PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

Ed DeChellis article in the Baltimore Sun

Did I miss someone not posting this already? It’s a day old but I don’t remember seeing a reference to it. It provides a little more insight into ED’s decision to leave.

[size=14pt]At height of NCAA season, another way to look at college basketball[/size]
Navy coach DeChellis sought a place he could coach away from the trappings of big-time hoops

Thanks for posting. I hope Ed can turn things around but most importantly that he is happy.

Though his best player, Talor Battle, was set to graduate, there was a feeling that the team could, unlike most of those in Penn State history, sustain the momentum. Tim Frazier had been groomed to take over Battle's role as a scoring point guard (which he ended up doing quite ably), and Penn State was starting to develop an identity as a smart, precise defensive team.

After reading that, I’m not sure I can believe anything else written in that article.

[quote=“NYJJared, post:3, topic:3229”][quote] Though his best player, Talor Battle, was set to graduate, there was a feeling that the team could, unlike most of those in Penn State history, sustain the momentum. Tim Frazier had been groomed to take over Battle’s role as a scoring point guard (which he ended up doing quite ably), and Penn State was starting to develop an identity as a smart, precise defensive team.
[/quote]

After reading that, I’m not sure I can believe anything else written in that article.[/quote] Really ? Who felt that way ?

[quote="NYJJared, post:3, topic:3229"][quote] Though his best player, Talor Battle, was set to graduate, [b]there was a feeling that the team could, unlike most of those in Penn State history, sustain the momentum.[/b] Tim Frazier had been groomed to take over Battle's role as a scoring point guard (which he ended up doing quite ably), and Penn State was starting to develop an identity as a smart, precise defensive team. [/quote]

After reading that, I’m not sure I can believe anything else written in that article.[/quote] Really ? Who felt that way ?

Just a guess… Pat Chambers.

[quote="NYJJared, post:3, topic:3229"][quote] Though his best player, Talor Battle, was set to graduate, [b]there was a feeling that the team could, unlike most of those in Penn State history, sustain the momentum.[/b] Tim Frazier had been groomed to take over Battle's role as a scoring point guard (which he ended up doing quite ably), and Penn State was starting to develop an identity as a smart, precise defensive team. [/quote]

After reading that, I’m not sure I can believe anything else written in that article.[/quote] Really ? Who felt that way ?

Just a guess… Pat Chambers.

Sure

As the cliche goes, great programs reload, the rest rebuild. PSU rebuilt. WE were headed for 2 years of rebuilding no matter what.

Then comes PC. I hope it was a 1 year rebuilding job and we start to reload.

Everyone saw a rebuilding job ahead.

I enjoyed the article for the most part, but would not label it “well-written.”

DeChellis did, pushing a Penn State program lacking in historical signifance and unwilling to pay assistants competitively into the ballyhooed NCAA Tournament, where "student-athlets" miss days of class to play in giant stadiums festooned with every possible sort of advertising you could think of.

I remember readilng before that part of the reason he chose to leave was over a salary increase for one of his assistants. Evidently only JoePa was able to get that done. According to reports his DC/OC were earning almost what Ed was. Offensively they were not worth the money they were allegedly being paid, in my opinion, and I am only a fan.

[quote=“NYJJared, post:3, topic:3229”][quote] Though his best player, Talor Battle, was set to graduate, there was a feeling that the team could, unlike most of those in Penn State history, sustain the momentum. Tim Frazier had been groomed to take over Battle’s role as a scoring point guard (which he ended up doing quite ably), and Penn State was starting to develop an identity as a smart, precise defensive team.
[/quote]

After reading that, I’m not sure I can believe anything else written in that article.[/quote]

It was a good article. He has to say something like that to put the journalistic touch on it. “we thought this, but in a sensational twist, this happened.” why oh why…

Penn State was in fact starting to develop an identity as a smart, precise defensive team. But you had too many shenanigans going on in the world of college basketball.

in that article, Korman is trying to write about PSU Hoops and DeChellis as if the world is a utopia and that everything always makes sense. that’s how it has to be when you are an “official” journalist. far from calling a spade a spade, but Korman gives us little clues in there. when PSU was in the struggle in 08-09 and 10-11, few really had much appreciation for how difficult what PSU was doing was. now it’s over and all guys like Korman can do is try to put it into words. it’s not easy because the article can’t alienate the reader and it has to end eventually.

[quote=“Phanatic, post:7, topic:3229”]As the cliche goes, great programs reload, the rest rebuild. PSU rebuilt. WE were headed for 2 years of rebuilding no matter what.

