Are we good

[Couev]

Would we really need to fire him after next season though? We'd have to pay 2 years of his buyout, I believe, so unless it's really bad, why can't we just let him continue on his contract for another year? He'd still have 2 years left, so if after the 4th year, still no progress, then yeah, maybe you buy out that last year. But if he gets it figured out, then you can do an extension.

First of all, buyouts are almost never 100% pay, and only get paid in 'full' if you don't take another job. Hi contract might be 1.4 million left, but there's almost no way it's the full amount. Plus he's a young guy with connections--he'll almost assuredly be an assistant on a P5 team or an AHC in a G5 team after this even if he gets the pink slip.

Generally, most coaches don't recruit during as a lame duck sitting on an expiring contract without an extension. If he has a bad year this year and you are serious about giving him all the tools he can to improve, then you almost have to give him an extension so that he can recruit and keep a staff together. If you give him a fourth year you are essentially committing to an extension and a raise...and if you don't believe in him enough to do that then you should have just fired him.

 

[LVRebel2000]

First of all, buyouts are almost never 100% pay, and only get paid in 'full' if you don't take another job. Hi contract might be 1.4 million left, but there's almost no way it's the full amount. Plus he's a young guy with connections--he'll almost assuredly be an assistant on a P5 team or an AHC in a G5 team after this even if he gets the pink slip.

Generally, most coaches don't recruit during as a lame duck sitting on an expiring contract without an extension. If he has a bad year this year and you are serious about giving him all the tools he can to improve, then you almost have to give him an extension so that he can recruit and keep a staff together. If you give him a fourth year you are essentially committing to an extension and a raise...and if you don't believe in him enough to do that then you should have just fired him.

I don't know why it's considered lame duck if he has 2 years left. 1 year, yes, I can see that but 2? Get to work and earn that last year and the extension.

 

[Couev]

I think a first time head coach deserves more leeway. It's not his fault that is the first time at this level. It isn't exactly fair ( or at the very least unrealistic) holding him to the same standards as a veteran head coach.

If he can't do the job, then he can't do the job. Fairness is a strange standard when he definitely gamed the system and used his father's influence to get the job over more qualified candidates. If I saw anything intersting so far in how he coaches or recruits maybe I'd be more willing to listen to the let him grow argument. But his second season was worse than Marv's coming into a very similar situation.

It's tough because we have not had much consistency so far. Almost 3 brand new teams in 3 consecutive years. And he had to completely turnover his coaching staff after year 1. Those are some tough obstacles for any coach, let alone a first timer.

There's some truth here for sure, but at this point I don't know if he's a victim of the instability or the root cause of it. He's really the only constant.

This is his best offseason by far. Much better roster construction overall. Heopfully that translates to better on court performance, at least from a structure stand point.

His portal work has been good to very good. Getting Webster and LuRod to stick around was another victory. If he can get a few of these local boys to buy in AND stick around, then that might be enough to buy another year even if he doesn't improve greatly in any other aspect.

Firing at that point still makes me uneasy from a big picture standpoint. Just 3 years for any coach is not fair IMO, compound him being a first timer and having to turnover his entire staff is just a lot.

That being said, I would understand if he were to be fired. He was not hired by this AD. Harper is not messing around and did fire Arroyo for disappointing results in year 3. In principle I would not like it ( I didn't like Arroyo's firing in principle, but I am ultimately happy, at least at the moment, that he did).

I think 3 years is more than adequate time to determine if a guy is a good fit, ESPECIALLY given how easy it is to re-build rosters using the portal. You don't have to grow freshman out and see how they develop anymore, you can just get 3-4 starter quality upperclassmen and try to roll with it.

I'm rooting for Kevin. I like the guy. But you either need to put butts in the seats with wins or with an attractive to watch playing style--and for 2 years he hasn't given us either and I don't really see where that's going to come from, but this year our talent is going to be better and more well rounded then the last 2 years. But if he doesn't sniff the post-season this year I think the AD pinkslips him and I won't gripe about the firing.

 

[Couev]

I don't know why it's considered lame duck if he has 2 years left. 1 year, yes, I can see that but 2? Get to work and earn that last year and the extension.

Sorry if that was confusing, i meant after this year when he will only have 1 year remaining. Basically if you commit to year 4, you have to commit to an extension.

 

[WarthogRebel]

If CKK gets fired after this season, every recruit is gone. It'll take a very long time to recover from that.

But I do understand that expectations are high this season. Steps need to be taken and I guess baby steps are fine but some type of excitement needs to be back.

When I posted I wasn't talking about a firing. I was talking about keeping future recruits and building on the success. I don't see how we can keep top-flight recruits coming in unless we can show them they will be showcasing their talent to a National audience in the NCAA's. Also, why would a NIL consortium continue to dump funds into a program that would be similar without them? We need to challenge for a top spot in the MWC every year ( similar to SDSU). A very occasional 4th place MW conference finish should be as low as we go and still expect recruiting to be exceptional.

 

[Rebelhustle]

Tark's four years with LBSU he went 99-16 with 4 conference championships and four NCAA tourney appearances.

Lon's first four years at UTRGV weren't super successful but he was building up a program that was in pretty bad shape and independent at the time so without a conference tourney to go dancing. He's always been the Rich Man's Tim Miles--can build a program in several years to be nationally relevant. There were people who were almost out of patience with Lon after his 2nd year of mediocre here.

