Around the Big East 18/19

[quote="Mike Zaun" post=349861][quote="Adam" post=349829][quote="Mike Zaun" post=349799]I think Cooley is a good coach but a bit exaggerated in terms of just how good. He has shown he can win about 20+ games for PC but has been unable to get those huge national wins that make headlines or do anything in the big dance. He seems like an awesome guy to hang around and he's hilarious. Oozes personality, but just not sure he's the guy who will take PC to the next level...unless of course he does. IMO there are shades of Lavin winning 20+ I believe 3 yrs with us, however they were pretty hollow with ho-hum conference records and pretty much nothing in the big dance. PC has had our number under Cooley but by no means are they some monster. They struggle a lot offensively and lack big time playmakers to lead the team IMO. To be clear, I'd be totally satisfied with what Cooley has done if he was here doing it, however I would also expect him to finally prove he can make a Sweet 16 or something.[/quote]

Lol. So a page ago you were complaining about how the Big East is doomed since Michigan was poaching Cooley, and now that he's staying you're complaining about how he won't take PC to the next level? Is this supposed to be satire? Same thing happened last month when VT went after Willard.

Here is everything that has happened since realignment 6-7 years ago:

Schools that have not been poached: Seton Hall (turned down Pitt and VT), Providence (turned down Michigan), Villanova (turned down everyone including UCLA and the NBA), Creighton (turned down Ohio St), Georgetown (Ewing won't leave unless for the NBA possibly), St. John's, DePaul. Bonus: Marquette (Wojo) turned down VT according to the VT message board,
Schools that have been poached: Marquette (VT), Butler (NBA/Ohio St), Xavier (Louisville)

So 1 coach was poached during year 1 by a meh ACC school. Buzz's replacement Wojo then turned down the same exact school last month. That to me sounds like progress.

The other 3 coaches were taken by powerhouses Louisville, Ohio St, and the Boston Celtics. Those are some of the highest paid basketball jobs in the country. They were also taken from recently added Big East teams (formerly A10) and not the old guard.

Then we have tons of known attempts to poach Big East coaches from the NBA, UCLA, Ohio St, Michigan, Pitt, and likely dozens of others that were never made public.

Meanwhile, other conferences including the two biggest ones were poached this year: ACC (by the SEC) / B1G (by the NBA). The Big East has kept everyone even after that awful Tournament performance.

Really makes you wonder why some fans choose to push a false narrative. Thank God those in charge have more sense.[/quote]

Adam, ask any national hoops pundit without bias towards Big East about this. Again, you can be both a huge fan of SJ but also have real critiques...and you can be both a huge fan of the Big East but also have real critiques simultaneously. The Big East succeeded in transforming Nova into a blue blood and being the strongest conference top to bottom in America. It has succeeded with tourney bids and solidified itself as a major conference even post realignment which many did not expect. However, the tournament performances post realignment has been awful aside from Villanova and one year each or so from Butler and Xavier. Those two programs are rebuilding and lost their coaches that took them deep. We look great during the regular season but then we open the door to criticism from pundits when we lose immediately in the tourney. You don't think that affects perception? This has been a consistent theme, not 1 year.

The common fan thinks the Big East is dead...I know because when I talk hoops with average fans they say "Didn't Syracuse and UConn leave? It's not the same". We have done well in spite of all the realignment, however we still have to prove ourselves and we are still seen as just VIllanova like it or not. This is why I'm worried about perception. I know we need a strong core of big time coaches to stay for at least a decade if we want consistency and good perception. I'm happy so far with MA but remember we were turned down by Hurley for Arizona State which is a joke of a basketball school traditionally. Money matters and I just worry about our ability to hire big time coaches and keep big time coaches if they develop into them. It's completely rational and pundits would agree with me. I'm impressed and glad Cooley stayed away from Michigan which helps perception, however these concerns will continue to come up. Every time a F5 coach leaves or gets fired, it seems BE coaches are on the top of the list. That won't change and not all will turn them down like Willard, Wright, Cooley, etc. I know it's part of the game but I don't remember this coaching carousel in the old Big East.[/quote]

You begin this post by pivoting to the Big East's tournament performance. As I said a few pages back, I obviously agree that some of the other 9 teams in our league need to step up (which I fully expect to happen). At the same time, Nova winning it all 2X is the best single thing any of us could have hoped for. If given the option, how many of us would redo tournaments for the past 6 years (not counting St. John's) and perhaps get more teams to the second weekends but risk missing out on those Titles? For me, the answer would be an obvious "no". Jenkin's shot is perhaps the greatest moment in Tournament history.

"The common fan thinks the Big East is dead" is ridiculous and based purely on anecdote. Are you talking with salty UConn fans? Or simply people with zero knowledge of the game who maybe fill out an office bracket once every few years? The common fan knows the league is not as elite as it was 7 years ago, that is just a fact and old news from 7 years ago. You can look no further than 10 teams vs 15 and know we were never sending 11 teams to the Tournament again. However, thinking we are dead makes no sense when our conference tournament sells better than every conference in the country and Nova has been the most relevant team in college basketball over the past 6 years.

The best thing is that there is a LOT of room for improvement going forward, especially if teams like Georgetown, St. John's, and DePaul can get things going. All 3 are on the right track and it wouldn't shock to see all 3 make the Tournament a couple years from now. If we are "dead" now, then we might need a second Garden for when we finally wake up. No idea how they're going to keep up with ticket demand!

Getting back to the topic, equating "interest" in our coaches with "leaving" is insane. There is interest in them because they have been damn good for a long time now. A much more rationale way of looking at this is saying "Wow, Ed Cooley just turned down blue blood Michigan so he can stay at PC! That has got to raise PC's profile!"

Here are the facts: during the past couple months, UCLA, Michigan, Virginia Tech, and likely many others have tried to poach Wright, Cooley, Wojo, and Willard. You panicked every time it was about to happen. Now that NONE of that happened, you are somehow saying it's still a bad thing that elite schools like Michigan and UCLA got turned down by our coaches? You just find fault no matter what happens, as shown in your complete 180 on Cooley. Just admit that it has been a damn impressive "coaching carousel" year for the Big East, especially when the ACC, AAC, B1G, and others can't say the same.
 
Last edited:
Willard did not turn down Pitt. In fact I think he would have taken the first flight he could. This is a guy who almost left for Holy Cross and South Florida. He didn’t turn down Va Tech, apparently, but they were more about Buzz than being a consistent good hoops program. I think the Hall job is comparable if it pays in the ballpark and my guess is they upped that snake near what Va Tech was considering.

Wright telling everyone “no” is awesome for the league and if McDermott and Cooley both turned down Oh St and Mich respectively that’s a pretty nice statement as well.
 
[quote="Rob" post=349960]Willard did not turn down Pitt. In fact I think he would have taken the first flight he could. This is a guy who almost left for Holy Cross and South Florida. He didn’t turn down Va Tech, apparently, but they were more about Buzz than being a consistent good hoops program. I think the Hall job is comparable if it pays in the ballpark and my guess is they upped that snake near what Va Tech was considering.

Wright telling everyone “no” is awesome for the league and if McDermott and Cooley both turned down Oh St and Mich respectively that’s a pretty nice statement as well.[/quote]

I guess you can say Willard didn't turn down VT. But he did remove his name from consideration while he was reportedly a serious candidate.
 
Adam, I agree it's great to see Cooley and Wright turning down much better jobs with way more money, however my concern is that this will not be the norm going forward. Regardless of how the change comes about, having a revolving door for coaches at around half of the conference is not good for the conference. In just the last several years, Butler (2x), Xavier, Marquette, DePaul, St. John's, and G'Town have all had coaching changes. That's 60% of the conference. Correct me if I'm wrong and I hope I am, but I doubt any other major conference has had that much change.

All I'm saying is I hope the coaches turn out to be good hires (the ones the jury is still out on) and that they stick for a long time. I know in the case of guys like Stevens, Holtmann, Mack, etc. they got plucked because they were so good. It's bitter sweet though, because although it was for a good reason, it still causes some rebuilding for programs and interrupts the continuity. If we are to remain as a major conference we must show evidence of it with our coaches...that's one metric used...you need stud coaches and you need to keep them. I'm just worried that the bidding wars are getting harder and harder with F5 schools upping the ante and the gap just gets bigger in money to the point we can't even keep our good ones aside from rare exceptions. I hope you're right but it's an absolutely valid concern.