Everyone saw a rebuilding job ahead.[/quote]
i think what Korman means is that there was hope for PSU bball. after 08-09 and after 10-11. in those years PSU lost many seniors. sometimes when your a team like PSU u might go through like you know a bad year, a okay year, a decent year. this might go on and on until you finally have a senior team of great players. then that rare year you might have a chance to make the tournament. i don’t think Korman meant like he expected them to go to the NCAAs the next year, but he meant like it was starting to get some consistency, and there was hope that it may rebuild with DeChellis at the helm. all i’m doing is just trying to fill in the blanks to what the article is really all about.

One thing he doesn’t dwell on is the pressure in being a Big Ten coach. Ed is a cancer survivor. That causes you to look at things differently. There is no doubt that constant pressure wears the body and the mind down and leaves you more susceptible to cancer, heart attack, stroke, etc. I think Ed still wanted to coach, but in a less pressure-packed situation. I’m happy for him. He brought in some excellent players (Talor, Jeff, Sasa, Stanley, Jamelle, Danny, Tim, etc.) – he just didn’t bring in enough of them to compete year in and year out in the Big Ten.

I agree with this. I also think he was banging his head against the wall trying to recruit better, particularly Philly, and just tired out. I also suspect that he was not receiving unqualified support from the administration, which is understandable. If Curley was sticking to his guns about what he wanted in the program, I think we were still not as consistent as the university would have liked.

ED made a move, and it gave us an opportunity to try something different, and it looks like it could really pay off.

I still love that he got as long as he did. We kind of walked the walk as far as claiming we were about something more than Ws and Ls.

The Great Santini coming to the rescue once again. Less pressure-packed and i think Ed knew how those seasons really mattered towards future continuation. but PSU was never really year in year out in the BigTen in basketball. that’s what was so different about the last 4 or 5 years of DeChellis. it seemed like every year there was improvement. (# of okay years vs bad years too were a better ratio considering the strength of the conference - much better than last 2 years of Dunn)

I think he realized that there was too much going on. That it would be hard without the group. they lost on a last second shot against Temple. to get what you have been working for all that time, to finally get there. to have a team that can beat a great team like Temple and go on to San Diego State. a bball season can be anything. but for PSU, the struggle was long and different in 10-11 than 08-09. you just try to play the team that’s on your schedule. Navy lost a large amount of consecutive games. but at Navy, it’s gunna be hard to get an at large bid to the dance.

One thing you have to hand to Ed - Taran Buie was a real problem. We were a really bad team in December 2010. When he got rid of Taran, we immediately became a much better team and made it to the NCAA tournament. I think if Taran had stayed, we would have been lucky to make the NIT. It takes a lot of guts to throw your best player’s brother off the team.

[quote="Great Santini, post:12, topic:3229"]One thing he doesn't dwell on is the pressure in being a Big Ten coach. Ed is a cancer survivor. That causes you to look at things differently. There is no doubt that constant pressure wears the body and the mind down and leaves you more susceptible to cancer, heart attack, stroke, etc. I think Ed still wanted to coach, but in a less pressure-packed situation. I'm happy for him. He brought in some excellent players (Talor, Jeff, Sasa, Stanley, Jamelle, Danny, Tim, etc.) -- he just didn't bring in enough of them to compete year in and year out in the Big Ten.[/quote]

I agree with this. I also think he was banging his head against the wall trying to recruit better, particularly Philly, and just tired out. I also suspect that he was not receiving unqualified support from the administration, which is understandable. If Curley was sticking to his guns about what he wanted in the program, I think we were still not as consistent as the university would have liked.

ED made a move, and it gave us an opportunity to try something different, and it looks like it could really pay off.

I still love that he got as long as he did. We kind of walked the walk as far as claiming we were about something more than Ws and Ls.

I thought Ed was an OK recruiter. I also thought Ed made a lot of excuses for the bad seasons. Ed might not have felt like he was getting unqualified support from Curley. The irony is, but for Curley Ed never would have been coaching in the Big Ten. He says some things in this article that leave me scratching my head. The article says he was constantly under pressure to recruit higher caliber players at PSU and mess with AAU coaches and handlers. Pressure from who, exactly? For 16 years there did not seem to be any pressure on either Ed or Dunn to recruit high caliber players. If there was pressure, there were certainly not any consequences for failing to do so. It did not strike me that Curley particularly cared about men’s basketball, so I have my doubts that the pressure was coming from the school, if it was even real. Ed may just be trying to appeal to his current fan base which are Naval Academy grads, but no reason to bite the hand that fed you. It goes without saying that PSU was more than generous with Ed, keeping him through numerous years when he probably would have been canned anywhere else in D1. Ed lost support because the 2009-2010 season was abysmal and destroyed all momentum towards building the program. We lost Trey Burke’s commitment and some promising players left. It was his 7th season and it should have been better than it was. Curley was right to be a bit skeptical after that debacle.

If 09-10 destroyed all momentum, then how did basically the same group of guys (minus Babb) make the tournament the next season? I agree 09-10 was disappointing, but there were also signs of improvement. (like the win at UVA, or the win at Michigan later that season)

If they had won a few more games and had a .500 record that year instead of a sub .500 record, that wouldn’t have any guarantee that they would make the tournament the next year. there’s only so many wins you are going to get in a tough conference like the BigTen when you are not a traditional basketball power and you trying to get over the hump. wouldn’t you rather them go 3-15 one year and 9-9 the next year, then go 6-12 both years and miss the tournament both years? take Northwestern, they have been 7-11 or 8-10 in the BigTen over the last 4 years, but not once making the NCAA tournament. when you’re a team like NW or PSU in a top conference, as much as you’d like to believe you can be great every year, it seems comes down to putting all your eggs into one basket when you have a senior heavy team, go all out that year and make the tournament. if PSU made the tournament every time there was a senior heavy team, i think the fans would be happy, like the last 2 seniors heavy PSU teams. (08-09 and 10-11, even though 08-09 didn’t technically make the tournament)

[quote="psuarva, post:16, topic:3229"]Ed lost support because the 2009-2010 season was abysmal and destroyed all momentum towards building the program.[/quote]

If 09-10 destroyed all momentum, then how did basically the same group of guys (minus Babb) make the tournament the next season? I agree 09-10 was disappointing, but there were also signs of improvement. (like the win at UVA, or the win at Michigan later that season)

If they had won a few more games and had a .500 record that year instead of a sub .500 record, that wouldn’t have any guarantee that they would make the tournament the next year. there’s only so many wins you are going to get in a tough conference like the BigTen when you are not a traditional basketball power and you trying to get over the hump. wouldn’t you rather them go 3-15 one year and 9-9 the next year, then go 6-12 both years and miss the tournament both years? take Northwestern, they have been 7-11 or 8-10 in the BigTen over the last 4 years, but not once making the NCAA tournament. when you’re a team like NW or PSU in a top conference, as much as you’d like to believe you can be great every year, it seems comes down to putting all your eggs into one basket when you have a senior heavy team, go all out that year and make the tournament. if PSU made the tournament every time there was a senior heavy team, i think the fans would be happy, like the last 2 seniors heavy PSU teams. (08-09 and 10-11, even though 08-09 didn’t technically make the tournament)

I should narrow my statement. Short term, momentum was fine and they made the NCAA tournament the following year. Long term, it derailed recruiting momentum and the transfers really hurt the post 2011 prospects, no matter what anyone says. The de-commit from Burke was also a killer. If Ed had made 2 straight NCAAs, or 2 NITs plus the NCAA, from 09-11, perception of the program would have really been elevated and I feel he would not have left. The past season would have been much better with Babb on the roster. But it’s all in the past now. New coach, new players coming in.

The way i look at it is cumulatively. I think had they made the tournament in 08-09, then the next season would have been better. maybe they would have made a run in the NCAA tournament instead of the NIT, and PSU hoops would have finally arrived for all to see on the grandest stage of them all against the best. but we never saw Morrissey Melle Pringle in the NCAA tournament with Battle, Jones, Jackson, and Brooks! That team had the most great players on it. and that experience would have been different from the NIT. That would have changed the dynamics of the 09-10 season. PSU would have been seen as a legitimate contender at the very least for making the NCAA tournament instead of just “a team who doesn’t like to schedule hard teams in the non conference”. that was why making the tournament or not in 08-09 was a pivotal moment. Babb improved in 09-10, but the team was struggling to find its identity without Morrissey Melle and Pringle. PSU might have been better in 10-11 with Babb, but it’s hard to say. One of the reasons why Babb may have left may have been because of the win loss record in 09-10, who knows. They may have done better in the 10-11 non conference with Babb in place of Buie, in games like at Va Tech. the 10-11 bench wasn’t as deep, that’s why a guy like Woodyard had to come in step up. He wasn’t the consistent shooter as Babb, but sometimes he got hot, and it was up to DeChellis to predict when Woodyard was having a good day and have him could come in.

Take the Temple NCAA tournament game. Brooks who was injured the month before, since PSU didn’t have a great bench, he felt pressure to come back, maybe even before he was fully healed. And he tried to be Superman against Temple and got re-injured. He was Superman in the first half against Temple, but then he tried too hard and fell and got injured. then Woodyard had to come in in the 2nd half against Temple and play big minutes, and yeah if Babb was there he and Woodyard could have split minutes replacing Brooks and that might have been the difference. then against if Brooks didn’t get injured against Temple, Woodyard wouldn’t have had to play those minutes. With that said, Woodyard did pretty good against Temple, he got a nice basket, and tried to be a good passer.

This thread could die quietly … hopefully with a nice commitment this week. :slight_smile: