Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

Haven't been posting much as I just haven't really had the drive with Johnnies being irrelevant so regularly now. Just some thoughts for fans of teams who regularly make tourney or are at least in conversation for it on a regular basis....those mid pack type teams. Be careful what you wish for pushing coaching changes. I was on board with running Lavin out of town at the time he was let go. I thought that we could do better than barely making the tourney with loaded rosters. I thought we could do better than 20 win seasons and 10-8 conference records. I was wrong. We went from being right in the thick of things when realignment started (far from great, but not easily dismissed) to being a complete nonfactor thus far under Mullin and now Anderson. The last handful of years we are way below .500 in conference play and it feels like it's a race to the bottom between us and DePaul every yr now for past 5.

Why do I bring this up? A lot of the time you may not do better by making a switch and it can always get a lot worse. If we could do it again, I would have given Lavin an extension. Our recruiting went from tons of 4 star HS kids and even a 5 star with a few 3 star role players, to 2-3 star players exclusively and the best we can do is roll dice on good JUCO kids. So PC fans, Marquette fans and the like...be careful. Sometimes you simply reach your ceiling for your program and I think Lavin was our high water mark unfortunately. Just wish we realized that then.

I mostly agree with this post. And AD needs to recognize when a coach isn't fit for a job and be able to pull the plug, but at the same time continuity is incredibly important and getting sucked into the constant 4-year cycle (enough time to get a full roster of "his guys") of coaching changes is a recipe for continued irrelevancy. I agree SJU should have kept Lavin and I further think that Mike Anderson needs a long leash because he's fully capable of getting SJU where they want to be.

You probably don't want to see this counter example (that helps prove your point) but Seton Hall is a good one. 2014-15 was actually Willard's 5th season at the Hall but it was a complete disaster that ended by getting embarrassed by Marquette at MSG and left Willard with nothing but 1 NIT appearance in 5 years, never having even finished .500 in Big East play. There were plenty of calls for his head and apparently the AD strongly considered letting him go but decided to give him 1 more year. The Pirates haven't missed the tournament or finished lower than 3rd in the Big East since.

Patience pays off.

The quick trigger on Mullin was the right call but they need to be patient with Anderson. All a coaching change does is start a new 4-year reset cycle.

Hall2012 wrote:but at the same time continuity is incredibly important and getting sucked into the constant 4-year cycle (enough time to get a full roster of "his guys") of coaching changes is a recipe for continued irrelevancy.

I agree with the need for some patience. Just a couple years ago a bunch of Creighton guys here wanted coach Mac gone. Tanking (coaching change) until they hit a homerun (a quick rebuilder) strategy is more likely to work for destination programs that can keep that coach long term.

I agree that we should've kept Lavin.

Hall2012 - if we could bring in a top 10 class like Willard had by year 5 then I'd be thrilled. The issue is CMA hasn't recruited well relative to Lavin, Mullin, or the rest of the Big East. We don't even seem to be in on any top 100 talent and instead are focused on JUCOs and 3 stars. I expected him to get off to a better start considering he's had years of experience at a high major (unlike Willard prior to Hall).

In short, we need to recruit far, far better and I don't know if the staff is able to do that. He's had 3 classes so far and none have been top 50. Impossible to compete when 7 Big East teams have top 25 classes next year and we're second to last.

Conversely, what if Villanova didn’t push out Lappas for Wright? Or if Georgetown didn’t can Esherick for JTIII? Or if Marquette didn’t replace Deane with Crean?

There is always a risk and threat to get worse, but with our conference and program histories, they are necessary in order to compete and play at the highest levels. Settling for mediocrity, out of fear of becoming irrelevant, is accepting failure.

It’s the same risk/reward discussions we have on the MU board regarding Wojo.

adoraz wrote:I agree that we should've kept Lavin.

Hall2012 - if we could bring in a top 10 class like Willard had by year 5 then I'd be thrilled. The issue is CMA hasn't recruited well relative to Lavin, Mullin, or the rest of the Big East. We don't even seem to be in on any top 100 talent and instead are focused on JUCOs and 3 stars. I expected him to get off to a better start considering he's had years of experience at a high major (unlike Willard prior to Hall).

In short, we need to recruit far, far better and I don't know if the staff is able to do that. He's had 3 classes so far and none have been top 50. Impossible to compete when 7 Big East teams have top 25 classes next year and we're second to last.

I certainly get the recruiting frustration, but I think Mike Anderson's a guy who needs to recruit to his system rather than recruiting rankings and I think he's doing that. Last year the Big East was a monster. I get the frustration around this year, but his best player is a sohomore and he has a freshman running the point. Two years from now, Champagnie and Alexander are going to have SJU in the "best backcourt in the Big East" conversation. Plenty of Pirate fans are pissed about losing Posh Alexander to the Johnnies. I actually think SJU takes a noticeable jump next year.

