I think part of Tomcat Nation's problem is overhyping their players in all of their sports.. Some seem to think the players are better than what they are. This team lacked solid outside shooting and teams were able to take away an undersized post player like McDavid. Hard to press much with a limited bench.

Like I said, he is a good coach, he is a class act, he is a great person, and he does say all the right things. But his teams don't always play extremely hard. Elliott Co. outhustled them last night because they simply wanted it more. I'm looking much deeper than how good of a coach he is or how great of a guy he is. Elliott Co. had never beaten Ashland before last night. Times have changed. I think Ashland's program needs to change with it.

 

I forgot to add in my last post, but this doesn't really apply to Flynn. If Elliott Co. lost last night, most of their kids would be in the basketball gym the next day or week, preparing for AAU or summer ball. But since Ashland lost, Cannoy, Williams, Rose, and Wilcox hit the baseball field, McDavid, Thomas, and Bonner hit the football weight room. With the exception of Wilcox, I would say that basketball isn't the #1 sport for any of these kids. Maybe with a revamped basketball program, it would be the #1 sport. How to do that? I'm not quite sure, but that's not my job.

 

If you don't agree with what I said, I at least hope you see where I'm coming from with my opinions.

 

I understand. I share a similar view about Tubby Smith. Most likely we're both wrong.

 

Maybe the problem, if there is one, exist because the emphasis is being placed on football. Just a thought.

 

The one thing I will disagree with you about is the effort level of their players.

... I'm just offering my opinion on the matter to potentially provoke other posters and give them something to think about.....

 

TomcatPride -

 

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with your opinion, or the fact that you expressed it. I simply don't share it with you. You state that you offered your opinion with the intent of provoking other posters, and giving us all something to think about.

 

I think you have accomplished just that. The fact that (so far) you are in the minority on this thread shouldn't be misread. It is possible that a good many people agree with your position, and perhaps a few don't think it is strong enough.

 

I just don't happen to be one of them. I don't read your opinion and take offense - and I hope you don't get that from my posts.

 

As for your view that "there are two types of coaches", I would disagree with what I see as a gross generalization of coaching abilities. ALL coaches can win with enough talent. Even coaches that are in over their head are tough to beat when they have the horses. I also think that the overwhelming majority of coaches (certainly the good ones) do a tremendous amount of teaching, in terms of fundamentals. On the other hand, I do agree with your point that some coaches can truly MOTIVATE players beyond what their abilities would seem to say that they can achieve. I think Scott Humphrey is an excellent example of that. He uses 10 kids everywhere he goes, knowing full well that there is a dropoff in talent deeper on his bench. He does that because he knows that when playing time is divided among more players, the effort to EARN that playing time will automatically come with the competition between teammates.

 

Just my .02 worth.

 

Frances

Like I said, he is a good coach, he is a class act, he is a great person, and he does say all the right things. But his teams don't always play extremely hard. Elliott Co. outhustled them last night because they simply wanted it more. I'm looking much deeper than how good of a coach he is or how great of a guy he is. Elliott Co. had never beaten Ashland before last night. Times have changed. I think Ashland's program needs to change with it.

 

I forgot to add in my last post, but this doesn't really apply to Flynn. If Elliott Co. lost last night, most of their kids would be in the basketball gym the next day or week, preparing for AAU or summer ball. But since Ashland lost, Cannoy, Williams, Rose, and Wilcox hit the baseball field, McDavid, Thomas, and Bonner hit the football weight room. With the exception of Wilcox, I would say that basketball isn't the #1 sport for any of these kids. Maybe with a revamped basketball program, it would be the #1 sport. How to do that? I'm not quite sure, but that's not my job.

 

If you don't agree with what I said, I at least hope you see where I'm coming from with my opinions.

 

I do understand where you are coming from, but I still feel like Flynn has done a good job at Ashland. Look at his records:

 

2000-2001: 22-10. 64th district champs. 16th region champs. 1-1 in State Tournament.

 

2001-2002: 25-6. AIT Champs. 64th district Champs. 16th region champs. (Beat Mayo, Walker, and Co) Lost first round of state to eventual state champion Lex. Catholic

 

2002-2003: 21-9. 64th distrcit champs. 16th regional runner-up (lost to Mayo, Walker, and Co)

 

2003-2004: 22-8. 64th district champs. 16th regional runner-up.

 

2004-2005: 17-14. 64 district runners-up. 1-1 in 16th regional tournament

 

2005-2006: 14-16. 64 district runners-up. 0-1 in 16th regional tournament

 

He is 121-63 over the past 6 seasons. He made two tris to Rupp Arenea in that time. Went to the regional finals 2 other times. Has went to the regional tournament every year in that span. Has won the district 4 of those 6 years. Won 20 games or more 4 of those 6 years.

I think everyone else in the state would consider that a pretty good run. His last 2 years have been less satisfying I know, but I still think Mike Flynn is the future of Ashland Basketball. That is just how I see it and like I said I am not a Tomcat fan so I am sure you may disagree, but that is ok because that is what this website is for.

I share a similar view about Tubby Smith

Tubby Smith should not be mentioned in this thread. College coaches recruit players, high school coaches (excluding private schools) have to work with what they are given.

