OT? Interesting (and relevant?) commentary


#1

Concerns St Johns but has quite a bit of insight that might apply a bit to us.

http://ncaabasketball.fanhouse.com/2010/03/22/welcome-to-the-bad-apple/?ncid=txtlnkusspor00000002


#2

These two paragraphs really jump out at me. Really, these are the type of guys that are coaching the future of American hoops? I couldn’t even imagine being an NCAA coach that was trying to do things the “right” way and having to go through these guys to get to the kids that you want.

[i]Apparently some of the local AAU big wigs who prep and prime young players are miffed Roberts didn’t play well with them during his time at St. John’s. Russell Smith, coach of the New York Gauchos, told reporters, “You got to hustle, bend some rules or do something. They settled for the transfers and second-tier kids.”

Kenny Wilcox, another coach who massages the veins that connect to most every college program, insinuated it was unrealistic for Roberts and St. John’s to believe they could build winning teams without twisting some rules. “It’s naïve because if you know the business, there are certain schools that are getting certain types of players and certain schools that aren’t,” Wilcox, head coach at ASA, a Brooklyn junior college, told reporters. “At St. John’s, they’re not getting certain types of players because they’re doing things the right way.”[/i]


#3

Wasn’t Whittenburg one of the guys that we were supposedly interested in when ED was hired?

It’s kind of funny to be seeing all these guys who’s names came up at the time getting pink slips. Either it’s tougher to turn a place around than it looks, or none of the guys we were talking about at the time would have gotten it done here since they didn’t get it done where they ended up.

Maybe they were all unwilling to “play the game” which made them good candidates here, but also made them unable to succeed where they ended up.


#4

Paul Hewitt is interviewing for the St John’s job. Interesting to see if he really goes there or uses an offer to get more money out of GT.


#5

My bet is that Hewitt will take the St John’s job.


#6

[quote=“MarkH, post:3, topic:1034”]Wasn’t Whittenburg one of the guys that we were supposedly interested in when ED was hired?

It’s kind of funny to be seeing all these guys who’s names came up at the time getting pink slips. Either it’s tougher to turn a place around than it looks, or none of the guys we were talking about at the time would have gotten it done here since they didn’t get it done where they ended up.

Maybe they were all unwilling to “play the game” which made them good candidates here, but also made them unable to succeed where they ended up.[/quote]

NOT being a wise guy. It’s just a “stanard market.” A curve. EVERYBODY can’t be on top. One team wins - one team losses. Some teams have to finish at the bottom of their conference. MANY schools are unhappy losing and will try new coaches every 4,5 or 6 years!


#7
[quote="MarkH, post:3, topic:1034"]Wasn't Whittenburg one of the guys that we were supposedly interested in when ED was hired?

It’s kind of funny to be seeing all these guys who’s names came up at the time getting pink slips. Either it’s tougher to turn a place around than it looks, or none of the guys we were talking about at the time would have gotten it done here since they didn’t get it done where they ended up.

Maybe they were all unwilling to “play the game” which made them good candidates here, but also made them unable to succeed where they ended up.[/quote]

NOT being a wise guy. It’s just a “stanard market.” A curve. EVERYBODY can’t be on top. One team wins - one team losses. Some teams have to finish at the bottom of their conference. MANY schools are unhappy losing and will try new coaches every 4,5 or 6 years!

Tundra,
I don’t really understand your point (relative to my comment). Is it that we should be like the other schools and make the change in the 4-6 year window?

MY point wasn’t that at all… It was merely pointing out that many of the coaches names that were thrown around at the time of ED’s hiring all seem to be dropping like flies at whereever else they landed, meaning that they didn’t get the job done there. What makes us think that any of them would have done better than what ED’s been able to do so far?


#8

Not going to happen. Hewitt and his family have settled in Atlanta. Georgia Tech will have to make a move before PH does. Though my thoughts are that both GaTech and Hewitt would be better off if he did take the St. John’s job.


#9
[quote="MarkH, post:3, topic:1034"]Wasn't Whittenburg one of the guys that we were supposedly interested in when ED was hired?

It’s kind of funny to be seeing all these guys who’s names came up at the time getting pink slips. Either it’s tougher to turn a place around than it looks, or none of the guys we were talking about at the time would have gotten it done here since they didn’t get it done where they ended up.

Maybe they were all unwilling to “play the game” which made them good candidates here, but also made them unable to succeed where they ended up.[/quote]

NOT being a wise guy. It’s just a “stanard market.” A curve. EVERYBODY can’t be on top. One team wins - one team losses. Some teams have to finish at the bottom of their conference. MANY schools are unhappy losing and will try new coaches every 4,5 or 6 years!

Tundra,
I don’t really understand your point (relative to my comment). Is it that we should be like the other schools and make the change in the 4-6 year window?

MY point wasn’t that at all… It was merely pointing out that many of the coaches names that were thrown around at the time of ED’s hiring all seem to be dropping like flies at whereever else they landed, meaning that they didn’t get the job done there. What makes us think that any of them would have done better than what ED’s been able to do so far?

OK, Mark. No harm meant. I see your point now. My point wasn’t very good or relevant. My point wasn’t PSU related at all. I was just pointing out the many schools turn over coaches a lot. A 4-6 year cycle.


#10
[quote="phoenix, post:5, topic:1034"]My bet is that Hewitt will take the St John's job.[/quote]

Not going to happen. Hewitt and his family have settled in Atlanta. Georgia Tech will have to make a move before PH does. Though my thoughts are that both GaTech and Hewitt would be better off if he did take the St. John’s job.

Hit this one out of the park NI. Good job.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5027590


#11
[quote="phoenix, post:5, topic:1034"]My bet is that Hewitt will take the St John's job.[/quote]

Not going to happen. Hewitt and his family have settled in Atlanta. Georgia Tech will have to make a move before PH does. Though my thoughts are that both GaTech and Hewitt would be better off if he did take the St. John’s job.

Hit this one out of the park NI. Good job.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5027590

Thanks, but living in Atlanta and having a few friends in high places - OK, I only have high friends in places ;D - I sort of knew this one going in. I still think GaTech would be better off going a different direction, but I’m also glad for Hewitt that he is at peace with his decision.


#12
[quote="phoenix, post:5, topic:1034"]My bet is that Hewitt will take the St John's job.[/quote]

Not going to happen. Hewitt and his family have settled in Atlanta. Georgia Tech will have to make a move before PH does. Though my thoughts are that both GaTech and Hewitt would be better off if he did take the St. John’s job.

You were right on. I think he will regret that decision after next year. When the ice is thin, you need to keep moving!


#13

I used to think the whole coach change issue was as simple as some on the board seem to think. The situation at Iowa has caused me to rethink, and get a bit cautious. Iowa had a coach with a moderate sleaze factor (measured by graduation and conviction rates). They brought in Todd Lickliter, who I think is a pretty good coach. I believe he was National Coach of the Year once. He has failed to win at Iowa. Meanwhile, the sleazy coach went on to a more lenient environment and has been highly successful in the win/loss area. That suggests that winning with integrity in the Big Ten is not all that easy. When I couple that with the kind of comments that were in the article that I originally cited, I realize that the equation is more complicated than I thought. If you win on the win/loss scale and lose on the sleaze scale, I don’t think you gained much. I am still naive enough to hope that winning and integrity are not mutually exclusive–I have lost a lot of certainty about that, though. Integrity was more likely when the salaries involved were “normal” and not in the hundreds of thousands and millions. Big money is corrupting.

Also, thanks to Tundra for reminding me that division 1 wins is a zero sum game. If we win more someone else wins less. It does not make me want to win any less, but I do appreciate that it means someone else is more unhappy. Better them than me :slight_smile: