Adios Tariq
- Thread starter paultzman
- Start date
- Status
[quote="SLYFOXX1968" post=279151]72, you are a good fan and your views are important . Throw out Mullin’s first year as it was largely a bare cupboard , left by the Coach who inherited a 9 Player Senior laden team that contained Dwight Hardy , a very high performing player for his breakout 1 year . That was one of Lavin’s 2 NCAA Teams . The other from his Senior laden team of DLO, Pointer, etc . Jordan played but, who amongst us , ever felt he was a team first guy ? Not many . The teams that are being successful , with some exception, are the Novas, Loyola, Xavier’s , that have concentrated on getting 4 year players . The Kentucky’s, NC and even, the Dookies have turned into 1 and done Programs . Sometimes it works , sometimes not . Mullin had to get quality players quickly . He brought in Simon and Clarke , 2 terrific high contributors that had to sit a year . They along with Ponds will be a very good nucleus for next year . With it without Owens . Many teams that are winners in the BE have also brought in quality 5 th year players . They fill a need that teams have but, just the 1 year . Hopefully we bring in a big kid who can play a little and bang underneath . We are missing that piece above all else . Get that and we compete for a NCAA spot next year . Team experience and playing together began to show in February for us , once the shock of Lovett disappearing settled in . We played very well in wins over Duke and Villanova . Big Wins ! Not many teams beat either the Cats or the Devils . It sprinkled gold dust on Mullin’s team for more than a few weeks . And , showed he had a team ! With a little luck and a few shots to drop , we had late season competitive games with SH , Creighton , Xavier, Providence , all tourney teams . We aren’t that far away heading into next season . A big man who can play is all we need to perform well .[/quote]
You are so completely delusional. I'll repost my reply the last time you tried to justify this record with some explanatory edits.
Since you're hung up on folks giving Lavin any credit for getting the first team to the dance his first year by increasing their win total by 4 and their conference wins by six let's drop Lavin's first year.
But you then need to acknowledge he had to recruit an entirely new team year 2. So from each coaches starting all over point, which is one you constantly raise, let's compare Lavin's next 3 years to Mullin, that's more fair, right?
In years 2/3/4 Lavin's teams never won less than 6 conference games, only had a losing record the first year with all the frosh, and made the post season with that rebuilt team in year 2 and every year thereafter. In fact his teams won 8 or more in conference every year he coached at STJ but one. Mullin is yet to win 8 ever. Lavin only had a losing record once. Mullin has had a losing record every year for three years Seriously, stick to the Norm comparisons. Mullin should surpass him next year . . . Maybe . PS Lavin was not a good coach nor a great recruiter any more at the end, but he still got his teams to the post season every year but one.
You are so completely delusional. I'll repost my reply the last time you tried to justify this record with some explanatory edits.
Since you're hung up on folks giving Lavin any credit for getting the first team to the dance his first year by increasing their win total by 4 and their conference wins by six let's drop Lavin's first year.
But you then need to acknowledge he had to recruit an entirely new team year 2. So from each coaches starting all over point, which is one you constantly raise, let's compare Lavin's next 3 years to Mullin, that's more fair, right?
In years 2/3/4 Lavin's teams never won less than 6 conference games, only had a losing record the first year with all the frosh, and made the post season with that rebuilt team in year 2 and every year thereafter. In fact his teams won 8 or more in conference every year he coached at STJ but one. Mullin is yet to win 8 ever. Lavin only had a losing record once. Mullin has had a losing record every year for three years Seriously, stick to the Norm comparisons. Mullin should surpass him next year . . . Maybe . PS Lavin was not a good coach nor a great recruiter any more at the end, but he still got his teams to the post season every year but one.
72,
Thanks for the response. I am not with you on the Marginal. I look at the RPI as the best measuring stick covering the entire season - not just the 18 BE league games. 240s to 140s to 90 is not marginal. Given what he took over (not knocking prior coach), you have to throw out the first season. Even Secretariat ran fourth in his first start.
The retention rate sucks, but look at the retention rates for other programs with a revolving door of head coaches. Even programs with coaches that never leave such as Cuse are now losing top players every year.
The Rohrssen matter and recruiting the troubled big guy were serious mistakes. Let's hope the large mistakes are in the past. Coaches do learn and grow in their jobs each year. Wright was not all that impressive during his first three years at Hofstra. It's not unusual for a coach to get into the post season in year four or five.
It's always interesting reading the board at this time of the year. We all want to see this team win next year. You and others are sensing a downward turn in year four. Based on the steady and gradual improvement I see it as more likely that we'll see a continuing climb up the RPI ladder.
Thanks for the response. I am not with you on the Marginal. I look at the RPI as the best measuring stick covering the entire season - not just the 18 BE league games. 240s to 140s to 90 is not marginal. Given what he took over (not knocking prior coach), you have to throw out the first season. Even Secretariat ran fourth in his first start.
The retention rate sucks, but look at the retention rates for other programs with a revolving door of head coaches. Even programs with coaches that never leave such as Cuse are now losing top players every year.
The Rohrssen matter and recruiting the troubled big guy were serious mistakes. Let's hope the large mistakes are in the past. Coaches do learn and grow in their jobs each year. Wright was not all that impressive during his first three years at Hofstra. It's not unusual for a coach to get into the post season in year four or five.
It's always interesting reading the board at this time of the year. We all want to see this team win next year. You and others are sensing a downward turn in year four. Based on the steady and gradual improvement I see it as more likely that we'll see a continuing climb up the RPI ladder.
Class of 72
Active member
[quote="OLV72" post=279162]72,
Thanks for the response. I am not with you on the Marginal. I look at the RPI as the best measuring stick covering the entire season - not just the 18 BE league games. 240s to 140s to 90 is not marginal. Given what he took over (not knocking prior coach), you have to throw out the first season. Even Secretariat ran fourth in his first start.
The retention rate sucks, but look at the retention rates for other programs with a revolving door of head coaches. Even programs with coaches that never leave such as Cuse are now losing top players every year.
The Rohrssen matter and recruiting the troubled big guy were serious mistakes. Let's hope the large mistakes are in the past. Coaches do learn and grow in their jobs each year. Wright was not all that impressive during his first three years at Hofstra. It's not unusual for a coach to get into the post season in year four or five.
It's always interesting reading the board at this time of the year. We all want to see this team win next year. You and others are sensing a downward turn in year four. Based on the steady and gradual improvement I see it as more likely that we'll see a continuing climb up the RPI ladder.[/quote]
RPI ladder. I feel like I am discussing Villanova and the middle 50% all over again.
The RPI means zero regarding how good a team is or how well it is coached. In fact, it doesn't reflect anything the coach is doing or not doing. Seventy-five % of the RPI has to do with who you play, the record of the team you play and the record of the teams the team you play. In dhort, it means who you play is more important than whether you win or lose. If we beat a Duke or a Kentucky every year it boosts our RPI but it doesn't mean we would win more than 6 Big East games and not finish near the bottom of the conference.
Some people use stats to prove the wrong point.
Thanks for the response. I am not with you on the Marginal. I look at the RPI as the best measuring stick covering the entire season - not just the 18 BE league games. 240s to 140s to 90 is not marginal. Given what he took over (not knocking prior coach), you have to throw out the first season. Even Secretariat ran fourth in his first start.
The retention rate sucks, but look at the retention rates for other programs with a revolving door of head coaches. Even programs with coaches that never leave such as Cuse are now losing top players every year.
The Rohrssen matter and recruiting the troubled big guy were serious mistakes. Let's hope the large mistakes are in the past. Coaches do learn and grow in their jobs each year. Wright was not all that impressive during his first three years at Hofstra. It's not unusual for a coach to get into the post season in year four or five.
It's always interesting reading the board at this time of the year. We all want to see this team win next year. You and others are sensing a downward turn in year four. Based on the steady and gradual improvement I see it as more likely that we'll see a continuing climb up the RPI ladder.[/quote]
RPI ladder. I feel like I am discussing Villanova and the middle 50% all over again.
The RPI means zero regarding how good a team is or how well it is coached. In fact, it doesn't reflect anything the coach is doing or not doing. Seventy-five % of the RPI has to do with who you play, the record of the team you play and the record of the teams the team you play. In dhort, it means who you play is more important than whether you win or lose. If we beat a Duke or a Kentucky every year it boosts our RPI but it doesn't mean we would win more than 6 Big East games and not finish near the bottom of the conference.
Some people use stats to prove the wrong point.
[quote="austour" post=279160][quote="SLYFOXX1968" post=279151]72, you are a good fan and your views are important . Throw out Mullin’s first year as it was largely a bare cupboard , left by the Coach who inherited a 9 Player Senior laden team that contained Dwight Hardy , a very high performing player for his breakout 1 year . That was one of Lavin’s 2 NCAA Teams . The other from his Senior laden team of DLO, Pointer, etc . Jordan played but, who amongst us , ever felt he was a team first guy ? Not many . The teams that are being successful , with some exception, are the Novas, Loyola, Xavier’s , that have concentrated on getting 4 year players . The Kentucky’s, NC and even, the Dookies have turned into 1 and done Programs . Sometimes it works , sometimes not . Mullin had to get quality players quickly . He brought in Simon and Clarke , 2 terrific high contributors that had to sit a year . They along with Ponds will be a very good nucleus for next year . With it without Owens . Many teams that are winners in the BE have also brought in quality 5 th year players . They fill a need that teams have but, just the 1 year . Hopefully we bring in a big kid who can play a little and bang underneath . We are missing that piece above all else . Get that and we compete for a NCAA spot next year . Team experience and playing together began to show in February for us , once the shock of Lovett disappearing settled in . We played very well in wins over Duke and Villanova . Big Wins ! Not many teams beat either the Cats or the Devils . It sprinkled gold dust on Mullin’s team for more than a few weeks . And , showed he had a team ! With a little luck and a few shots to drop , we had late season competitive games with SH , Creighton , Xavier, Providence , all tourney teams . We aren’t that far away heading into next season . A big man who can play is all we need to perform well .[/quote]
You are so completely delusional. I'll repost my reply the last time you tried to justify this record with some explanatory edits.
Since you're hung up on folks giving Lavin any credit for getting the first team to the dance his first year by increasing their win total by 4 and their conference wins by six let's drop Lavin's first year.
But you then need to acknowledge he had to recruit an entirely new team year 2. So from each coaches starting all over point, which is one you constantly raise, let's compare Lavin's next 3 years to Mullin, that's more fair, right?
In years 2/3/4 Lavin's teams never won less than 6 conference games, only had a losing record the first year with all the frosh, and made the post season with that rebuilt team in year 2 and every year thereafter. In fact his teams won 8 or more in conference every year he coached at STJ but one. Mullin is yet to win 8 ever. Lavin only had a losing record once. Mullin has had a losing record every year for three years Seriously, stick to the Norm comparisons. Mullin should surpass him next year . . . Maybe . PS Lavin was not a good coach nor a great recruiter any more at the end, but he still got his teams to the post season every year but one.[/quote]
Frankly, I wish he'd stop posting his disigenuous BS.
You are so completely delusional. I'll repost my reply the last time you tried to justify this record with some explanatory edits.
Since you're hung up on folks giving Lavin any credit for getting the first team to the dance his first year by increasing their win total by 4 and their conference wins by six let's drop Lavin's first year.
But you then need to acknowledge he had to recruit an entirely new team year 2. So from each coaches starting all over point, which is one you constantly raise, let's compare Lavin's next 3 years to Mullin, that's more fair, right?
In years 2/3/4 Lavin's teams never won less than 6 conference games, only had a losing record the first year with all the frosh, and made the post season with that rebuilt team in year 2 and every year thereafter. In fact his teams won 8 or more in conference every year he coached at STJ but one. Mullin is yet to win 8 ever. Lavin only had a losing record once. Mullin has had a losing record every year for three years Seriously, stick to the Norm comparisons. Mullin should surpass him next year . . . Maybe . PS Lavin was not a good coach nor a great recruiter any more at the end, but he still got his teams to the post season every year but one.[/quote]
Frankly, I wish he'd stop posting his disigenuous BS.
[quote="Class of 72" post=279168][quote="OLV72" post=279162]72,
Thanks for the response. I am not with you on the Marginal. I look at the RPI as the best measuring stick covering the entire season - not just the 18 BE league games. 240s to 140s to 90 is not marginal. Given what he took over (not knocking prior coach), you have to throw out the first season. Even Secretariat ran fourth in his first start.
The retention rate sucks, but look at the retention rates for other programs with a revolving door of head coaches. Even programs with coaches that never leave such as Cuse are now losing top players every year.
The Rohrssen matter and recruiting the troubled big guy were serious mistakes. Let's hope the large mistakes are in the past. Coaches do learn and grow in their jobs each year. Wright was not all that impressive during his first three years at Hofstra. It's not unusual for a coach to get into the post season in year four or five.
It's always interesting reading the board at this time of the year. We all want to see this team win next year. You and others are sensing a downward turn in year four. Based on the steady and gradual improvement I see it as more likely that we'll see a continuing climb up the RPI ladder.[/quote]
RPI ladder. I feel like I am discussing Villanova and the middle 50% all over again.
The RPI means zero regarding how good a team is or how well it is coached. In fact, it doesn't reflect anything the coach is doing or not doing. Seventy-five % of the RPI has to do with who you play, the record of the team you play and the record of the teams the team you play. In dhort, it means who you play is more important than whether you win or lose. If we beat a Duke or a Kentucky every year it boosts our RPI but it doesn't mean we would win more than 6 Big East games and not finish near the bottom of the conference.
Some people use stats to prove the wrong point.[/quote]
72, pretty marginal response. RPI means zero? OK, let's use total wins. 8 in the first season with an average schedule. 16 wins in year three with a top ten schedule. It's a better than a marginal improvement. You can project doom and gloom based on roster TO and the perception of the current recruiting effort this early in the open season on transfers. I'll wait till year four results before I think about giving up on this staff.
Happy Easter - keep the faith.
Thanks for the response. I am not with you on the Marginal. I look at the RPI as the best measuring stick covering the entire season - not just the 18 BE league games. 240s to 140s to 90 is not marginal. Given what he took over (not knocking prior coach), you have to throw out the first season. Even Secretariat ran fourth in his first start.
The retention rate sucks, but look at the retention rates for other programs with a revolving door of head coaches. Even programs with coaches that never leave such as Cuse are now losing top players every year.
The Rohrssen matter and recruiting the troubled big guy were serious mistakes. Let's hope the large mistakes are in the past. Coaches do learn and grow in their jobs each year. Wright was not all that impressive during his first three years at Hofstra. It's not unusual for a coach to get into the post season in year four or five.
It's always interesting reading the board at this time of the year. We all want to see this team win next year. You and others are sensing a downward turn in year four. Based on the steady and gradual improvement I see it as more likely that we'll see a continuing climb up the RPI ladder.[/quote]
RPI ladder. I feel like I am discussing Villanova and the middle 50% all over again.
The RPI means zero regarding how good a team is or how well it is coached. In fact, it doesn't reflect anything the coach is doing or not doing. Seventy-five % of the RPI has to do with who you play, the record of the team you play and the record of the teams the team you play. In dhort, it means who you play is more important than whether you win or lose. If we beat a Duke or a Kentucky every year it boosts our RPI but it doesn't mean we would win more than 6 Big East games and not finish near the bottom of the conference.
Some people use stats to prove the wrong point.[/quote]
72, pretty marginal response. RPI means zero? OK, let's use total wins. 8 in the first season with an average schedule. 16 wins in year three with a top ten schedule. It's a better than a marginal improvement. You can project doom and gloom based on roster TO and the perception of the current recruiting effort this early in the open season on transfers. I'll wait till year four results before I think about giving up on this staff.
Happy Easter - keep the faith.
For those who support Steve Lsvin , I say this . He is a good Studio Analyst and appears to be a job suited to his personality and West Coast style . In all likelihood he will never be offered another College Coaching job as a result of his resume with UCLA and St John’s . Wins and losses did not get Steve fired but, the way he Coached did . UCLA fans were delighted he was canned . He failed to deliver the results the School set for him . At St John’s he again failed to deliver the results the Administration expected . And , he kind of mailed it in , after a few seasons and let his very good first recruiting class carry him for the last 4 Years . 1 of the DLO teams , made the NCAA in 4 Years and lost to San Diego in first round . But, most of the Anti Mullin crowd on here are really Anti Pretty much everything about the Program and have been for more years than not . I would say more fans on this site and the other one , support Mullin than don’t . The Anti Mullin crowd is very vocal and follow a path of being more argumentative than the Pro Mullin Group . Mullin’s team will
Make the Tourney next season . Ponds , Clarke and Simon are All going to have big seasons next year .
Make the Tourney next season . Ponds , Clarke and Simon are All going to have big seasons next year .
[quote="SLYFOXX1968" post=279195]For those who support Steve Lsvin , I say this . He is a good Studio Analyst and appears to be a job suited to his personality and West Coast style . In all likelihood he will never be offered another College Coaching job as a result of his resume with UCLA and St John’s . Wins and losses did not get Steve fired but, the way he Coached did . UCLA fans were delighted he was canned . He failed to deliver the results the School set for him . At St John’s he again failed to deliver the results the Administration expected . And , he kind of mailed it in , after a few seasons and let his very good first recruiting class carry him for the last 4 Years . 1 of the DLO teams , made the NCAA in 4 Years and lost to San Diego in first round . But, most of the Anti Mullin crowd on here are really Anti Pretty much everything about the Program and have been for more years than not . I would say more fans on this site and the other one , support Mullin than don’t . The Anti Mullin crowd is very vocal and follow a path of being more argumentative than the Pro Mullin Group . Mullin’s team will
Make the Tourney next season . Ponds , Clarke and Simon are All going to have big seasons next year .[/quote]
I doubt anyone is actually anti-Mullin, other than the two posters who are pushing for Pitino. Stop with this choosing of sides like it's politics and projectiing your personality, as it's obvious you're anti-Lavin.
Several people aren't satisfied with the going-on's within the program, while a few other posters know what's actually going on, per recruiting.
Make the Tourney next season . Ponds , Clarke and Simon are All going to have big seasons next year .[/quote]
I doubt anyone is actually anti-Mullin, other than the two posters who are pushing for Pitino. Stop with this choosing of sides like it's politics and projectiing your personality, as it's obvious you're anti-Lavin.
Several people aren't satisfied with the going-on's within the program, while a few other posters know what's actually going on, per recruiting.
Lavin could coach again if he wanted to. He's a second generation lifer. Probably not a high major but a lot of jobs below that would be open to him. If Calhoun would coach at a startup hoops program, no reason to think that Lavin may not one day want to coach somewhere regardless of paycheck or profile.
Class of 72
Active member
[quote="Paul Massell" post=279197]Lavin could coach again if he wanted to. He's a second generation lifer. Probably not a high major but a lot of jobs below that would be open to him. If Calhoun would coach at a startup hoops program, no reason to think that Lavin may not one day want to coach somewhere regardless of paycheck or profile.[/quote]
Although he could coach somewhere, especially on the left coast I think Lavin has not handled the cumulative personal stress well after the cancer diagnosis, the loss of both parents and spousal issues. I'm not sure he misses the added stresses of recruiting, coaching as much in his more senior years. I think he is enjoying a more laid back life for now.
Although he could coach somewhere, especially on the left coast I think Lavin has not handled the cumulative personal stress well after the cancer diagnosis, the loss of both parents and spousal issues. I'm not sure he misses the added stresses of recruiting, coaching as much in his more senior years. I think he is enjoying a more laid back life for now.
Last edited:
[quote="SLYFOXX1968" post=279195]For those who support Steve Lsvin , I say this . He is a good Studio Analyst and appears to be a job suited to his personality and West Coast style . In all likelihood he will never be offered another College Coaching job as a result of his resume with UCLA and St John’s . Wins and losses did not get Steve fired but, the way he Coached did . UCLA fans were delighted he was canned . He failed to deliver the results the School set for him . At St John’s he again failed to deliver the results the Administration expected . And , he kind of mailed it in , after a few seasons and let his very good first recruiting class carry him for the last 4 Years . 1 of the DLO teams , made the NCAA in 4 Years and lost to San Diego in first round . But, most of the Anti Mullin crowd on here are really Anti Pretty much everything about the Program and have been for more years than not . I would say more fans on this site and the other one , support Mullin than don’t . The Anti Mullin crowd is very vocal and follow a path of being more argumentative than the Pro Mullin Group . Mullin’s team will
Make the Tourney next season . Ponds , Clarke and Simon are All going to have big seasons next year .[/quote]
I'm sure you think I'm anti Mullin and pro Lavin. I'm not. I use Lavin only because he is the most recent comp available. Did you know that no coach in STJ history has won less than 17 conference games in 3 years (Mahoney) before Mullin crushed that record with 12? Did you know that the worst overall winning percentage by a STJ coach was 45% (Norm of course) before Chris's present record dipped down to 39%? (and FWIW Norm's winning % through year 3 was 44%) See, I can compare Chris to any number of coaches and still see the last three years for the abject failures that they have been. See the incoming glass for the big bowl of meh that it is. See the staff for the bench of misfit boys that they are. See the entire basketball program and everyone in the university involved with it as the complete mid major fustercluck it has turned into. Has nothing to do with Lavin anymore.
All that said, I hope that they turn this sinking ship around year 4. It is imperative that they do so because if they don't the program will likely reach a nadir that will transform it into a DePaul identical twin for an extended period of time.
Make the Tourney next season . Ponds , Clarke and Simon are All going to have big seasons next year .[/quote]
I'm sure you think I'm anti Mullin and pro Lavin. I'm not. I use Lavin only because he is the most recent comp available. Did you know that no coach in STJ history has won less than 17 conference games in 3 years (Mahoney) before Mullin crushed that record with 12? Did you know that the worst overall winning percentage by a STJ coach was 45% (Norm of course) before Chris's present record dipped down to 39%? (and FWIW Norm's winning % through year 3 was 44%) See, I can compare Chris to any number of coaches and still see the last three years for the abject failures that they have been. See the incoming glass for the big bowl of meh that it is. See the staff for the bench of misfit boys that they are. See the entire basketball program and everyone in the university involved with it as the complete mid major fustercluck it has turned into. Has nothing to do with Lavin anymore.
All that said, I hope that they turn this sinking ship around year 4. It is imperative that they do so because if they don't the program will likely reach a nadir that will transform it into a DePaul identical twin for an extended period of time.
[quote="OLV72" post=279162]72,
Thanks for the response. I am not with you on the Marginal. I look at the RPI as the best measuring stick covering the entire season - not just the 18 BE league games. 240s to 140s to 90 is not marginal. Given what he took over (not knocking prior coach), you have to throw out the first season. Even Secretariat ran fourth in his first start.
The retention rate sucks, but look at the retention rates for other programs with a revolving door of head coaches. Even programs with coaches that never leave such as Cuse are now losing top players every year.
The Rohrssen matter and recruiting the troubled big guy were serious mistakes. Let's hope the large mistakes are in the past. Coaches do learn and grow in their jobs each year. Wright was not all that impressive during his first three years at Hofstra. It's not unusual for a coach to get into the post season in year four or five.
It's always interesting reading the board at this time of the year. We all want to see this team win next year. You and others are sensing a downward turn in year four. Based on the steady and gradual improvement I see it as more likely that we'll see a continuing climb up the RPI ladder.[/quote]
Not that I'm a Lavin fan but his "RPI ladder" after he rebuilt the team went 160-93-65-36 and that wasn't good enough to keep his job.
Thanks for the response. I am not with you on the Marginal. I look at the RPI as the best measuring stick covering the entire season - not just the 18 BE league games. 240s to 140s to 90 is not marginal. Given what he took over (not knocking prior coach), you have to throw out the first season. Even Secretariat ran fourth in his first start.
The retention rate sucks, but look at the retention rates for other programs with a revolving door of head coaches. Even programs with coaches that never leave such as Cuse are now losing top players every year.
The Rohrssen matter and recruiting the troubled big guy were serious mistakes. Let's hope the large mistakes are in the past. Coaches do learn and grow in their jobs each year. Wright was not all that impressive during his first three years at Hofstra. It's not unusual for a coach to get into the post season in year four or five.
It's always interesting reading the board at this time of the year. We all want to see this team win next year. You and others are sensing a downward turn in year four. Based on the steady and gradual improvement I see it as more likely that we'll see a continuing climb up the RPI ladder.[/quote]
Not that I'm a Lavin fan
but his "RPI ladder" after he rebuilt the team went 160-93-65-36 and that wasn't good enough to keep his job.[quote="Class of 72" post=279224][quote="Paul Massell" post=279197]Lavin could coach again if he wanted to. He's a second generation lifer. Probably not a high major but a lot of jobs below that would be open to him. If Calhoun would coach at a startup hoops program, no reason to think that Lavin may not one day want to coach somewhere regardless of paycheck or profile.[/quote]
Although he could coach somewhere, especially on the left coast I think Lavin has not handled the cumulative personal stress well after the cancer diagnosis, the loss of both parents and spousal issues. I'm not sure he misses the added stresses of recruiting, coaching as much in his more senior years. I think he is enjoying a more laid back life for now.[/quote]
I liked Lavin and didn’t think he should be fired but did believe he needed to step up recruiting effort. I like Mullin. He did inherit a bad situation but it was a function of Lavin being fired (administration decision) - not Lavins fault.
Mullins 1st season was an absolute throwaway and not his fault. The timing of his hire did set back roster development for 1st year and required recruiting over the year 1 guys in year 2. So he was running uphill. That said, he owns the turnover and limited recruiting results in year 3. These are indisputable. I have no idea whether he is beating the bushes on the recruiting trail. If he isn’t, he needs to be as this is a big year and there are no excuses.
Although he could coach somewhere, especially on the left coast I think Lavin has not handled the cumulative personal stress well after the cancer diagnosis, the loss of both parents and spousal issues. I'm not sure he misses the added stresses of recruiting, coaching as much in his more senior years. I think he is enjoying a more laid back life for now.[/quote]
I liked Lavin and didn’t think he should be fired but did believe he needed to step up recruiting effort. I like Mullin. He did inherit a bad situation but it was a function of Lavin being fired (administration decision) - not Lavins fault.
Mullins 1st season was an absolute throwaway and not his fault. The timing of his hire did set back roster development for 1st year and required recruiting over the year 1 guys in year 2. So he was running uphill. That said, he owns the turnover and limited recruiting results in year 3. These are indisputable. I have no idea whether he is beating the bushes on the recruiting trail. If he isn’t, he needs to be as this is a big year and there are no excuses.
Class of 72
Active member
[quote="austour" post=279226][quote="OLV72" post=279162]72,
Thanks for the response. I am not with you on the Marginal. I look at the RPI as the best measuring stick covering the entire season - not just the 18 BE league games. 240s to 140s to 90 is not marginal. Given what he took over (not knocking prior coach), you have to throw out the first season. Even Secretariat ran fourth in his first start.
The retention rate sucks, but look at the retention rates for other programs with a revolving door of head coaches. Even programs with coaches that never leave such as Cuse are now losing top players every year.
The Rohrssen matter and recruiting the troubled big guy were serious mistakes. Let's hope the large mistakes are in the past. Coaches do learn and grow in their jobs each year. Wright was not all that impressive during his first three years at Hofstra. It's not unusual for a coach to get into the post season in year four or five.
