Lee must Go !

[HoustonCajun]

_ Not true. The academic year extends through the summer. Every scholarship athlete can earn one point for academic eligibility and retention each semester. A player can lose a point for becoming ineligible over the summer. The number of points earned are divided by possible points and multiplied by 1,000 for the APR score.

Anything below 925 is a subpar score.

Isn't a player's eligibility tied to the university and not the coach? I don't get the logic behind keeping Lee. Is it that these players are so tied to him, they will leave if he is fired? He can't seem to get them to play for him now. They just might be relieved to have an asst. coach take over. If a player becomes ineligible, that could happen under Lee or an interim coach. Seems to me, if we are keeping Lee for that reason only, it is assinine. He is killing UL basketball. Am I missing something regarding APR?
igeaux.mobi _

[Parrott]

As I've mentioned several, several, several times in the past, results from multiple studies conducted by the NCAA show that athletic teams that undergo head coaching changes almost always see APR scores suffer.

For some student-athletes, they fear change. They don't want to start over with a new coaching staff. Some transfer to smaller-level schools to continue their career. Others simply give up the game. Some quit playing. Others stop going to class.

Once again, there are no guarantees that a student-athlete will stay or be eligible if the head coach is retained. There are few guarantees in life anymore. But NCAA studies show that it is more likely that student-athletes will stay and will be eligible without a change at the top.

Plus, think about this: Say you pay Lee to leave now and then promote an assistant to be interim head coach. You just lost 25 percent of your coaching staff and still have to handle 100 percent of the same workload with one less guy to help. It's a tough adjustment, to say the least. You're also paying the head coach to leave and do nothing and still have to spend more money to hire a new head coach.

Simply put, some of you are making this situation much simpler than it really is. Right now the university doesn't think it's worth the risk, and I don't blame them.

Here's a hypothetical question: How would the same people begging for a change, either back in the spring or now at midseason, respond if the basketball team fell short of APR scores and the entire athletic department suffered? No regionals for softball or baseball, no bowl bid if football finally breaks through.

Most of the same people barking for change would more than likely question why the move was made after that fact.

Right now it's a losing battle. The university cannot win, regardless of the decision that is made.

All of that said, the entire situation will be much better once that horrible 2004-05 score drops off the multi-year average.

[BirdofParadise]

_ As I've mentioned several, several, several times in the past, results from multiple studies conducted by the NCAA show that athletic teams that undergo head coaching changes almost always see APR scores suffer.

For some student-athletes, they fear change. They don't want to start over with a new coaching staff. Some transfer to smaller-level schools to continue their career. Others simply give up the game. Some quit playing. Others stop going to class.

Once again, there are no guarantees that a student-athlete will stay or be eligible if the head coach is retained. There are few guarantees in life anymore. But NCAA studies show that it is more likely that student-athletes will stay and will be eligible without a change at the top.

Plus, think about this: Say you pay Lee to leave now and then promote an assistant to be interim head coach. You just lost 25 percent of your coaching staff and still have to handle 100 percent of the same workload with one less guy to help. It's a tough adjustment, to say the least. You're also paying the head coach to leave and do nothing and still have to spend more money to hire a new head coach.

Simply put, some of you are making this situation much simpler than it really is. Right now the university doesn't think it's worth the risk, and I don't blame them.

Here's a hypothetical question: How would the same people begging for a change, either back in the spring or now at midseason, respond if the basketball team fell short of APR scores and the entire athletic department suffered? No regionals for softball or baseball, no bowl bid if football finally breaks through.

Most of the same people barking for change would more than likely question why the move was made after that fact.

Right now it's a losing battle. The university cannot win, regardless of the decision that is made.

All of that said, the entire situation will be much better once that horrible 2004-05 score drops off the multi-year average. _

Josh is correct.

Coach Lee is NOT going to be fired in the middle of the season, regardless of the anger of many on this board.

The administration would only make a midseason change if there was an NCAA problem, a personal problem or if the team quits on him.

The first two haven't happened. The third one won't happen.

Robert Lee will be the UL coach for the remainder of the season.

[Turbine]

For the record I do not call for a mid season change. There are windows of opportunity and midseason isn't one of them.

[Turbine]

_ As I've mentioned several, several, several times in the past, results from multiple studies conducted by the NCAA show that athletic teams that undergo head coaching changes almost always see APR scores suffer.

These studies cannot exclude the fact that coaching changes often follow a dismal morale breaking season. I can see player atrophy in this case if the next hire fails to recruit and inspire. This leaves a HUGE responsibility on the AD not to botch the change.

These studies cannot exclude the fact that coaching changes include charismatic coaches moving up the ladder as it were. I can see player atrophy in this case as the perception to the player may be that he is being left behind.

There is no way treading water in a static pool prevents player atrophy.

jmo