As for Cooley, like I said he's a glorified Steve Lavin that has done a lot better in the Big East Tourney. Good recruiter, great person, easy to like, can win you 20+ games, but just cannot get over that hump and go on occasional runs in the tourney. Cooley is clearly a good coach, I just think he's overrated until he can do anything in the tourney. I was on Michigan forums and they said the same thing I am. He can very well get over the hump but until he proves it, this is my stance.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=349973].................................. As for Cooley, like I said he's a glorified Steve Lavin.... .[/quote]

I could not disagree more.
 
[quote="otis" post=349976][quote="Mike Zaun" post=349973].................................. As for Cooley, like I said he's a glorified Steve Lavin.... .[/quote]

I could not disagree more.[/quote]

Similarities:
1. Great personality/personable
2. Good recruiter
3. Ability to win 20+ games consistently
4. Cooley lifetime .596% Lavin .561 at each school
5. Poor NCAA performances consistently

Differences:
1. Cooley has had much better BET performances and won a BEC while Lavin was awful in any tournament
2. Cooley had less talented recruits (few exceptions like Dunn) but is clearly the better coach and can develop players

Don't see what's so radical about that.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=349979][quote="otis" post=349976][quote="Mike Zaun" post=349973].................................. As for Cooley, like I said he's a glorified Steve Lavin.... .[/quote]

I could not disagree more.[/quote]

Similarities:
1. Great personality/personable
2. Good recruiter
3. Ability to win 20+ games consistently
4. Cooley lifetime .596% Lavin .561 at each school
5. Poor NCAA performances consistently

Differences:
1. Cooley has had much better BET performances and won a BEC while Lavin was awful in any tournament
2. Cooley had less talented recruits (few exceptions like Dunn) but is clearly the better coach and can develop players

Don't see what's so radical about that.[/quote]
I agree with Otis here. 2 points:
1) It’s much easier to recruit at UCLA and St. John’s vs Siena and Providence. Shouldn’t the Lavin record be much better than Cooley’s?
2) Your second point contradicts your argument. If Cooley had less talented recruits but is clearly the better coach and can develop players (your words), how is he a “glorified Steve Lavin”?

As I age, I realize more and more how much sheer luck plays a role in team success. The landscape is littered with coaches that nobody would include on the Mt. Rushmore of coaches, yet have made a Final Four. Matchups and luck play a huge role. You never know how an 18 year old will react in a pressure situation.
Talent (through effective recruiting and player development), plays a large role, as does player retention and squad cohesion. And no doubt, the x’s and o’s of coaching is important. However as we saw this year, not much separates the Top 20 teams.
 
Biggest difference is Steve was let go twice while Cooley is a fixture at PC and is being wooed by other major schools. That should tell you something. I actually like(d) Lavin, but Cooley is just a better coach.
 
Last edited:
That was a typo by me on Va Tech. Yes, I do believe he turned down Va Tech and could have had that gig. Not so on Pitt. I think the Hall is just as good if not a better opportunity than Va Tech as long as the pay is in the same universe. Va Tech has to deal with a number of blue bloods plus other schools with deep wallets who care deeply about basketball, some as the primary or co-primary sport at their school. I think their recent success was driven by Buzz being really good and that you need a really really good coach and recruiter to have any chance of winning there. So didn't surprise me that Willard turned them down and I don't think that was any kind of statement about the Big East.

If Cooley turned down Michigan, that's a statement. And of course Jay telling everyone to leave him alone is awesome.

[quote="JohnnyFan" post=349961][quote="Rob" post=349960]Willard did not turn down Pitt. In fact I think he would have taken the first flight he could. This is a guy who almost left for Holy Cross and South Florida. He didn’t turn down Va Tech, apparently, but they were more about Buzz than being a consistent good hoops program. I think the Hall job is comparable if it pays in the ballpark and my guess is they upped that snake near what Va Tech was considering.