It's always interesting reading the board at this time of the year. We all want to see this team win next year. You and others are sensing a downward turn in year four. Based on the steady and gradual improvement I see it as more likely that we'll see a continuing climb up the RPI ladder.[/quote]
Not that I'm a Lavin fan but his "RPI ladder" after he rebuilt the team went 160-93-65-36 and that wasn't good enough to keep his job.[/quote]
What I can't understand by only a half dozen or so fans here is the utter disdain for a former coach that was responsible for restoring some pride in a moribund program. Those detractors cherry pick from a disgruntled UCLA blogger ' comments made a dozen years ago to the Rasheed Jordan tragedy to the weed testing of Obekpa to tarnish what coach Lavin really accomplished. What preceded him was a team of low achievers who never won anything.
My redmen.com buddies here like to point to Mullin's teams marginal progress as if it is impressive compared to the Lavin years.
In 2010-11, we saw a return to national prominence by posting a 21-12 record, marking St. John’s most wins since the 2002-03 season, with six top 25 victories, four over Top 10 opponents and an appearance in the NCAA Tournament for the first time since 2002. In 2013, we returned to the postseason once again with a NIT appearance and first-round victory and a 20-win season in 2014 landed St. John’s another postseason NIT Berth. In 2015, we went to the NCAA Tournament again.
Tony Chiles was Lavin's Matt Abdelmassih who aided Lav in the signing of the nation’s No. 3 recruiting class in 2011, the No. 8 class in 2012 and the top recruit of the Lavin Era in Philadelphia’s Rysheed Jordan in 2013.
Those few fans that constantly knock Lavin are the same "fans" that knock fans for objective comments about Mullin. Go figure! They are content in spending almost $4 million annually for the most inexperienced staff in college basketball, with three straight last place finishes.
This staff better show better recruiting soon because even the Mullin loyalists will turn on him in a New York minute if we keep focusing on 2 star sit out transfers to replenish the departing players.
Thanks for the response. I am not with you on the Marginal. I look at the RPI as the best measuring stick covering the entire season - not just the 18 BE league games. 240s to 140s to 90 is not marginal. Given what he took over (not knocking prior coach), you have to throw out the first season. Even Secretariat ran fourth in his first start.
The retention rate sucks, but look at the retention rates for other programs with a revolving door of head coaches. Even programs with coaches that never leave such as Cuse are now losing top players every year.
The Rohrssen matter and recruiting the troubled big guy were serious mistakes. Let's hope the large mistakes are in the past. Coaches do learn and grow in their jobs each year. Wright was not all that impressive during his first three years at Hofstra. It's not unusual for a coach to get into the post season in year four or five.
It's always interesting reading the board at this time of the year. We all want to see this team win next year. You and others are sensing a downward turn in year four. Based on the steady and gradual improvement I see it as more likely that we'll see a continuing climb up the RPI ladder.[/quote]
Not that I'm a Lavin fan
but his "RPI ladder" after he rebuilt the team went 160-93-65-36 and that wasn't good enough to keep his job.[/quote]What I can't understand by only a half dozen or so fans here is the utter disdain for a former coach that was responsible for restoring some pride in a moribund program. Those detractors cherry pick from a disgruntled UCLA blogger ' comments made a dozen years ago to the Rasheed Jordan tragedy to the weed testing of Obekpa to tarnish what coach Lavin really accomplished. What preceded him was a team of low achievers who never won anything.
My redmen.com buddies here like to point to Mullin's teams marginal progress as if it is impressive compared to the Lavin years.
In 2010-11, we saw a return to national prominence by posting a 21-12 record, marking St. John’s most wins since the 2002-03 season, with six top 25 victories, four over Top 10 opponents and an appearance in the NCAA Tournament for the first time since 2002. In 2013, we returned to the postseason once again with a NIT appearance and first-round victory and a 20-win season in 2014 landed St. John’s another postseason NIT Berth. In 2015, we went to the NCAA Tournament again.
Tony Chiles was Lavin's Matt Abdelmassih who aided Lav in the signing of the nation’s No. 3 recruiting class in 2011, the No. 8 class in 2012 and the top recruit of the Lavin Era in Philadelphia’s Rysheed Jordan in 2013.
Those few fans that constantly knock Lavin are the same "fans" that knock fans for objective comments about Mullin. Go figure! They are content in spending almost $4 million annually for the most inexperienced staff in college basketball, with three straight last place finishes.
This staff better show better recruiting soon because even the Mullin loyalists will turn on him in a New York minute if we keep focusing on 2 star sit out transfers to replenish the departing players.
Last edited:
[quote="Class of 72" post=279232][quote="austour" post=279226][quote="OLV72" post=279162]72,
Thanks for the response. I am not with you on the Marginal. I look at the RPI as the best measuring stick covering the entire season - not just the 18 BE league games. 240s to 140s to 90 is not marginal. Given what he took over (not knocking prior coach), you have to throw out the first season. Even Secretariat ran fourth in his first start.
The retention rate sucks, but look at the retention rates for other programs with a revolving door of head coaches. Even programs with coaches that never leave such as Cuse are now losing top players every year.
The Rohrssen matter and recruiting the troubled big guy were serious mistakes. Let's hope the large mistakes are in the past. Coaches do learn and grow in their jobs each year. Wright was not all that impressive during his first three years at Hofstra. It's not unusual for a coach to get into the post season in year four or five.
It's always interesting reading the board at this time of the year. We all want to see this team win next year. You and others are sensing a downward turn in year four. Based on the steady and gradual improvement I see it as more likely that we'll see a continuing climb up the RPI ladder.[/quote]
Not that I'm a Lavin fan but his "RPI ladder" after he rebuilt the team went 160-93-65-36 and that wasn't good enough to keep his job.[/quote]
What I can't understand by only a half dozen or so fans here is the utter disdain for a former coach that was responsible for restoring some pride in a moribund program. Those detractors cherry pick from a disgruntled UCLA blogger ' comments made a dozen years ago to the Rasheed Jordan tragedy to the weed testing of Obekpa to tarnish what coach Lavin really accomplished. What preceded him was a team of low achievers who never won anything.
