During the past week, many Wildcat fans have voiced their displeasure with Gillispie and how his Kentucky Wildcats team is doing. We heard everyone's opinion about how Kentucky isn't doing this, and they aren't doing that. The people who called for Gillispie's head because he was too stubborn to change.

And I agree that Gillispie has a lot to prove, but I am glad he's not sacrificing his methods of success to pick up wins in the short term.

 

When Pitino took over as coach during the probation years, it would have beneficial in the short term to slow things down and the 'Cats may have won more, but Rick insisted on building the program his way and he kept his system in place. Remember folks, rebuilding of a program doesn't happen overnight and usually it will start out shaky.

 

So, answer this question: how many programs have gone from mediocre to greatness in two years or less?

 

Gillispie will instill his style on this program and that's the way it will be. Howland at UCLA built his program and his philosophy around defense and that's the way it was. After time, he got the players in that he wanted and they won. Why? Because he instilled the mentality in UCLA that they were going to be a defensive bunch.

 

With time, people, everything will be okay. Meeks scoring 54 points may have been the worst thing that could have happened this year in hindsight. Yes, I am so proud and very happy that Meeks done it and I would love if he could do it all of the time. But when he did, the expectations for this season shot up like a rocket, whenever this team wasn't nearly as good as they seemed.

I don't think UK is as great as many thought when they were winning or as bad as many thought after losing 3 straight.

 

I think Billy Clyde is a great coach, but doesn't seem to make the in game adjustments that we have seen prior UK coaches make (I have always thought Pitino and Tubby are excellent at this).

 

I think it is only fair to give him enough time to build the program the way he wants it. However, he did show major improvement in his last 2 teams very quickly. However, he probably didn't have as many unpaid assistants as coaches must deal with at UK telling him what to do.

 

:sssh:

I'll give him time to prove himself (3-5 years). Right now I really straddle the fence on him. I see many positives and negatives.

 

I like that he works hard at recruiting. I like the fact that basketball seems to run his life. I love the fact that he's a tough love kind of guy, I think that produces great ball players if they can deal with it.

 

I hate how stubborn he is and I detest his lineups. I understand rewarding a guy for practicing well. I understand starting a hard worker. I don't understand and don't agree with playing your best players. I hate the fact that many of our younger players are scared to death of him. The freshman are scared to make a mistake and it shows. So scared in fact that I don't think they are playing to their full potential. It almost seems at times that he plays favorites, Liggins/Galloway for example. Liggins make make a few terrible plays and stay in the game. Galloway misses a shot and he doesn't see the floor again.

 

Right now it's pretty close but I would have to lean more towards the negative side if you made me state my personal opinion. I'll support him or any coach that walks the sidelines at UK and give him the time he needs to implement his system.

So, answer this question: how many programs have gone from mediocre to greatness in two years or less?

The program Gillispie inherited wasn't "mediocre" ... it was a solid program, but not as good a shape as the program Tubby Smith inherited.

 

"Mediocre" programs aren't regulars in the NCAA tournament.

I try to base my opinion on last year. Gardner Webb at the beginning of the year with the other losses and the TN loss and the wins without Patterson and winding up barely losing to Marquette in the NCAA. After GW, if someone would have told me Vanderbilt would beat Ky 41 points with Patterson and TN wins by 3 without Patterson, I would have said no way possible. Then to close out the regular season with victories without Patterson was improbable as well. As the announcers said at the UK/Marquette game, this UK team isn't the same team that played Gardner Webb. Put another way, how did Ky lose at home to GW and play Marquette tough in the NCAA? Without its best player. I felt it had something to do with Billy and his development of the guards. Although it may be a madness, there does appear to be a method to it; at least last year. This year's method is frustrating however but I remember Rick saying it would take him 5 years to get Ky back on track although he got there earlier.

Gillispie needs to adjust his coaching style until he gets his players in there. You cant play up tempo when you have players in the lineup who were recruited to play a slower style of play (Tubby). As the first post said, "I am glad he's not sacrificing his methods of success to pick up wins in the short term." I totally disagree with this comment. You have to win now and once you get your players then you can run your system.

During the past week, many Wildcat fans have voiced their displeasure with Gillispie and how his Kentucky Wildcats team is doing. We heard everyone's opinion about how Kentucky isn't doing this, and they aren't doing that. The people who called for Gillispie's head because he was too stubborn to change.

And I agree that Gillispie has a lot to prove, but I am glad he's not sacrificing his methods of success to pick up wins in the short term.

 

When Pitino took over as coach during the probation years, it would have beneficial in the short term to slow things down and the 'Cats may have won more, but Rick insisted on building the program his way and he kept his system in place. Remember folks, rebuilding of a program doesn't happen overnight and usually it will start out shaky.

 

So, answer this question: how many programs have gone from mediocre to greatness in two years or less?

 

Gillispie will instill his style on this program and that's the way it will be. Howland at UCLA built his program and his philosophy around defense and that's the way it was. After time, he got the players in that he wanted and they won. Why? Because he instilled the mentality in UCLA that they were going to be a defensive bunch.