Wright telling everyone “no” is awesome for the league and if McDermott and Cooley both turned down Oh St and Mich respectively that’s a pretty nice statement as well.[/quote]

I guess you can say Willard didn't turn down VT. But he did remove his name from consideration while he was reportedly a serious candidate.[/quote]
 
VTech > All Big East schools for money and resources.
VT < All Big East schools Quality of basketball, priority of basketball, tradition and opportunity for a coach to do big things any given season.

Pitt WAS in a very good place in the Big East. Now it is a dead end with little future as a basketball program. Big East is a great place for a basketball coach. Land of opportunity. ACC is big flash and big money but big money always follows the power which is established and THE priority. All the other teams are fodder.

SHU has very limited resources but as a coach it has to hold more appeal than a lot of other schools because it is the priority and you CAN make a mark there and you have a great local recruiting scene.

Cooley seems like the perfect fit for Prov because pretty much every coach they've had in the past 30 years is looking at it as a stepping stone.
 
[quote="Rob" post=350006]That was a typo by me on Va Tech. Yes, I do believe he turned down Va Tech and could have had that gig. Not so on Pitt. I think the Hall is just as good if not a better opportunity than Va Tech as long as the pay is in the same universe. Va Tech has to deal with a number of blue bloods plus other schools with deep wallets who care deeply about basketball, some as the primary or co-primary sport at their school. I think their recent success was driven by Buzz being really good and that you need a really really good coach and recruiter to have any chance of winning there. So didn't surprise me that Willard turned them down and I don't think that was any kind of statement about the Big East.

If Cooley turned down Michigan, that's a statement. And of course Jay telling everyone to leave him alone is awesome.

[quote="JohnnyFan" post=349961][quote="Rob" post=349960]Willard did not turn down Pitt. In fact I think he would have taken the first flight he could. This is a guy who almost left for Holy Cross and South Florida. He didn’t turn down Va Tech, apparently, but they were more about Buzz than being a consistent good hoops program. I think the Hall job is comparable if it pays in the ballpark and my guess is they upped that snake near what Va Tech was considering.

Wright telling everyone “no” is awesome for the league and if McDermott and Cooley both turned down Oh St and Mich respectively that’s a pretty nice statement as well.[/quote]

I guess you can say Willard didn't turn down VT. But he did remove his name from consideration while he was reportedly a serious candidate.[/quote][/quote]

100% on Willard and Pitt he was not a serious candidate and he would not have said no to them. Much more serious with Va Tech but again Va Tech is not a great job relative to the ACC. It is a bottom 5-6 job in that conference. The job Buzz did there is tremendous and he bolted as soon as a he got a great offer.

Some of you are taking liberties on "turning down offers."

Some question about McDermott and OSU as well. According to this story Gene Smith was flying to meet with McDermott AFTER Holtmann among others had already turned him down. Holtmann then called to reverse himself and indicate he had interest in the OSU job and he got the job.

[URL]https://www.buckeyextra.com/sp...-but-creightons-greg-mcdermott-was-in-running[/URL]

It was while Smith was flying west that Holtmann had a change of heart, reached out to the consulting agency retained by Ohio State for the search and let them know of his updated position. Smith landed, met with McDermott without offering the job, sources have told The Dispatch, and flew back to Ohio with a meeting set for June 8 in Dayton with Holtmann that led to an announcement a day later.
 
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=349973]Adam, I agree it's great to see Cooley and Wright turning down much better jobs with way more money, however my concern is that this will not be the norm going forward. Regardless of how the change comes about, having a revolving door for coaches at around half of the conference is not good for the conference. In just the last several years, Butler (2x), Xavier, Marquette, DePaul, St. John's, and G'Town have all had coaching changes. That's 60% of the conference. Correct me if I'm wrong and I hope I am, but I doubt any other major conference has had that much change.

All I'm saying is I hope the coaches turn out to be good hires (the ones the jury is still out on) and that they stick for a long time. I know in the case of guys like Stevens, Holtmann, Mack, etc. they got plucked because they were so good. It's bitter sweet though, because although it was for a good reason, it still causes some rebuilding for programs and interrupts the continuity. If we are to remain as a major conference we must show evidence of it with our coaches...that's one metric used...you need stud coaches and you need to keep them. I'm just worried that the bidding wars are getting harder and harder with F5 schools upping the ante and the gap just gets bigger in money to the point we can't even keep our good ones aside from rare exceptions. I hope you're right but it's an absolutely valid concern.