My redmen.com buddies here like to point to Mullin's teams marginal progress as if it is impressive compared to the Lavin years.
In 2010-11, we saw a return to national prominence by posting a 21-12 record, marking St. John’s most wins since the 2002-03 season, with six top 25 victories, four over Top 10 opponents and an appearance in the NCAA Tournament for the first time since 2002. In 2013, we returned to the postseason once again with a NIT appearance and first-round victory and a 20-win season in 2014 landed St. John’s another postseason NIT Berth. In 2015, we went to the NCAA Tournament again.
Tony Chiles was Lavin's Matt Abdelmassih who aided Lav in the signing of the nation’s No. 3 recruiting class in 2011, the No. 8 class in 2012 and the top recruit of the Lavin Era in Philadelphia’s Rysheed Jordan in 2013.
Those few fans that constantly knock Lavin are the same "fans" that knock fans for objective comments about Mullin. Go figure! They are content in spenfing almost $4 million annually for the most inexperienced staff in college basketball, with three straight last place finishes.
This staff better show better recruiting soon because even the Mullin loyalists will turn on him in a New York minute if we keep focusing on 2 star sit out transfers to replenish the departing players.[/quote]
I agree 72. If you want to win on this level you need a coach who is an animal on the recruiting trail. I don’t blame Matt at all. He shouldn’t be doing this all by himself. If this staff can’t bring two quality bigs in here who play this season it’s a travesty considering what they are getting paid.
I do believe that if Lovett and Wilson played we would have won 20 games and made the tournament this season but that’s the problem with this program, it’s always something and it’s always If this , if that. It’s gotten tiring and this staff needs to produce this recruiting class and next season.
Thanks for the response. I am not with you on the Marginal. I look at the RPI as the best measuring stick covering the entire season - not just the 18 BE league games. 240s to 140s to 90 is not marginal. Given what he took over (not knocking prior coach), you have to throw out the first season. Even Secretariat ran fourth in his first start.
The retention rate sucks, but look at the retention rates for other programs with a revolving door of head coaches. Even programs with coaches that never leave such as Cuse are now losing top players every year.
The Rohrssen matter and recruiting the troubled big guy were serious mistakes. Let's hope the large mistakes are in the past. Coaches do learn and grow in their jobs each year. Wright was not all that impressive during his first three years at Hofstra. It's not unusual for a coach to get into the post season in year four or five.
It's always interesting reading the board at this time of the year. We all want to see this team win next year. You and others are sensing a downward turn in year four. Based on the steady and gradual improvement I see it as more likely that we'll see a continuing climb up the RPI ladder.[/quote]
Not that I'm a Lavin fan
but his "RPI ladder" after he rebuilt the team went 160-93-65-36 and that wasn't good enough to keep his job.[/quote]What I can't understand by only a half dozen or so fans here is the utter disdain for a former coach that was responsible for restoring some pride in a moribund program. Those detractors cherry pick from a disgruntled UCLA blogger ' comments made a dozen years ago to the Rasheed Jordan tragedy to the weed testing of Obekpa to tarnish what coach Lavin really accomplished. What preceded him was a team of low achievers who never won anything.
My redmen.com buddies here like to point to Mullin's teams marginal progress as if it is impressive compared to the Lavin years.
In 2010-11, we saw a return to national prominence by posting a 21-12 record, marking St. John’s most wins since the 2002-03 season, with six top 25 victories, four over Top 10 opponents and an appearance in the NCAA Tournament for the first time since 2002. In 2013, we returned to the postseason once again with a NIT appearance and first-round victory and a 20-win season in 2014 landed St. John’s another postseason NIT Berth. In 2015, we went to the NCAA Tournament again.
Tony Chiles was Lavin's Matt Abdelmassih who aided Lav in the signing of the nation’s No. 3 recruiting class in 2011, the No. 8 class in 2012 and the top recruit of the Lavin Era in Philadelphia’s Rysheed Jordan in 2013.
Those few fans that constantly knock Lavin are the same "fans" that knock fans for objective comments about Mullin. Go figure! They are content in spenfing almost $4 million annually for the most inexperienced staff in college basketball, with three straight last place finishes.
This staff better show better recruiting soon because even the Mullin loyalists will turn on him in a New York minute if we keep focusing on 2 star sit out transfers to replenish the departing players.[/quote]
I agree 72. If you want to win on this level you need a coach who is an animal on the recruiting trail. I don’t blame Matt at all. He shouldn’t be doing this all by himself. If this staff can’t bring two quality bigs in here who play this season it’s a travesty considering what they are getting paid.
I do believe that if Lovett and Wilson played we would have won 20 games and made the tournament this season but that’s the problem with this program, it’s always something and it’s always If this , if that. It’s gotten tiring and this staff needs to produce this recruiting class and next season.
redfan259999888
Active member
[quote="Sherman, Sheridan & Grant" post=279095][quote="SLYFOXX1968" post=279078]72,”Mullin has a hard time getting respect?” By who ? Besides you ..,. Manute Bol’s Kid ? Never Nervous Ellison had Malik here for 2 Years , including frosh season . Malik wasn’t that highly recruited out of HS and he would have been a sub or role player this year . He was a average player at best . Played well in spurts , poorly in others . Could we have used him this Year ? Absolutely , with Lovett disappearance . He had good size as a big guard but, not on Simon’s level . Who , among former NBA players has not shown Mullin respect ? Just because their kids may go elsewhere isn’t on Chris , in my view . Some grew up out West or far away locations. Jamaica , NY is a unknown location for most of them . And, I think much of the lack in getting more High Profile kids is due to our near 20 year plummet in on Court results . Not just during Mullin’s tenure . We are still rebuilding a Program as a result .[/quote]
SFXX68
Absolutely what you wrote:
We are still rebuilding a Program as a result .[/quote]
Thanks...and old news(not fake news lol) = it takes times to rebuild and we are re-building.
