I can tell you that at least one trustee is 100% behind Archie and likes how the program is being built for the long run. The long term approach can take time as a roster gets reshaped with the players a coach wants and allowing players that don't fit to move through the program.
I'd be willing to bet that I know the Trustee you're talking about. And, if I'm right, then I can say that he's singing a very similar tune to the song I heard him sing for Archie's predecessor....."building for the long run", "the long term approach" and all that.
What else would you expect people in his position to say when it's apparent that the results to date are so underwhelming? Of course he's going to say "it's a long-term approach, it's going to take time to reshape the roster, etc."
I'm sorry, but I just do not buy that mealy-mouthed nonsense.
This is the team Archie will be judged on. This year should give us an indication of Archie's abilities, but next year is the final product and where the sustainability of the program and incremental improvement will be measured.
Speaking of mealy-mouthed nonsense. I'd say coaches -- like anybody else in any position of significant responsibility -- can and should be evaluated each time their team takes the floor.
That's not to say that they should be subjected to heated seats right off the bat. But it's not that hard to see if any team, for instance, improves or degrades as any season goes on. Are they getting mistakes corrected? Are they putting guys in the right spots? Do our offensive and defensive schemes fit our roster well? Is player development showing progress?
The evaluations might change from season to season. Did they emphasize the need to fill the right gaps in recruiting? Are the players progressing in the off-season?
They should always be evaluating. Any good manager does -- hopefully Archie's always evaluating players instead of waiting for their junior or senior years.
There is no good reason to say that "we'll judge a coach's abilities by year three, and wait until a fourth to determine sustainability." He should've been told after year two that the results aren't what we're looking for and he needs to step it up.
Only a collapse without cause this year will cause a sudden change of direction.
We've already been through that last year. It didn't matter.
That would be disappointing because I like what Archie is doing.
Based on what?
If you don't like Archie, you probably won't like another coach.
I can't speak for anybody else. But none of this is personal to me.
I don't dislike Archie. In fact, I was very excited by the hire. I just dislike being mediocre...especially for extended periods of time. He's had plenty of time and our team still looks average at best. And that makes it all the more frustrating to watch halves like our first half against FSU, because there's no question that we have the capability to play so much better than we have since.
Yeah, DG was hot as the sun that game. But is that really what it's going to take for our team to play at a high level? A player just happening to have the game of his life?
Maybe you want a cheater or someone trying to build for a homerun year followed by rebuilding years. We had that. It didn't work out.
First, that's a glaring false choice: either we need to hire a cheater or we need to wait 4 years to even so much as make the tournament field. Because that's what "building for the long term" requires. Pfft.
Plenty of coaches have righted wayward ships in a reasonable period of time. You may want to write off Bruce Pearl's quick success at Auburn. OK, I get that -- he does have a spotted record (although I think he's a phenomenal coach). But what about Rick Barnes at Tennessee? His first team there was 15-19. Two years later, they were 26-9, the following year they were 31-6. What about what Holtsmann's done? Bobby Hurley? Chris Beard? Chris Mack?
This notion that "well, it just takes a long time to build a good team" is a loser's mentality. It's simultaneously a self-comforting way to delay the pain of admitting that things haven't worked out as we hoped and a defensive response to the fear of unknown disruptions that may come from making a change.