Basically said the euphoria of winning a NC fades quickly but losing lingers. Then added that despite what people thought he felt it wasn't the end of the world when MSU beat them at the last minute but that losing to us last year (without mentioning ND, of course) still leaves him pissed.

He's a small, vindictive man. He roots for the lions over the Christians. He's as great an ass as he is a coach.

I was glad to see the bench involved early if only because they are playing two games in three days. Lowering the risk of injury is always a concern as well (and as noted).

keep the significant recruiting advantage of being the Olympic coach indefinitely.

...from Geno, so he's not in charge of the Olympics or the World Championship (or Cup or whatever they call it these days) squads anymore.
Is an advisor to the board, but not on active duty.

was discussed on the board a little.

by the allegations that Geno verbally baits opposing players.

But if we can agree to define narrowly the criteria for defining an excellent college basketball coach as winning games and winning championships, I think that Geno's decisions on things like minutes distribution and the like should be pretty much beyond question.

If somebody wants to make the argument that his seemingly uncompromising coaching style has a detrimental effect on the psyche of some of the young women entrusted to his care, that's worthy of a separate conversation.

As somewhat of an aside, it seems that the players who stick around for their entire eligibility continue to hold him in very high regard. It's almost as though he made good on Bo's failed promise, "Those who stay will be champions."

If Notre Dame fans have seen anything this season, it's the challenge of navigating a season in which you're the hunted, rather than the hunter. For my money, it's much harder than it looks.

Geno has done it often enough and well enough that I'm of the opinion that he shouldn't be subjected to the Monday-morning quarterbacking of opposing fans on his decisions regarding playing time and the like.

For running up the score against obviously undermanned opponents in
an inferior conference.

If I recall correctly, early in his career he complained to Bobby Bowden about running up the score against him.

Bowden's response was something along the lines that it wasn't Bowden's job to keep his own team from scoring, it was Holtz's job to keep Bowden's team from scoring.

If Auriemma thinks that playing his starters for 35-plus minutes in the process of beating completely overmatched teams by 50 or more points is in the best interest of the development of his players and his team, who am I to argue, given his success?

I'd feel differently, of course, if this were grade school basketball, or perhaps even high school basketball.

But, invoking Lou again, "The other team gives out scholarships, too."

of injury?

Fifty years ago, my father used to pull his hair out (what hair he had left) when the ND Football Coach
left his first string in when ND had the game won. He used to ask, "Why risk injury?"

developing stamina.

His philosophy doesn't change from game 1 - game 35.... Doesn't it make more sense to keep playing them how you've been playing them then to suddenly change it come the tourney? Not to mention in the AAC every game is blowout anyway. So I don't get the confusion here.

Continuity of style of play is more important than developing stamina at this stage.