WE ARE RE-BUILDING
WE ARE ST.JOHNS !!![/quote]
Ahhh for craps freaking sake, it could be year10, and it'll still be the rebuilding BS??????
Yeah I get it, lets protect our legend.
But lets ask: :WHY IS IT REBUILDING GOING INTO YEAR 4 OF CHRIS MULLIN?
Maybe because 2 or 3 kids leave a year?
We all agree that Mullin needs help, but he's to stubborn to look for it, well is it possible that his stubbornness is what's hurting the school?
SFXX68
Absolutely what you wrote:
We are still rebuilding a Program as a result .[/quote]
Thanks...and old news(not fake news lol) = it takes times to rebuild and we are re-building.
WE ARE RE-BUILDING
WE ARE ST.JOHNS !!![/quote]
Ahhh for craps freaking sake, it could be year10, and it'll still be the rebuilding BS??????
Yeah I get it, lets protect our legend.
But lets ask: :WHY IS IT REBUILDING GOING INTO YEAR 4 OF CHRIS MULLIN?
Maybe because 2 or 3 kids leave a year?
We all agree that Mullin needs help, but he's to stubborn to look for it, well is it possible that his stubbornness is what's hurting the school?
[quote="austour" post=279226][quote="OLV72" post=279162]72,
Thanks for the response. I am not with you on the Marginal. I look at the RPI as the best measuring stick covering the entire season - not just the 18 BE league games. 240s to 140s to 90 is not marginal. Given what he took over (not knocking prior coach), you have to throw out the first season. Even Secretariat ran fourth in his first start.
The retention rate sucks, but look at the retention rates for other programs with a revolving door of head coaches. Even programs with coaches that never leave such as Cuse are now losing top players every year.
The Rohrssen matter and recruiting the troubled big guy were serious mistakes. Let's hope the large mistakes are in the past. Coaches do learn and grow in their jobs each year. Wright was not all that impressive during his first three years at Hofstra. It's not unusual for a coach to get into the post season in year four or five.
It's always interesting reading the board at this time of the year. We all want to see this team win next year. You and others are sensing a downward turn in year four. Based on the steady and gradual improvement I see it as more likely that we'll see a continuing climb up the RPI ladder.[/quote]
Not that I'm a Lavin fan but his "RPI ladder" after he rebuilt the team went 160-93-65-36 and that wasn't good enough to keep his job.[/quote]
I was one of 65% who voted on this board to keep Lavin. The revolving door of head coaches has probably done more damage to the program than anything else.
Johnny fans piling on Mullin with multiple posts a day after year three is pretty surprising given that they inherited an empty roster. It's pretty much the same four or five people. We all know you think the staff is lazy and suck at running the team.
Thanks for the response. I am not with you on the Marginal. I look at the RPI as the best measuring stick covering the entire season - not just the 18 BE league games. 240s to 140s to 90 is not marginal. Given what he took over (not knocking prior coach), you have to throw out the first season. Even Secretariat ran fourth in his first start.
The retention rate sucks, but look at the retention rates for other programs with a revolving door of head coaches. Even programs with coaches that never leave such as Cuse are now losing top players every year.
The Rohrssen matter and recruiting the troubled big guy were serious mistakes. Let's hope the large mistakes are in the past. Coaches do learn and grow in their jobs each year. Wright was not all that impressive during his first three years at Hofstra. It's not unusual for a coach to get into the post season in year four or five.
It's always interesting reading the board at this time of the year. We all want to see this team win next year. You and others are sensing a downward turn in year four. Based on the steady and gradual improvement I see it as more likely that we'll see a continuing climb up the RPI ladder.[/quote]
Not that I'm a Lavin fan
but his "RPI ladder" after he rebuilt the team went 160-93-65-36 and that wasn't good enough to keep his job.[/quote]I was one of 65% who voted on this board to keep Lavin. The revolving door of head coaches has probably done more damage to the program than anything else.
Johnny fans piling on Mullin with multiple posts a day after year three is pretty surprising given that they inherited an empty roster. It's pretty much the same four or five people. We all know you think the staff is lazy and suck at running the team.
beast of the east
Active member
Phil Booth's dad (who played at Coppin State) sounds like the perfect basketball parent. Jay Wright on what Booth's dad told him before he enrolled: "When he comes to you, you got him 4 years. You're not going to hear from me. We'll be at the games, but he's yours."
[quote="Beast of the East" post=279256]Phil Booth's dad (who played at Coppin State) sounds like the perfect basketball parent. Jay Wright on what Booth's dad told him before he enrolled: "When he comes to you, you got him 4 years. You're not going to hear from me. We'll be at the games, but he's yours."[/quote]
Love the old school attitude. Players should take note of Villanova right now. They share the ball and play unselfishly in all situations. And, here is the biggest thing, there are multiple players being evaluated by NBA scouts. Heck, last night, Mikal Bridges who is generally accepted to be a lottery pick, had just 10 points. NBA scouts don't read box scores, they evaluate skills. No need to constantly be "the man".
Love the old school attitude. Players should take note of Villanova right now. They share the ball and play unselfishly in all situations. And, here is the biggest thing, there are multiple players being evaluated by NBA scouts. Heck, last night, Mikal Bridges who is generally accepted to be a lottery pick, had just 10 points. NBA scouts don't read box scores, they evaluate skills. No need to constantly be "the man".
Last edited:
- Status