Possible another UNLV AC departure.?
- Thread starter Rebel_Luv
- Start date
Might as well clean house... fresh roster, fresh AC... will give all the "He just needs more time folks" another excuse for a bad season...
If Peery leaves it will not excuse Kevin for year 3. Kevin needs to get it done or else, no exceptions!
Last edited:
Dude enough! No one is giving CKK excuses for a bad season. It just appears idiotic to give any coach the yank after 2 years especially when we aren't swimming with cash to give away like Texas and UCLA! Quit beating a fn deadhorse! CKK is the coach unless something drastic happens. Deal with it.
I see CKK's first TWO seasons as Covid year extensions and this season he has to rebuild a roster. I don't think that it's fair to judge him on these THREE seasons so he'll need at least 6 years here to sink or swim. Have we signed him to an extension yet? If not, I'd question this AD!!!
You jest ! Any kid (quality recruit )is going to have a hard time to convince himself this is a good fit for him. 1st coach is on the hotseat. 2nd coaching ability is in question. 3rd post season is doubtful . 4th quality of team is not enticing. 5th i can get PT at almost any school. 6th no track record of any success. Hopefully CKK pulls off a near miracle and can land some players of note. I dont care how he does it just as long as he does. Then we can see how good of a coach he can be with a good roster makeup.
I wouldn't send my kid to UNLV to play for Kruger. Makes no sense.
I am just looking for MAKE IT MAKE SENSE? Other than his pedigree and being here for 1 year is the only thing i can scrape up on why.
Aside from the obvious differences, the staff isn’t that much different than recruiting players.
For the young up and coming assistants who have strong recruiting ties, but you know will probably bolt for a better gig, the short tenure needs to have an impactful success, usually in recruiting. For the journeyman assistant, looking for more consistency and a lengthy tenure, some part of the X’s and O’s should be improved and players should be retained, year over year, at a stronger level, to counteract the lack of up and coming perigee.
There’s bad luck and then there’s KKs staff. If another assistant leaves (you want people to have upward mobility in life, but..) and we don’t see the return on recruiting, retention, or X’s and O’s, that’s 100 percent on the HC. After all, he’s the guy who hires them.
I don’t think we have had players, plays, or consistency that would excuse the staff turning over at this level.
For the young up and coming assistants who have strong recruiting ties, but you know will probably bolt for a better gig, the short tenure needs to have an impactful success, usually in recruiting. For the journeyman assistant, looking for more consistency and a lengthy tenure, some part of the X’s and O’s should be improved and players should be retained, year over year, at a stronger level, to counteract the lack of up and coming perigee.
There’s bad luck and then there’s KKs staff. If another assistant leaves (you want people to have upward mobility in life, but..) and we don’t see the return on recruiting, retention, or X’s and O’s, that’s 100 percent on the HC. After all, he’s the guy who hires them.
I don’t think we have had players, plays, or consistency that would excuse the staff turning over at this level.
But what is the answer? Is there a problem? You hope a new coach brings in an experienced and competent staff to recruit, help with practice and player development. Then there are player management issues off the court. But is it a coaches fault when the staff you select is offered more money at Texas, Florida and South Carolina? That’s not a lateral move Monetarily.
I think the answer is two journeyman X and O guys who have had their run as a HC and didn’t pan out and feel comfortable being the guy behind the guy, maybe not an ace recruiter but more on player development, roster consistency, and x&o. Coach number three is the lead recruiter, lots of contacts, growing in the industry, knows California well. If we lose that guy to a P5, it means we either capitalized on his recruiting and he’s getting paid or he’s jumping a sinking ship.
Generally the win loss results tell us the answer to that question if coaches bolt, after the fact.
I get it that’s an artwork and no doubt Kevin has the best intentions.
Similar threads
