But a few things.

>>The offenses were filled with bad jumpshots.
>
>They weren't
>
>>Assist rate bottom half of the NCAA all but one season.
>Completely ditched
>
>Iso basketball does that, why is that questionable?

... I mean, if you think a team that takes a lot of off-the-bounce jumpers without assists isn't questionable offense, then we just disagree.


>>the trademark defense that made him a coaching star and
>>replaced it with a low-tempo game that resulted in one Top
>20
>>defense and zero Top 20 offenses.
>
>Talented kids aren't trying to run full court press.

Then why go to Texas? lol, I realize the answer is "money," but you got famous for running a great system, and then you completely ditch that system and never find that same degree of success. I don't think it's unfair to call that into question!

>>So yeah, I think it's fair to say he has to prove to people
>>that he can coach successfully at the high-major level.
>
>Hope the national team gets the memo about his lack of
>coaching prowess

I didn't say he has a lack of coaching prowess. In fact, I pointed out what a tremendous job he did at VCU developing a system that became literally known across the sport by *name.* Very, very few coaches can do that.

I questioned whether he can successfully coach at the high-major level, especially if he doesn't use the system that made him famous. And considering the mediocre results he generated at Texas on the whole, I don't think that's an unfair question to ask.

>>Whether he goes back to Havoc or he finds something new,
>he's
>>got to find a way to have a team either run coherent offense
>>or play consistent elite defense. (All of this goes for
>Archie
>>as well.)
>
>The team he just lost to had literally the worst shooting
>percentage of any team to ever win a tournament game. There's
>nothing wrong with his defense

Yeah, I mean, I was talking about season-long defense, not one game. His defensive numbers have been consistently good without being truly elite. I don't doubt Texas's ability to defend for one game.

>What's more likely ... the 43 year old man, who's respected
>around his profession both in college and professionally, with
>a proven track record of success and identifying talent just
>flames out would never do well ... or that college basketball
>fans have a ridiculous expectation of some programs or
>progress and Black men in particular get held to standards of
>potential that no white man does and then they justify their
>warped world view by overlooking and backdooring arguments to
>suit whatever narrative they need to sell?

I don't disagree that Texas has too high an expectation level-- I agree with that. But programs with a lot of money-- which Texas has-- and programs that bring in a lot of talent-- which Texas has done under Smart-- expect results. That's just reality.

And you won't find me disagreeing that black coaches catch unfair flak. I was on the front lines of yelling at people when Ewing and Howard were hired and met with all manner of racist skepticism. So yeah, NCAA basketball has a long way to go in that regard. I thought Shaka was a great hire. I wish it had worked out better.

But I'm hardly alone in wondering why Shaka ditched the system that made him the hottest commodity in the sport, and I'm hardly alone in thinking that Texas's iso, off-the-bounce, jumper-oriented offense was pretty gross to watch a lot of the time. That's just not going to be a successful offense ever, unless you have pro level guards and wings taking those shots (and even then, it usually backfires).

I'm really rooting for Shaka at Marquette. He's an obvious upgrade over Wojo, a guy I personally love from being a Duke fan, but also a guy who was pretty unquestionably a terrible coach at Marquette. I'd love to see Shaka get back to Havoc and get back to being considered one of the hottest names in coaching.