I understand. I share a similar view about Tubby Smith. Most likely we're both wrong.

 

Maybe the problem, if there is one, exist because the emphasis is being placed on football. Just a thought.

 

The one thing I will disagree with you about is the effort level of their players.

 

I'm not sure if the emphasis is being on football or not, but maybe it seems that way because the kids want to play for Coach Hart. I hate to compare the two guys and the two sports, but football has seen a significant increase in participation, while basketball has seen a great decrease, where a lot of kids have quit or simply did not play mainly because of Coach Flynn. I hate to say it, but it's true; if you polled the basketball players who did not go on to play college basketball (read: not stars) from Ashland in the past 6 years as to whether they gave 100% percent and left their heart out on the court for Coach Flynn, the positive responces would be sadly low.

 

I hate to question player's effort, but do you really believe they played as hard as Elliott Co. last night? That they weren't outhustled? That they wanted it as much as they did?

 

As for your view that "there are two types of coaches", I would disagree with what I see as a gross generalization of coaching abilities. ALL coaches can win with enough talent. Even coaches that are in over their head are tough to beat when they have the horses. I also think that the overwhelming majority of coaches (certainly the good ones) do a tremendous amount of teaching, in terms of fundamentals.

 

I agree with you for the most part. All coaches can win with a load of talent regardless of their skills. But Flynn is best suited with a very talented team because he can reign in all these horses and can discipline them into his system which is very sucessful with all the right pieces. While he obviously can teach the fundamentals, he doesn't have that intangible ability to connect with these young players because of his pedigree as being such a disciplinarian. Ashland is at a state where we need someone with that intangible where his players want to win for him, and not just for the school.

 

But these are just my $.02 as well.

Tubby Smith should not be mentioned in this thread. College coaches recruit players, high school coaches (excluding private schools) have to work with what they are given.

 

Not comparing the two situations. What I'm saying is that I thing UK needs to consider going a different direction just as TomcatPride thinks Ashland needs to consider a different direction. I realize college basketball and high school basketball are different.

 

Crazed 15, not to split hairs but Walker never played against Ashland.

I hate to question player's effort, but do you really believe they played as hard as Elliott Co. last night? That they weren't outhustled? That they wanted it as much as they did?

 

I'm not sure about last night. I can tell you that I didn't think, at the time, nor now that Ashland didn't give a good effort. I think that man for man Elliott Co. is quicker that Ashland and that sometimes makes it look like their playing harder.

 

I can tell you that I scouted Ashland for Rose Hill. I watched them play 4 times live and 3 times on tape and never did I feel like they didn't play hard. McDavid is relentless on the boards and they flat out get after it on the defensive end. It isn't always pretty but I do think they played hard everytime I saw them.

I do understand where you are coming from, but I still feel like Flynn has done a good job at Ashland. Look at his records:

 

2000-2001: 22-10. 64th district champs. 16th region champs. 1-1 in State Tournament.

 

2001-2002: 25-6. AIT Champs. 64th district Champs. 16th region champs. (Beat Mayo, Walker, and Co) Lost first round of state to eventual state champion Lex. Catholic

 

2002-2003: 21-9. 64th distrcit champs. 16th regional runner-up (lost to Mayo, Walker, and Co)

 

2003-2004: 22-8. 64th district champs. 16th regional runner-up.

 

2004-2005: 17-14. 64 district runners-up. 1-1 in 16th regional tournament

 

2005-2006: 14-16. 64 district runners-up. 0-1 in 16th regional tournament

 

He is 121-63 over the past 6 seasons. He made two tris to Rupp Arenea in that time. Went to the regional finals 2 other times. Has went to the regional tournament every year in that span. Has won the district 4 of those 6 years. Won 20 games or more 4 of those 6 years.

I think everyone else in the state would consider that a pretty good run. His last 2 years have been less satisfying I know, but I still think Mike Flynn is the future of Ashland Basketball. That is just how I see it and like I said I am not a Tomcat fan so I am sure you may disagree, but that is ok because that is what this website is for.

 

I mentioned how his record proves that he is a great coach. You can't dispute 121-63. But those kids and the type of talent they had, aren't around anymore. The future of Ashland Basketball are the kids that are coming through the ranks. I don't believe the type of talent that produced 121-63 aren't there either. I'm not saying Ashland is going to stink in the coming years, but Flynn and that talent aren't going to be adding to that great record, unless he radically changes his system, but I still don't think it's what Ashland needs.

Tomcatpride, That really doesn't make any sense to me. "He's a great coach, but only when he has the talent". So you're saying he's not a great coach when he doesn't have "Great Talent". To me you are either a good coach or you're not, there are no buts anywhere. A great coach should be a great coach no matter what he's got. I think a lot of mediocre coaches would turn into great coaches at places like Scott Co. or Lex Cath. To me there are a lot of different characteristics that make up a great coach and one of those characteristics is getting the most out of your players, but I think you either are or you are not a great coach. I think Mike Flynn is a great coach, no if, and, or buts about it. JMO.

Seems like I've stirred up some emotions with my simple opinions. It also seems like no one is tripping over themselves to agree with me in any way. That's fine, but it seems strange considering all the rumblings and mumblings in the Tomcat stands recently. It doesn't matter, I'm just offering my opinion on the matter to potentially provoke other posters and give them something to think about.

 

But it seems like everyone is misinterpreting my stance, or maybe I'm not making it clear enough. First off, Mike Flynn is a great coach. His record proves that, his knowledge proves that, he's a very smart coach. This is also not anything against Mike Flynn the person, he's a great man with a lot of class and heart, and we all know he has made a lot of sacrifices to win at Ashland. This is strictly an opinion based on his coaching style.

 

In my simple opinion, there are two types of coaches for high school basketball. One is the great schemer, the disiciplinarian, he demands perfection. He can take a group of kids with a lot of talent and elevate them to win state championships. Guys like Haney, Billy Hicks, Bevars, and the like would be in this group. Mike Flynn is this type of coach.

 

In the past several years, this type of coach could win at Ashland. There was a deep pool of talent with guys like Arbaugh, Surgalski, Beach, Howard, and Howell. These kids could be inserted into Flynn's system and executed to relative perfection. He had post players who could score and rebound, shooters who were deadly, and point guards that could make things happen. Now, these types of players aren't in the cards, and from judging the young kids coming through the ranks, there isn't anything there either. Coming back next year, Ashland has 3 players who are very talented. Unfortunately, they are all best suited to play the 2. McDavid will be forced to play out of position at the 4, while Wilcox and Thomas will probably be inserted into the 2 and the 3. There will be no size, no true point guards, and probably another disappointing season in Flynn's system.

 

That said, the other type of coach is the motivator. The type of coach that can take a group of kids with average talent and elevate them to compete and beat teams with relatively better talent. Guys like Cooksey, Perry, Riley, and the like fit this model. They can groom and develop raw talent and young kids into a competitive team with solid role players and can ask for everything out of their players and usually get it. I don't think Ashland can say that their players gave everything they could for Coach Flynn during his tenure. Not to question the heart of the Tomcats, but they've been consistantly out hustled, in my opinion, over the years. I think the future of the Ashland program will demand a coach who can draw everything out of his players in order to field a team that can compete and win the region, not count on the established talent of a couple players to lead them to glory.

 

The list of players over the last few years who could have been great role players in the right system, but never found their niche or suceess in a Tomcat uniform is rather long. A common link between those players is that they hated playing basketball for Ashland, they hated the system, and from that it can be pretty well deduced that they didn't give their all for Ashland and Coach Flynn to win. That's a shame.

 

Maybe the two parties shouldn't part ways, but if Flynn doesn't become flexible with his system, Ashland will be in for .500 seasons for years to come and early exits in Morehead.

 

You can berate my opinions and disagree with them all you want, I'm just being realistic, in my own mind. The great talent pool in Ashland just isn't there anymore, and Flynn is the type of coach that needs that pool to win. I think Ashland needs a revamped system that can develop what talent there is to the best of their ability and develop a system around a whole team in order to compete.

 

We've got to get over this idea of our great past and that we play for State Championships every year. We can't worry about that for the next few years, it isn't gonna happen, we must focus ourselves to have 20-win seasons and putting emphasis on winning every game we play. Posters are quick to say I'm calling for his head after this last loss and the early exit, but these thoughts have been around for a few years, I just think now is as good as time as any to say them. Elliott Co. wanted to win that game more than Ashland did because we thought we were going to win because we are Ashland. That mindset must be changed, and I honestly believe Ashland would be better off in the long run if the program was revamped and Mike Flynn and Ashland parted ways.

 

I understand exactly what your saying, and at one time, made a lot of the same arguments, but my only point is, Flynn has put in the work and effort

over a period of time to make his own terms. Love him or hate him now, Ashland owes him the respect of his efforts, he has represented Ashland well,

and deserves control over his own fate.

And thats what he has.

Yes, there have been a lot of players that didnt connect with Flynn, but was that Flynn's fault or the players? Look at what these guys are being paid for their time and effort, Flynn and every other coach in the 16th is still a "bargain"!

I think it is interesting a lot of Flynn's support is coming from the "outside" vs the "inside", and some of his best support has come from Rose Hill Fans.

Would make an interesting study in human relationships

in the meantime, it is interesting, (but useless) internet chatter

The guy has taken 3 different teams to the Sweet 16, hard to argue about that.

The guy has taken 3 different teams to the Sweet 16, hard to argue about that.

 

Its hard to argue that fact. Pretty top notch coach. :thumb:

I'd bet that if Flynn had his way he'd part ways with a bunch who call themselves Ashland fans and don the big A on the front of their SUV's but truth be known don't have a clue about the program, it's needs, it's successes, nor shortcomings. Just the humble opinion from someone who could care less if Ashland wins another game for that matter, but you better be careful what you ask for when you send a coach of that caliber packing!:sssh:

Flynn is a good coach, period. I have been around him some and I have always been impressed. Roscoe Denny is unique to say the least and his record speaks for itself. Comparing the two basketball minds is ok. I just can't imagine any other comparison, lol.