If he's like his daddy and he gets us 30 wins next year everyone here will be on board.
But say he goes 19-13 next year, no post season at all and once again has to replace 50% of his roster. At what point does a pattern that is no post season, no consistent roster, mid-tier MWC performance okay to say 'screw it, let's start over?'

I kind of believe that most UNLV fans do have unreasonable expectations, but I don't think having a team that's in the upper half of the conference every year and has a chance at dancing every other year is asking too much. I'd rather start over and try to get out of mediocrity then stay in mediocrity because starting over is hard.

I should have known Tark had a great record to start he was one of a kind of coach. One of the main reasons we have been in mediocrity is because there has been no consistency with coaches since Rice was fired. UNLV can't seem to hire a big name coach. TJ and Beard look like they would have been good hires but of course gone to better pastures. IMO if Kruger improves this year gets us into the tournament or at least NIT bid which would give us a better record than 19-13 from last year and he has Dedan with other great recruits coming back then UNLV needs to give him one more year or it will all start all over with a mass exodus of players and another few years of building and the discussing of loosing or firing another coach. With all that said I believe Kruger gets us in the Tourney and he will be here for a fourth year.

 

[LVRebel2000]

Sorry if that was confusing, i meant after this year when he will only have 1 year remaining. Basically if you commit to year 4, you have to commit to an extension.

Kruger signed a 5 year deal. He's been the head coach for 2 seasons. So as of now, he has 3 years remaining, and even after this next year, he'll still have 2 more years on his contract. I don't know why you'd do an extension so early, unless he's absolutely killing it.

 

[rebel5280]

Tark's four years with LBSU he went 99-16 with 4 conference championships and four NCAA tourney appearances.

Lon's first four years at UTRGV weren't super successful but he was building up a program that was in pretty bad shape and independent at the time so without a conference tourney to go dancing. He's always been the Rich Man's Tim Miles--can build a program in several years to be nationally relevant. There were people who were almost out of patience with Lon after his 2nd year of mediocre here.

If he's like his daddy and he gets us 30 wins next year everyone here will be on board.
But say he goes 19-13 next year, no post season at all and once again has to replace 50% of his roster. At what point does a pattern that is no post season, no consistent roster, mid-tier MWC performance okay to say 'screw it, let's start over?'

I kind of believe that most UNLV fans do have unreasonable expectations, but I don't think having a team that's in the upper half of the conference every year and has a chance at dancing every other year is asking too much. I'd rather start over and try to get out of mediocrity then stay in mediocrity because starting over is hard.

The truth from behind a keyboard, lady’s and gentlemen!

 

[rebel5280]

If he can't do the job, then he can't do the job. Fairness is a strange standard when he definitely gamed the system and used his father's influence to get the job over more qualified candidates. If I saw anything intersting so far in how he coaches or recruits maybe I'd be more willing to listen to the let him grow argument. But his second season was worse than Marv's coming into a very similar situation.

There's some truth here for sure, but at this point I don't know if he's a victim of the instability or the root cause of it. He's really the only constant.

His portal work has been good to very good. Getting Webster and LuRod to stick around was another victory. If he can get a few of these local boys to buy in AND stick around, then that might be enough to buy another year even if he doesn't improve greatly in any other aspect.


I think 3 years is more than adequate time to determine if a guy is a good fit, ESPECIALLY given how easy it is to re-build rosters using the portal. You don't have to grow freshman out and see how they develop anymore, you can just get 3-4 starter quality upperclassmen and try to roll with it.

I'm rooting for Kevin. I like the guy. But you either need to put butts in the seats with wins or with an attractive to watch playing style--and for 2 years he hasn't given us either and I don't really see where that's going to come from, but this year our talent is going to be better and more well rounded then the last 2 years. But if he doesn't sniff the post-season this year I think the AD pinkslips him and I won't gripe about the firing.

Good stuff!

 

[Babalouie]

Sorry if that was confusing, i meant after this year when he will only have 1 year remaining. Basically if you commit to year 4, you have to commit to an extension.

It’s good to see someone supporting an extension for CKK after the Rebels get into the dance this year. Is that a 3 or 4 year extension? What size of a pay raise were you thinking, $1.2 to $1.5 million yr?

 

[dcut03]

If he can't do the job, then he can't do the job. Fairness is a strange standard when he definitely gamed the system and used his father's influence to get the job over more qualified candidates. If I saw anything intersting so far in how he coaches or recruits maybe I'd be more willing to listen to the let him grow argument. But his second season was worse than Marv's coming into a very similar situation.

There's some truth here for sure, but at this point I don't know if he's a victim of the instability or the root cause of it. He's really the only constant.

His portal work has been good to very good. Getting Webster and LuRod to stick around was another victory. If he can get a few of these local boys to buy in AND stick around, then that might be enough to buy another year even if he doesn't improve greatly in any other aspect.


I think 3 years is more than adequate time to determine if a guy is a good fit, ESPECIALLY given how easy it is to re-build rosters using the portal. You don't have to grow freshman out and see how they develop anymore, you can just get 3-4 starter quality upperclassmen and try to roll with it.

I'm rooting for Kevin. I like the guy. But you either need to put butts in the seats with wins or with an attractive to watch playing style--and for 2 years he hasn't given us either and I don't really see where that's going to come from, but this year our talent is going to be better and more well rounded then the last 2 years. But if he doesn't sniff the post-season this year I think the AD pinkslips him and I won't gripe about the firing.

In many ways I think this upcoming year will give us some answers.