As for Willard's year 5 class - it still didn't have an immediate impact. The disastrous year that nearly got Willard fired was that class' freshman year. It may have gotten the jump start he needed, but he's been recruiting mostly 3* with the occasional 4* ever since.

Hall2012 wrote:

adoraz wrote:I agree that we should've kept Lavin.

Hall2012 - if we could bring in a top 10 class like Willard had by year 5 then I'd be thrilled. The issue is CMA hasn't recruited well relative to Lavin, Mullin, or the rest of the Big East. We don't even seem to be in on any top 100 talent and instead are focused on JUCOs and 3 stars. I expected him to get off to a better start considering he's had years of experience at a high major (unlike Willard prior to Hall).

In short, we need to recruit far, far better and I don't know if the staff is able to do that. He's had 3 classes so far and none have been top 50. Impossible to compete when 7 Big East teams have top 25 classes next year and we're second to last.

I certainly get the recruiting frustration, but I think Mike Anderson's a guy who needs to recruit to his system rather than recruiting rankings and I think he's doing that. Last year the Big East was a monster. I get the frustration around this year, but his best player is a sohomore and he has a freshman running the point. Two years from now, Champagnie and Alexander are going to have SJU in the "best backcourt in the Big East" conversation. Plenty of Pirate fans are pissed about losing Posh Alexander to the Johnnies. I actually think SJU takes a noticeable jump next year.

As for Willard's year 5 class - it still didn't have an immediate impact. The disastrous year that nearly got Willard fired was that class' freshman year. It may have gotten the jump start he needed, but he's been recruiting mostly 3* with the occasional 4* ever since.

I agree about Anderson. Sure, his recruiting could be better but he recruits to a system. He deserves a couple more years. Alexander and Champagnie (not sure if he is on NBA radar?) make a nice nucleus to build around.

GoldenWarrior11 wrote:Conversely, what if Villanova didn’t push out Lappas for Wright? Or if Georgetown didn’t can Esherick for JTIII? Or if Marquette didn’t replace Deane with Crean?

There is always a risk and threat to get worse, but with our conference and program histories, they are necessary in order to compete and play at the highest levels. Settling for mediocrity, out of fear of becoming irrelevant, is accepting failure.

It’s the same risk/reward discussions we have on the MU board regarding Wojo.

Aside from Mike Deane (5 years), I think those coaches had long enough tenures of not meeting expectations to justify the dismissal. Even then, it was kind of just a 1 time thing for MU. Kevin O'Neill (before him) was hired away and Tom Crean after him was as well after a long tenure. I'm not against ever having a quick hook on a coach - I just think teams need to be careful to avoid that 4 year revolving door.

Jet915 wrote:

Hall2012 wrote:
I certainly get the recruiting frustration, but I think Mike Anderson's a guy who needs to recruit to his system rather than recruiting rankings and I think he's doing that. Last year the Big East was a monster. I get the frustration around this year, but his best player is a sohomore and he has a freshman running the point. Two years from now, Champagnie and Alexander are going to have SJU in the "best backcourt in the Big East" conversation. Plenty of Pirate fans are pissed about losing Posh Alexander to the Johnnies. I actually think SJU takes a noticeable jump next year.

As for Willard's year 5 class - it still didn't have an immediate impact. The disastrous year that nearly got Willard fired was that class' freshman year. It may have gotten the jump start he needed, but he's been recruiting mostly 3* with the occasional 4* ever since.

I agree about Anderson. Sure, his recruiting could be better but he recruits to a system. He deserves a couple more years. Alexander and Champagnie (not sure if he is on NBA radar?) make a nice nucleus to build around.

True, there probably is a risk of losing Champagnie early to the NBA and that would be a setback. At the same time though - putting kids in the NBA boosts recruiting so there's still a long term positive there. That actually may be the biggest knock against Willard - keeping kids around 4 years helps for on-court success but he's still yet to have a kid stick in the NBA and that's certainly being used against him in recruiting.

Not to be rude but how was 10th and 11th place finishes right before realignment and one NCAA appearance in 11years right in the thick of things? I guess 8-10 objectively showed progress if you just take conference record, though it's worth a check in to see who those wins came from, were they the Lousville, Georgetown, Marquette, Syracuse tier? or the Depaul Rutgers USF SHU PC tier?

Either way I'm personally ready to move on from Wojo, slight uptick in recruiting, uptick in good PR, major downward trend in anything else related to basketball.