Originally published at: https://pistolsfiringblog.com/five-thoughts-on-oklahoma-states-95-88-loss-to-tcu/
OSU suffers another brutal loss to the Horned Frogs.
This team had enough talent to make the NCAA Tournament. Discipline was lacking. Defense was absent.
That falls on the coach.
1 Like
If you lose to the same team three times, unless maybe that team is Kansas, you are not a good team. We’ll see. Next year is put up and show some results or move on.
1 Like
For the CU game and much of this game, we looked like a different team from last month. We crashed the boards, made good passes, actually ran some offense, and appeared disciplined in our shot selection.
Then that all went down the drain in the last few minutes.
2 Likes
My only thought is that next year is make or break.
Move on from Lutz after three seasons, only two of which he had full control of his roster? And after two seasons of improvement from where he stepped onto campus?
Wow. Completely disagree.
1 Like
If we don’t continue to improve, yes. If you don’t agree with that, you’re kind of abandoning your own metric. There’s not much room for improvement without achieving what I said and at least being a bubble team. Look at last year’s Baylor team. They made the tournament with a similar record and finish. The difference is that they mostly beat teams they were capable of beating, got one or two signature wins, and mostly only lost to teams they should’ve lost to.
Sure, we improved over last year, but do you think he put together the best team possible and maximized this team’s potential? Last year, I might argue that he did. This year, I don’t think he did. I think those are better criteria. Every season can’t be better than the last. Everybody has to reset or has setbacks, but you can always judge if the best team was constructed and how closely that team’s potential was tapped. Also, improving over garbage isn’t that impressive.
1 Like
“Next year is put up and show some results or move on.”
Not sure what “metric” of mine you were referring to, but my metric would never suggest, as you did, that any HC should be made to move on after only three (two?) seasons of results that are empirically better than the seasons prior to his arrival.
I won’t disagree that the on court results were frustrating more often than not in the conference season, but I would also point out that his defense did start to click late in the season, just a few games too late. Change one or two things like Jennings not getting hurt or a couple of the players “getting it” a few games earlier, and we are an at large team, no question. The difference between us and TCU or UCF were a gnat’s hair in the end.
I would add, finally, that there’s a lot more to coaching than record. Please refer to the other PF piece quoting Kanye Clary. In two years, Lutz has commandeered a team full of transfers and had no discipline issues to our knowledge. And he’s had personal testimonies from players that are nothing short of glowing. It would be callous to disregard these in any appraisal of the job the man is doing.
Since Broken Bow’s Greydon Howell broke Randy R’s record, will HCSL recruit him. I mean if he is even close to RR….
oSu
That’s your metric. Improvement. If he doesn’t improve next year then he’s failing that metric.
Then we should make the tourney next season if he makes any coaching improvement at all and he should get to extend his tenure, so he wouldn’t be getting fired after three seasons. What I’m saying is if he doesn’t even make a “gnat’s hair” of progress, he should go. I think that’s reasonable.
They’re not student athletes anymore. They’re employees. Brands. College sports isn’t about mentoring kids anymore. It’s mercenaries and money. As long as he isn’t breaking the rules or being abusive, then this stuff is nice, but it’s not really a reason to retain someone.
Well, to me, this is the problem with the state of college athletics. You’re right in the respect that these athletes are employees, but at the end of the day they are still students and, maybe not kids, but young adults whose synapses still haven’t closed yet. But that’s all moot. The point I’m making, amd the one you seem to be missing, is that Lutz is a good leader, mentor, and coach, considering more metrics than simply record.
And no, imho, no coach should be let go within three years (again, two, if you consider how much control he had over his first year roster), unless there is serious regression, whether on court or off. Lutz hasn’t had regression in any respect, which makes you sound like one of those hapless, disgruntled fans who can’t see the forest for the trees.
We should still be building. That’s the forest. It’s more possible than ever to turn a team around quickly. If we’re having setbacks and regression this early, it’s a bad sign.
That’s just it. We aren’t regressing. Not over the last two seasons. You’re suggesting if we do worse next year than this season, Lutz should be gone. Seems like a really short leash. One that wouldn’t be lost on prospective new coaching candidates. And no, it isn’t easy to turn a team around in one season, especially in the Big 12. Name one who’s done it. And what does “turn a team around” even mean? Going from 12 wins to the NCAA tourney? Is that what you’re suggesting would be “easy”?
The long and short of it is this…(and my last comment on this)…I just think anyone talking at this point about removing Lutz after next year and given how we’ve done is getting way ahead of themselves. Not fair to any coach in Lutz’s situation, and what’s being suggested would not be a good move. Let’s all just relax and see how this season ends and next year goes before we impatiently say he should be gone if xyz…