I think he will have the roster to compete, and the personnel to be much more efficient on offense. Likely 3-4 5th year seniors that have been tested at high competition in the starting lineup. With a bunch seniors and upperclassmen coming off the bench. If the product is the same, then that may be enough.

As for implying that him getting the job due due to his last name is irrelevant to my point. It isn't truly fair to judge him by that. He should be judged by what he has done on the court. I get the skepticism with his hiring, I feel the same way. But it doesn't change the fact that he is a young first time HC. You can't order a chicago deep dish pizza and be angry that is doesn't come out as fast as the thin crust. It takes longer to see what you have.

I also agree we didn't see much on the floor from year 1 to 2. But what it often lost is Kevin's first year which was a huge jump from the year previous and unfortunately one of our better years in recent memory.

I see the point that many of the unfortunate circumstances may have been due to him. Most of his staff did leave for jobs at better programs FWIW. The recruiting aspect is definitely part of his plan and fair to be judged, though again his staff is a huge part to that. But it doesn't change the fact that there was a ton of turnover which makes things more difficult to judge and more difficult to see year over year growth on the floor.

To each his own, I don't think 3 years is enough to judge most coaches in the grand scheme of things, let alone a first time HC that had to turnover his entire staff after the first year.

These days I don't the think the lame duck coach is a good argument, not with the new transfer rules. Committing to a school is hardly a commitment at all anymore. Especially HS players. Even tranfers can transfer again with a grad transfer, or transfer freely if their coach is fired. That argument holds very little water at this point, even if rival coaches will try to use it against them. I think it falls flat. a

 

[Masked_rebel]

Not to burst your bubble but Kevin's first year he went 18-14 and finished 5th...
TJO went 17-15 in his first season and finished T-2...
Marvin Menzies went 20-13, and 17-14 his final 2 years, so his first season wasn't any better than either of those and even the year we fired Dave Rice, we went 18-15...
So no, Kevin's results haven't been any better and may in fact be inflated by last year's schedule and Bryce basically carrying his first year team on his back

 

[rebelzzz]

Not to burst your bubble but Kevin's first year he went 18-14 and finished 5th...
TJO went 17-15 in his first season and finished T-2...
Marvin Menzies went 20-13, and 17-14 his final 2 years, so his first season wasn't any better than either of those and even the year we fired Dave Rice, we went 18-15...
So no, Kevin's results haven't been any better and may in fact be inflated by last year's schedule and Bryce basically carrying his first year team on his back

I guess we will see this year. If he can't get this year's team into the dance then it might just be time to make a move.

 

[Jay's Rebel's]

In many ways I think this upcoming year will give us some answers.

I think he will have the roster to compete, and the personnel to be much more efficient on offense. Likely 3-4 5th year seniors that have been tested at high competition in the starting lineup. With a bunch seniors and upperclassmen coming off the bench. If the product is the same, then that may be enough.

As for implying that him getting the job due due to his last name is irrelevant to my point. It isn't truly fair to judge him by that. He should be judged by what he has done on the court. I get the skepticism with his hiring, I feel the same way. But it doesn't change the fact that he is a young first time HC. You can't order a chicago deep dish pizza and be angry that is doesn't come out as fast as the thin crust. It takes longer to see what you have.

I also agree we didn't see much on the floor from year 1 to 2. But what it often lost is Kevin's first year which was a huge jump from the year previous and unfortunately one of our better years in recent memory.

I see the point that many of the unfortunate circumstances may have been due to him. Most of his staff did leave for jobs at better programs FWIW. The recruiting aspect is definitely part of his plan and fair to be judged, though again his staff is a huge part to that. But it doesn't change the fact that there was a ton of turnover which makes things more difficult to judge and more difficult to see year over year growth on the floor.

To each his own, I don't think 3 years is enough to judge most coaches in the grand scheme of things, let alone a first time HC that had to turnover his entire staff after the first year.

These days I don't the think the lame duck coach is a good argument, not with the new transfer rules. Committing to a school is hardly a commitment at all anymore. Especially HS players. Even tranfers can transfer again with a grad transfer, or transfer freely if their coach is fired. That argument holds very little water at this point, even if rival coaches will try to use it against them. I think it falls flat. a

I said this last year, CKK’s longevity is dependent on DTJ’s recruitment.. If you get DJ; you get friends/reinforcements that infuse the program with talent, excitement, and promise, prolonging the leash on CKK and granting him a 4th year.. Still a long ways to go and have to secure these guys..

I just hope the Rebs make noticeable progress and Harper doesn’t become impatient.. Can’t afford to restart.. Secure DTJ & let CKK bring in those connections, build from there..

 

[Jay's Rebel's]

Not to burst your bubble but Kevin's first year he went 18-14 and finished 5th...
TJO went 17-15 in his first season and finished T-2...
Marvin Menzies went 20-13, and 17-14 his final 2 years, so his first season wasn't any better than either of those and even the year we fired Dave Rice, we went 18-15...
So no, Kevin's results haven't been any better and may in fact be inflated by last year's schedule and Bryce basically carrying his first year team on his back

Hard to make comparisons given the landscape and differences in recruiting.. Not giving CKK a pass, but he does deserve a little bit of credit coming in as 1st time coach and navigating this NIL/new form of recruiting.. You can’t make a strong argument for either coach, different circumstances..

 

[WarthogRebel]

A comparison between MM, Otz, and KK is problematic when the comparison is for the total season. The difference in OOC schedules prevents a good comparison.

IMO, the best way to compare is the Conference schedule alone.

MM - (2017) 4 and 14........ (2018) 8 and 10........ (2019) 11 and 7
OTZ - (2020) 12 and 6........(2021) 8 and 10
KK - (2022) 10 and 8........ (2023) 7 and 11.

MM is the only one of the three who improved his conference record.

 

[j. spilotro]

A comparison between MM, Otz, and KK is problematic when the comparison is for the total season. The difference in OOC schedules prevents a good comparison.

IMO, the best way to compare is the Conference schedule alone.

MM - (2017) 4 and 14........ (2018) 8 and 10........ (2019) 11 and 7
OTZ - (2020) 12 and 6........(2021) 8 and 10
KK - (2022) 10 and 8........ (2023) 7 and 11.
MM is the only one of the three who improved his conference record.

The MWC hasn’t been strong at all, but at times it’s been weaker than others. It was less latter Rice compared to late Lon/early Rice.

I could be mistaken, don’t have the data, but perhaps the “weakest” of the weak was under MM?

Even though it continued to drop after Rice, did the bottom out happen during MM? I say this because SDSU wasn’t nearly strong, they were decent, UNR did pop up a bit, but didn’t make up for the drop that SDSU had …. I’d have to look at historical strengths of conference for that.

 

[Jay's Rebel's]

A comparison between MM, Otz, and KK is problematic when the comparison is for the total season. The difference in OOC schedules prevents a good comparison.

IMO, the best way to compare is the Conference schedule alone.

MM - (2017) 4 and 14........ (2018) 8 and 10........ (2019) 11 and 7
OTZ - (2020) 12 and 6........(2021) 8 and 10
KK - (2022) 10 and 8........ (2023) 7 and 11.

MM is the only one of the three who improved his conference record.

No doubt, results are not in his favor.. But, CKK is the only one who has had to deal with navigating NIL/drastic roster turnover.. Again, not defending him, but it’s not black & white, his path is not comparable to MM/OTZ..

 

[Couev]

IMO if Kruger improves this year gets us into the tournament or at least NIT bid which would give us a better record than 19-13 from last year and he has Dedan with other great recruits coming back then UNLV needs to give him one more year or it will all start all over with a mass exodus of players and another few years of building and the discussing of loosing or firing another coach. With all that said I believe Kruger gets us in the Tourney and he will be here for a fourth year.

So I agree it's tough to be good if you don't have stability, but in sports it's hard to be stable if you aren't any good. While we haven't been bad, we definitely haven't been good. I think the issue has been compounded by poor administrative history with bad hires/lazy hires/missed targets/poorly protected contracts.

But if Krugs brings all those things in your preface (nice HS recruiting class, better record, and NIT or NCAA postseason then there's no way you can fire him without some kind of personal scandal. It wouldn't make him beyond criticism, but that should secure his job.

 

[Couev]

In many ways I think this upcoming year will give us some answers.

I think he will have the roster to compete, and the personnel to be much more efficient on offense. Likely 3-4 5th year seniors that have been tested at high competition in the starting lineup. With a bunch seniors and upperclassmen coming off the bench. If the product is the same, then that may be enough.

I agree with everything here 100%.

As for implying that him getting the job due due to his last name is irrelevant to my point. It isn't truly fair to judge him by that. He should be judged by what he has done on the court. I get the skepticism with his hiring, I feel the same way. But it doesn't change the fact that he is a young first time HC. You can't order a chicago deep dish pizza and be angry that is doesn't come out as fast as the thin crust. It takes longer to see what you have.

I think that's a reasonable take, and I think that in the pre-NIL I would be in full agreement here. I'm hesitant to make the same full agreement in the current market because of how easy it is to flip a roster. I think the hardest thing for a new coach to do is to express the culture of his program, build a roster that keeps your program consistent and build a solid supportive staff. Kevin has obviously struggled there--but I think there's no guarantee that a more experienced coach wouldn't have struggled ther as well.. I think that if he would have eschewed the 'Build to win now' portal recruiting that I probably would have had a little more patience. If I saw a real cultural footprint or some sort of a skeleton of offense I'd be more forgiving as well.

I also agree we didn't see much on the floor from year 1 to 2. But what it often lost is Kevin's first year which was a huge jump from the year previous and unfortunately one of our better years in recent memory.

There was a 6.5 game swing, which I agree is pretty solid. We also played a pretty decent noncon schedule (California, Michigan, UCLA) and finished 5th in the conference. A year later I would expect to see a more positive trend when the best teams on our non-con schedule were Davidson and Washington State and the conference was a little weaker. We did have a net gain of 1.5 wins, but finished 7th in conference with a losing record and had 3 more games losing at home by 10+ with an attendance lower than the women's team if you actually counted butts in seats.

To each his own, I don't think 3 years is enough to judge most coaches in the grand scheme of things, let alone a first time HC that had to turnover his entire staff after the first year.

How many years do you wait for your deep dish to be served? What's an acceptable 'give the kid a little more time' period? Does he get a pass if we regress further this year or maintain that bottom half of the conference finish?

I'm not asking that as a gotcha, I'm legitimately curious. I generally feel 3 years in the modern era is enough to show that you can put a decent product on the floor especially given how much easier roster transformation is with the portal. I think a good coach can turn around a program faster than that. If you think you need to give a coach 4 years in this situation then we're really pretty close and I think there's some legitimate play with logical reasons that are hard to refute either way. If you think he should get 6-7 years, then I think you're day drinking.

These days I don't the think the lame duck coach is a good argument, not with the new transfer rules. Committing to a school is hardly a commitment at all anymore. Especially HS players. Even tranfers can transfer again with a grad transfer, or transfer freely if their coach is fired. That argument holds very little water at this point, even if rival coaches will try to use it against them. I think it falls flat. a

If that argument is bad, then I would argue one of the chief difficulties of a young coach and part of the reason that you need to give them patience--learning roster construction--is also being overblown. In the end I think you might be right here. That I'm sort of stuck in an a bit of a outmoded way of thinking. I do think it might hurt with guys that are going to need 3-4 years to hit their peak, but the odds of retaining those guys under the best of circumstance aren't great these days. I think I'm probably just wrong here, and another season of 1200 kids in the portal will probably finally snap me out of it.

 

[dcut03]

Not to burst your bubble but Kevin's first year he went 18-14 and finished 5th...
TJO went 17-15 in his first season and finished T-2...
Marvin Menzies went 20-13, and 17-14 his final 2 years, so his first season wasn't any better than either of those and even the year we fired Dave Rice, we went 18-15...
So no, Kevin's results haven't been any better and may in fact be inflated by last year's schedule and Bryce basically carrying his first year team on his back

Fair enough. But the turnaround form TJ's last year to Kevin's first was significant.

Also Marv's best year his notable OOC was unranked UTAH, Arizona, and Illinois. Not a lot of decent teams beyond those 3

Kevin's first year had #2 UCLA, #4 Michigan, with a very solid USF team, with respectable Wichita State and SMU. Probably our toughest schedule since Rice's last year.

 

[dcut03]

There was a 6.5 game swing, which I agree is pretty solid. We also played a pretty decent noncon schedule (California, Michigan, UCLA) and finished 5th in the conference. A year later I would expect to see a more positive trend when the best teams on our non-con schedule were Davidson and Washington State and the conference was a little weaker. We did have a net gain of 1.5 wins, but finished 7th in conference with a losing record and had 3 more games losing at home by 10+ with an attendance lower than the women's team if you actually counted butts in seats.

Also a very solid USF and decent Wichita State that first year. I will admit that Kevin impressed me that first year. It probably was a little more impactful since I had low expectations going in. So yes that may have bought more leeway with me. But I thought he did a good job, created a good culture, did the little things that I wouldn't have expected him to be able to do so early. I do think year two was a regression, no question. Final record be damned. Weaker OOC, that actually aged like guacamole, with a big drop off in conference. But I'll get into that a bit later.

How many years do you wait for your deep dish to be served? What's an acceptable 'give the kid a little more time' period? Does he get a pass if we regress further this year or maintain that bottom half of the conference finish?

I'm not asking that as a gotcha, I'm legitimately curious. I generally feel 3 years in the modern era is enough to show that you can put a decent product on the floor especially given how much easier roster transformation is with the portal. I think a good coach can turn around a program faster than that. If you think you need to give a coach 4 years in this situation then we're really pretty close and I think there's some legitimate play with logical reasons that are hard to refute either way. If you think he should get 6-7 years, then I think you're day drinking.

If that argument is bad, then I would argue one of the chief difficulties of a young coach and part of the reason that you need to give them patience--learning roster construction--is also being overblown. In the end I think you might be right here. That I'm sort of stuck in an a bit of a outmoded way of thinking. I do think it might hurt with guys that are going to need 3-4 years to hit their peak, but the odds of retaining those guys under the best of circumstance aren't great these days. I think I'm probably just wrong here, and another season of 1200 kids in the portal will probably finally snap me out of it.

My point is that a rookie coach should not be expected to handle all the minutia of a HC right off that bat. You mentioned a good coach should be able to do this, but it is hard to expect a "good coach" without the experience.
I will give you the landscape changing doesn't mean you have to recruit a player when they are 12 anymore and build a 6 year relationship to land them with NLI and transfers. But it is still a lot to ask any coach, especially that is figuring things out as they go. An again, his entire staff had to be turned around after one year. Whether that was his fault or not, it still handcuffs his ability to recruit significantly and it is difficult to judge the product because of that.

I feel he had a sophomore slump. He had a different type of roster, which was no doubt a product of the staff turnover. I felt it was a missed opportunity to stack your team with known defensive studs then play a mostly statistically mediocre to worst defense. The logic on the approach is there, develop a team that prioritizes turnovers to create fast break opportunities on an offensively limited roster. It just didn't work. Part of learning as a new head coach.

I do think Kevin has the makings of a very good coach. He isn't there yet. But I see potential. I will be very frustrated if we run out a very static offense again. (It is a pet peeve of mine). Especially with the horses we have this year. But I think Kevin still could be a steal if he does realize that potential.

So say he doesn't make the tournament, but it is a top 50-70 level team again. We disappoint, but show progress in offense and team play. Suffer an injury or two to a key rotational player. I don't think he should be fired in that case.

 

[j. spilotro]

Also a very solid USF and decent Wichita State that first year. I will admit that Kevin impressed me that first year. It probably was a little more impactful since I had low expectations going in. So yes that may have bought more leeway with me. But I thought he did a good job, created a good culture, did the little things that I wouldn't have expected him to be able to do so early. I do think year two was a regression, no question. Final record be damned. Weaker OOC, that actually aged like guacamole, with a big drop off in conference. But I'll get into that a bit later.

My point is that a rookie coach should not be expected to handle all the minutia of a HC right off that bat. You mentioned a good coach should be able to do this, but it is hard to expect a "good coach" without the experience.
I will give you the landscape changing doesn't mean you have to recruit a player when they are 12 anymore and build a 6 year relationship to land them with NLI and transfers. But it is still a lot to ask any coach, especially that is figuring things out as they go. An again, his entire staff had to be turned around after one year. Whether that was his fault or not, it still handcuffs his ability to recruit significantly and it is difficult to judge the product because of that.

I feel he had a sophomore slump. He had a different type of roster, which was no doubt a product of the staff turnover. I felt it was a missed opportunity to stack your team with known defensive studs then play a mostly statistically mediocre to worst defense. The logic on the approach is there, develop a team that prioritizes turnovers to create fast break opportunities on an offensively limited roster. It just didn't work. Part of learning as a new head coach.

I do think Kevin has the makings of a very good coach. He isn't there yet. But I see potential. I will be very frustrated if we run out a very static offense again. (It is a pet peeve of mine). Especially with the horses we have this year. But I think Kevin still could be a steal if he does realize that potential.

So say he doesn't make the tournament, but it is a top 50-70 level team again. We disappoint, but show progress in offense and team play. Suffer an injury or two to a key rotational player. I don't think he should be fired in that case.

You had an extraordinarily long rope with Menzies, I’d hope and expect you’d have a longer rope with Kevin.

 

[the Florian Trout]

Hard to make comparisons given the landscape and differences in recruiting.. Not giving CKK a pass, but he does deserve a little bit of credit coming in as 1st time coach and navigating this NIL/new form of recruiting.. You can’t make a strong argument for either coach, different circumstances..

He is in unfamiliar water for sure, but my concern with him is his actual coaching and lack of adjusting. It has been bad.

 

[Couev]

I do think Kevin has the makings of a very good coach. He isn't there yet. But I see potential. I will be very frustrated if we run out a very static offense again. (It is a pet peeve of mine). Especially with the horses we have this year. But I think Kevin still could be a steal if he does realize that potential.

So say he doesn't make the tournament, but it is a top 50-70 level team again. We disappoint, but show progress in offense and team play. Suffer an injury or two to a key rotational player. I don't think he should be fired in that case.

I think he has upside--he's got the genetics, he was a nice player, and he knows how the system here works. I'm not on the fire the bum bandwagon. But I am on the 'you are what you've showed me on tape' and I haven't seen a ton that makes me super hopeful. It's been a chaotic at best situation with a lot of tangential rumors that he's just as hard headed as his dad but without the acumen that goes with it.

But if we're being honest as we look, Papa Krugs first two years here weren't exactly stellar. He took a core of a returning Jerel Blassingame, Romel Beck, Odartey Blankson, Michael Umeh, Lou Amundson which lets face it is a starting 5 that should let you compete for the 2005 conference. Instead by the end of the year we were starting Ricky Morgan and Andy Hannan and JB and RB were basically relegated to the bench--and you finished with a worse record than we ran Spoon into retirement for in a year where thee MWC was TERRIBLE. But even with that, I still saw LK run out of bounds plays, make some changes to game plans, etc that I haven't seen yet with KK.

I just need a larger, undeniable step forward for me to buy in. I hope we get it. I would love to be ready to be hurt again. Being wrong would feel great.

 

[Jay's Rebel's]

He is in unfamiliar water for sure, but my concern with him is his actual coaching and lack of adjusting. It has been bad.

Fair enough.. I agree, jury is still out on his actual coaching ability, hopefully we see some comfort/strides made this year..

 

[bcvegaspt]

The data shows that we need Menzies back!

 

[dcut03]

You had an extraordinarily long rope with Menzies, I’d hope and expect you’d have a longer rope with Kevin.

You are probably right. And in many ways I do have a longer rope with Kevin, at least the same. So you can say I am consistent.

I also think Kev's first year was potentially more impressive if not equal to Menzies best year FWIW.

Trust me I struggle. My logical brain fights my more emotional Rebel fan brain. I also live out of town and watch games from afar ( i do attend at least 2 bball games a year and 1 football game a year). So I can separate emotions a bit easier.

But I often try to look at our situation if it were a friend of mine that was having the same results at their beloved school and how I would approach it there. Still look at the big picture.

Last year was frustrating for me because I thought we could have had a pretty good team with our make up. A lock down defensive team at the very least. I also hoped that the departure of Hamilton and the lack of a true PG ( at least in the starting line up) would force a more dynamic offense. Well 0 for 2 on those accounts.

But at least I can see the reasoning why it happened that way. Also I accept that there be mistakes with a new coach and a second brand new staff to figure everything out.

I get Couev's point on not seeing the adjustments on the court that I personally would have liked to see. I did want to pile on this site, because there was already too much of it, but I was not happy at the time. A few people here know that a little too well.

 

[Rebel Hoya]

The data shows that we need Menzies back!

Yes, we need to get back to “wiiiiiinnnnniiiinnnn’ time!”

 

[dcut03]

I think he has upside--he's got the genetics, he was a nice player, and he knows how the system here works. I'm not on the fire the bum bandwagon. But I am on the 'you are what you've showed me on tape' and I haven't seen a ton that makes me super hopeful. It's been a chaotic at best situation with a lot of tangential rumors that he's just as hard headed as his dad but without the acumen that goes with it.

But if we're being honest as we look, Papa Krugs first two years here weren't exactly stellar. He took a core of a returning Jerel Blassingame, Romel Beck, Odartey Blankson, Michael Umeh, Lou Amundson which lets face it is a starting 5 that should let you compete for the 2005 conference. Instead by the end of the year we were starting Ricky Morgan and Andy Hannan and JB and RB were basically relegated to the bench--and you finished with a worse record than we ran Spoon into retirement for in a year where thee MWC was TERRIBLE. But even with that, I still saw LK run out of bounds plays, make some changes to game plans, etc that I haven't seen yet with KK.

I just need a larger, undeniable step forward for me to buy in. I hope we get it. I would love to be ready to be hurt again. Being wrong would feel great.

I think KK has some of the stubbornes that LK has too, but I do think some of that comes from a good place. Hall for instance. He provided offense that we could have desperately could have used, but I do question his effort in practice and his general effort and ability on the defensive end. If he is trying to establish a culture and stresses certain things, I have no problem with not playing a player that could potentially help us win now. Similar to Adeife.

I'm not bought in by the way, I'm just not checked out. I have seen some things to ease some my initial doubts, but I'm not sold either.

But here is the kicker, say Kev has a great year next season. Say top 3 in the conference and at least a bubble team. Personally I can easily see that happen from the roster alone.

We then lose all but what, 3 players? 4 possibly if DT comes? Yikes. I'll still be in wait and see mode to be honest. I just hope to see better offensive and defensive play, learning from last year's pitfalls. If it looks the same, and we out talent everybody, then I will actually be more skeptical.

At least I am hopeful for the potential of next season. He is do a good job at the transfer market. And if DT come and brings some legit talent for '24 then we can really be on to something.

 

[LVRebel2000]

I think KK has some of the stubbornes that LK has too, but I do think some of that comes from a good place. Hall for instance. He provided offense that we could have desperately could have used, but I do question his effort in practice and his general effort and ability on the defensive end. If he is trying to establish a culture and stresses certain things, I have no problem with not playing a player that could potentially help us win now. Similar to Adeife.

I'm not bought in by the way, I'm just not checked out. I have seen some things to ease some my initial doubts, but I'm not sold either.

But here is the kicker, say Kev has a great year next season. Say top 3 in the conference and at least a bubble team. Personally I can easily see that happen from the roster alone.

We then lose all but what, 3 players? 4 possibly if DT comes? Yikes. I'll still be in wait and see mode to be honest. I just hope to see better offensive and defensive play, learning from last year's pitfalls. If it looks the same, and we out talent everybody, then I will actually be more skeptical.

At least I am hopeful for the potential of next season. He is do a good job at the transfer market. And if DT come and brings some legit talent for '24 then we can really be on to something.

Another problem with our scenario of expecting CKK to make the tourney. If we do, does he take the first bid for him from a power conference school? Or plan to stay at UNLV for a while?

Edit: I guess that would be a good problem to have, but it would put us back in a similar spot, as if he was fired.

 

[j. spilotro]

You are probably right. And in many ways I do have a longer rope with Kevin, at least the same. So you can say I am consistent.

I also think Kev's first year was potentially more impressive if not equal to Menzies best year FWIW.

Trust me I struggle. My logical brain fights my more emotional Rebel fan brain. I also live out of town and watch games from afar ( i do attend at least 2 bball games a year and 1 football game a year). So I can separate emotions a bit easier.

But I often try to look at our situation if it were a friend of mine that was having the same results at their beloved school and how I would approach it there. Still look at the big picture.

Last year was frustrating for me because I thought we could have had a pretty good team with our make up. A lock down defensive team at the very least. I also hoped that the departure of Hamilton and the lack of a true PG ( at least in the starting line up) would force a more dynamic offense. Well 0 for 2 on those accounts.

But at least I can see the reasoning why it happened that way. Also I accept that there be mistakes with a new coach and a second brand new staff to figure everything out.

I get Couev's point on not seeing the adjustments on the court that I personally would have liked to see. I did want to pile on this site, because there was already too much of it, but I was not happy at the time. A few people here know that a little too well.

I don’t have the same patience. UNLV should never miss the NCAAT three years in a row, unless maybe there are some far out circumstances. Bayno made it, Spoon didn’t, he was out, Rive didn’t, he’s out. Menzies, out in three. Otz left. KK is heading into year three.

At SJSU, I’d give more time. At UNM, I wouldn’t. If you show that three years without is the historical worst, that’s enough for me.

If they don’t, that’s ok, I don’t call the shots. I lose early season interest and so do the couple thousand others that remain. Maybe it’s sucks to have expectations, but making it once every three years isn’t some monumental achievement.

 

[dcut03]

Another problem with our scenario of expecting CKK to make the tourney. If we do, does he take the first bid for him from a power conference school? Or plan to stay at UNLV for a while?

I think we get a little too worried about coaches leaving. CKK still has a very limited resume with at that point 1 really good season? That will take a pretty desperate team to try to hire him away. It typically take some level of sustained success for power conferences to come calling. There are plenty more candidates with those resumes.

Of course we would need to extend him and give him a raise in that scenario, but I think that is doable. We had arroyo and Otz both well over a mil on the books before. Also hopefully both sports are more succesful next season creating more revenue.

 

[j. spilotro]

I think KK has some of the stubbornes that LK has too, but I do think some of that comes from a good place. Hall for instance. He provided offense that we could have desperately could have used, but I do question his effort in practice and his general effort and ability on the defensive end. If he is trying to establish a culture and stresses certain things, I have no problem with not playing a player that could potentially help us win now. Similar to Adeife.

I'm not bought in by the way, I'm just not checked out. I have seen some things to ease some my initial doubts, but I'm not sold either.

But here is the kicker, say Kev has a great year next season. Say top 3 in the conference and at least a bubble team. Personally I can easily see that happen from the roster alone.

We then lose all but what, 3 players? 4 possibly if DT comes? Yikes. I'll still be in wait and see mode to be honest. I just hope to see better offensive and defensive play, learning from last year's pitfalls. If it looks the same, and we out talent everybody, then I will actually be more skeptical.

At least I am hopeful for the potential of next season. He is do a good job at the transfer market. And if DT come and brings some legit talent for '24 then we can really be on to something.

He absolutely does. He tends to stick with bigs that don’t accomplish much.

 

[j. spilotro]

Another problem with our scenario of expecting CKK to make the tourney. If we do, does he take the first bid for him from a power conference school? Or plan to stay at UNLV for a while?

Edit: I guess that would be a good problem to have, but it would put us back in a similar spot, as if he was fired.

I think he stays. If he makes it and bolts, I’d rather have that than not make it and get canned.

 

[dcut03]

I don’t have the same patience. UNLV should never miss the NCAAT three years in a row, unless maybe there are some far out circumstances. Bayno made it, Spoon didn’t, he was out, Rive didn’t, he’s out. Menzies, out in three. Otz left. KK is heading into year three.

At SJSU, I’d give more time. At UNM, I wouldn’t. If you show that three years without is the historical worst, that’s enough for me.

If they don’t, that’s ok, I don’t call the shots. I lose early season interest and so do the couple thousand others that remain. Maybe it’s sucks to have expectations, but making it once every three years isn’t some monumental achievement.

But again here comes the big picture.

We are 10 years removed from our last appearance. We aren't the same program anymore. We can't act like it's 1993 in 2023.

We are closer to SJSU than we are Gonzaga right now. That is the unfortunate truth. That is why I don't like the
"bad fit" argument. It's only a bad fit if we keep prematurely fire our coaches. Things can work if you just let it.

Also back to the idea that you have to give coaches time to grow. Why if you hire a first time HC, one with limited college coaching to boot, you need to give him the patience to make mistakes. Otherwise what's the point.

But it wasn't Harper's hire, so I get that. It still doesn't change the fact that you probably should treat Kev differently then say a Menzies.

 

[j. spilotro]

But again here comes the big picture.

We are 10 years removed from our last appearance. We aren't the same program anymore. We can't act like it's 1993 in 2023.

We are closer to SJSU than we are Gonzaga right now. That is the unfortunate truth. That is why I don't like the
"bad fit" argument. It's only a bad fit if we keep prematurely fire our coaches. Things can work if you just let it.

Also back to the idea that you have to give coaches time to grow. Why if you hire a first time HC, one with limited college coaching to boot, you need to give him the patience to make mistakes. Otherwise what's the point.

But it wasn't Harper's hire, so I get that. It still doesn't change the fact that you probably should treat Kev differently then say a Menzies.

Like I said, I don’t care which way they go. We’ve only cut off one coach after three years and we act like that’s the way UNLV always done it. Somehow that became fact.

Slow growths are complete garbage, especially if we can’t get freshman who stay and we don’t. Nobody is saying it’s easy but get the job done. It’s a million per year. We do make a lot of excuses for failing or paint failing as acceptable and our new normal. If it is our new normal, that’s fine too. Demolish the Mack and play in the Cox, drop down a league, Cox would easily fit our fans.

 

[j. spilotro]

Harp did make an aggressive hire with football. I don’t know how he will work out but it’s the first coach with legit non Montana bs D1 experience since the early 2000’s.

Does he treat hoops the same if we fail? He might. I don’t know the guy and haven’t heard.

 

[Masked_rebel]

But again here comes the big picture.

We are 10 years removed from our last appearance. We aren't the same program anymore. We can't act like it's 1993 in 2023.

We are closer to SJSU than we are Gonzaga right now. That is the unfortunate truth. That is why I don't like the
"bad fit" argument. It's only a bad fit if we keep prematurely fire our coaches. Things can work if you just let it.

Also back to the idea that you have to give coaches time to grow. Why if you hire a first time HC, one with limited college coaching to boot, you need to give him the patience to make mistakes. Otherwise what's the point.

But it wasn't Harper's hire, so I get that. It still doesn't change the fact that you probably should treat Kev differently then say a Menzies.

Because the AD was lazy and made a terrible hiring decision after looking like a clown with TJO laughing at her while he was jetting to Ames before the MW season ended and he shouldn't/wasn't a qualified candidate for the job. That's the point of all of this conjecture... Lon gets more time because he proved himself over 20+ years, so years 1-2 he's earned benefit of doubt... Rice came in and was winning, hell, he's the 3rd winningest coach in program history... the last 3 hires have all been results of bad hiring and none earned the right to "prove" themselves beyond a 3rd season. That's why we're here wallowing in "UNLV isn't the UNLV of the 80s, 90s, or 10 years ago.." this isn't a program that has tolerance for coaches that need training wheels and none of us should want to be that program and it doesn't matter "where we are now"...

 

[utestream]

Lobbybuu,
There were weaknesses in KK's coaching in the last year, such as the stubborness to make changes when things don"t work, hero ball offense, lack of adjustment, switching defense that can be attacked by disciplined opponents in certain matchups, lack of other defensive options (man to man, zone), etc. What was the role of assistant coaches to help correct these deficiencies? Did the internal power dynamic prevent them from encouraging KK to make the changes? Are there any plans to hire a Special Advisor to critique and help improve KK's coaching strategy and in game coaching decisions?