 

With time, people, everything will be okay. Meeks scoring 54 points may have been the worst thing that could have happened this year in hindsight. Yes, I am so proud and very happy that Meeks done it and I would love if he could do it all of the time. But when he did, the expectations for this season shot up like a rocket, whenever this team wasn't nearly as good as they seemed.

 

I agree with the premise of your post. :thumb:

 

However I think the bolded is simplistic concerning the '90 through '91 campaigns. Pitinio kept his system too because it won him games he might not have. He pressed to try and get easy baskets and runs. He bombed away because he had no post presence until Mashburn and that wasn't really all the way until his sophomore year. Pitino would have won less games by slowing it down and playing half court in those seasons. He knew he didn't have the players to compete toe to toe in a slow down but with a team that was in better shape than any opponent, and a group who bought into the system and believed in it, they just out worked and suprised people.

During the past week, many Wildcat fans have voiced their displeasure with Gillispie and how his Kentucky Wildcats team is doing. We heard everyone's opinion about how Kentucky isn't doing this, and they aren't doing that. The people who called for Gillispie's head because he was too stubborn to change.

And I agree that Gillispie has a lot to prove, but I am glad he's not sacrificing his methods of success to pick up wins in the short term.

 

When Pitino took over as coach during the probation years, it would have beneficial in the short term to slow things down and the 'Cats may have won more, but Rick insisted on building the program his way and he kept his system in place. Remember folks, rebuilding of a program doesn't happen overnight and usually it will start out shaky.

 

So, answer this question: how many programs have gone from mediocre to greatness in two years or less?

 

Gillispie will instill his style on this program and that's the way it will be. Howland at UCLA built his program and his philosophy around defense and that's the way it was. After time, he got the players in that he wanted and they won. Why? Because he instilled the mentality in UCLA that they were going to be a defensive bunch.

 

With time, people, everything will be okay. Meeks scoring 54 points may have been the worst thing that could have happened this year in hindsight. Yes, I am so proud and very happy that Meeks done it and I would love if he could do it all of the time. But when he did, the expectations for this season shot up like a rocket, whenever this team wasn't nearly as good as they seemed.

 

Kentucky has enough talent to be a better team then what they are, and thats the same thing that happened last year. The players are there, they have the talent. Not every team has a Jodie Meeks, and a Pat Patterson on it. Those two are very good players. UK also has a lot of role players. Most solid teams have those 3, 4, sometimes 5 solid good players. UK doesn't have that, but they do have role players. Stevenson is a pretty solid player, Liggins is at times, Harris, Harrellson, Stewart, and Miller are also role players who have their good and their bad moments. Basically Kentucky has enough talent to be a better team then they are.

 

In 2003-2004 North Carolina won 19 ball games and lost in the first round of the NCAA tournament, the very next year they won 33 ball games and were crowned NCAA champions. Just saying they went from "mediocre" to "greatness" in a years time.

 

I'm not a UK fan at all, but my biggest problem with them is their coach. I have never been much on Billy G, at all. I believe he has a solid recruiting ability, but he also can't coach to well when it comes game time. I believe many other coaches could have done better things in the amount of time Billy G has been at UK. But that's just me..

Gillispie needs to adjust his coaching style until he gets his players in there. You cant play up tempo when you have players in the lineup who were recruited to play a slower style of play (Tubby). As the first post said, "I am glad he's not sacrificing his methods of success to pick up wins in the short term." I totally disagree with this comment. You have to win now and once you get your players then you can run your system.

 

I disagree with this. By running the same system year in and year out, you can get your younger players familiar with it and therefore, after he gets all the recruits and players in he wants to run that system, they will know what to do without even thinking twice about it. I'd let the man continue to do what he is doing. It will only be more benefical in the longrun.

I disagree with this. By running the same system year in and year out, you can get your younger players familiar with it and therefore, after he gets all the recruits and players in he wants to run that system, they will know what to do without even thinking twice about it. I'd let the man continue to do what he is doing. It will only be more benefical in the longrun.

 

There is no long run for Kentucky fans.

There is no long run for Kentucky fans.

 

Unfortunately, I do have to agree with you and thats how it seems its working across the whole nation too. Its runs hand in hand with "what have you done for me lately?" kinda feeling, and I wish fans would realize that it takes to time build things and for national prestige to be recognized as the result of that building.

I dont like anything about him really. His arrogance, the way he talks to reporters (or talks down to them I should say) is embarrassing IMO. I also don't like his in-game coaching style.

I dont like anything about him really. His arrogance, the way he talks to reporters (or talks down to them I should say) is embarrassing IMO. I also don't like his in-game coaching style.

 

So, by what you say, you don't like Bob Knight who treated the reporters and other members of the media even worse than BCG does?

 

BCG doesn't even come even close to the badgerings and such that came from Knight.

I really like Billy G..

No disrespect intended but I just hope that we don't get in a pattern of a different Billy Gillispie thread after every game. Lets see, we have had a Tubby/BCG comparison thread, another BCG thread that I have forgotten the title of now and maybe one more in the last couple of weeks. Already imo is starting to get old. I just don't want to start seeing one after the other like have been on others in the past.

JMO and others have theirs, I respect that.:thumb: