needs to get us back into SoCal (which is why I think it would be a VERY good idea to keep Reggie Geary around).To that end the new coach must be open to "one and done" players. Folks need to get over the notion that the Brandon Jennings' of the world owe Arizona something. So who fits the bill?

Rick Pitino: It's very difficult to put any stock in the Pitino rumors. Why he would go to Tucson and start all over with no natural ties to the Southwest, and with so many kids coming back to Louisville? Moving right along...
John Calipari: Cal seems slightly more realistic assuming Arizona makes it worth his while (I'm rubbing my thumb and forefinger together to signify cash, which is just as good as money I'm told). Although Cal makes as much or more than Pitino, Arizona offers Cal a chance to coach at a traditional powerhouse. As much as anyone, Calipari should appreciate the value of a school that sells itself. I doubt he'd have to work as hard to get outstanding recruits to Arizona as he did to Memphis. He plays up tempo and even better defense than Howland or Bennett, and that should play well out West.
Mark Few: Few may well be telling the truth about being a lifer at Gonzaga. Moving to Arizona now would, in my estimation, be win-win for everyone (except Gonzaga obviously). Few's up-tempo offensive focus would represent a clear-cut return to the Lute Olsen era and clear distinction from UCLA and USC. If I were Livengood that's the guy I'd target.

Hiring Pitino or Cal would be a no-doubt-about-it home run, but I have little reason to believe that Pitino would move to Tucson and Cal is apparently talking to Kentucky. That's a bidding war Arizona almost certainly cannot win. Few, though more of a solid double in the right centerfield gap than a home run, has a program that is a clearly and consistently better than all his direct competitors in the WCC. After being a solid-to-very good recruiter at Gonzaga, he'd be an excellent recruiter at Arizona. (Recruiting is often the kryptonite for mid-major coaches who jump to a high major.) Of course, Mark Few may not jump up and eat right out of Jim Livengood's hand should he extend it. Few may be perfectly content where he is.

2. Who Stays? Who Goes? - Jordan and Chase are no-brainers to declare. This is definitely the time to go. Nic didn't declare last year, if memory serves, so he may as well go to the camp. He has the kind of game that is tailor-made for the pre-draft camp setting. If he decides not to declare I see little reason for him to transfer. I really don't see Livengood settling on a down tempo coach, though I could be wrong. I put Horne in the same category in terms of whether he should transfer. Unless the incoming coach says he wants to develop Horne exclusively as a 4/5 (rather than as a 3/4, which is his pro position), I see little reason for him to sit out a year to play elsewhere. Lavender is a tougher call. Will the new coach want him? I think he brings some value, particularly on the defensive end and as more of a true distributor. Those are tougher to find than it sometimes appears. Garland Judkins I have a tougher time seeing back in Tucson, though not impossible. The kid's gotta decide if he's ready to commit.