As for Cooley, like I said he's a glorified Steve Lavin that has done a lot better in the Big East Tourney. Good recruiter, great person, easy to like, can win you 20+ games, but just cannot get over that hump and go on occasional runs in the tourney. Cooley is clearly a good coach, I just think he's overrated until he can do anything in the tourney. I was on Michigan forums and they said the same thing I am. He can very well get over the hump but until he proves it, this is my stance.[/quote]

My main issue is I feel you hold the Big East to a completely different standard than every other conference.

Just during the past month, imagine your reaction:
*If we didn't have the top selling/attended conference tournament
*If a BE coach went to the NBA rather than a top tier B1G coach
*If a BE coach went to UCLA rather than a top tier AAC coach
*If a BE coach went to Texas A&M rather than an ACC coach

If for instance Wright went to the NBA, it'd be the end of the world. But when arguably the B1G's flagship program loses their coach, it means absolutely nothing. When things don't fit your own theory/narrative you just ignore them.

A few more tidbits:
*In all 7 seasons of the new Big East, only 1 coach from the Catholic 7 has been poached. That was Buzz during year 1, and his replacement Wojo just turned down the same school.
*In all 7 seasons of the new Big East, 0 coaches from the 5 east coast teams have been poached, despite Seton Hall, Providence, and Villanova making the Tournament about 90% of the time.
*Of the 4 coaches poached in all 7 seasons of the entire Big East, 2 were poached from our smallest school Butler (to Celtics/Ohio St).

Bringing up how our worst teams St. John's, Georgetown, and DePaul recently fired their coaches doesn't make any sense and isn't a valid arguable. Also, you have your theory that things will get worse, but the fact is, things have gotten much better since year 1 when the only outlier (Wojo to VT) occurred. Your theory hasn't been correct to date, so why should I believe it will be true going forward? For the majority of coaches in our league, we know for a fact that $$$ isn't everything and they are very happy with where they're at.

Just to conclude, do I think the Big East will be poached more often than conferences with tons of $$$ like the ACC and B1G? Yes (even though the opposite was true this year). Do I think it'll ever be at a point where it is a significant issue? Absolutely not, because there is nothing in 7 years worth of data to indicate that.

As for your critique of Ed Cooley, I am going to 1000% disagree. Providence is a historically low tier BE program that was at it's lowest ever point when Cooley took over. He's an amazing asset for the school, period.
 
Last edited:
Sources: Paul Scruggs and Tyrique Jones will return to Xavier next season. Both were early entrants to the 2019 NBA Draft. Naji Marshall --- another early entrant --- has already announced his decision to return
Jon Rothstein
 
Per Goodman
Providence’s Alpha Diallo is expected to withdraw from the NBA Draft and return to school, his agent Javon Phillips told me. With Diallo and progress of young guys, I’d be shocked if Friars aren’t back in NCAA Tourney next season.
 
[quote="Paultzman" post=350369]Sources: Paul Scruggs and Tyrique Jones will return to Xavier next season. Both were early entrants to the 2019 NBA Draft. Naji Marshall --- another early entrant --- has already announced his decision to return
Jon Rothstein[/quote]
Of course our opponents (one that we play at least twice) get EVERYBODY back while we lose guys that most of seem not ready to make the jump. Oh well hopefully better days are ahead.
 
Adam, I'm talking about changes, period. Changes to coaches regardless of the context is clearly bad for a conference when 60% of your conference just recently changed coaches.
 
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=350373]Adam, I'm talking about changes, period. Changes to coaches regardless of the context is clearly bad for a conference when 60% of your conference just recently changed coaches.[/quote]

No, that's a ridiculous argument.

4 coaches have been at their school since 2011 or earlier: Cooley, Wright, McDermott and Willard. That's nearly half the conference, and all 4 of them have gotten offers to go elsewhere for more $$$. Wright has been there since 2001 and is nearing 2 decades. Of the Catholic 7 original/old Big East coaches, 3 have stayed, 3 were fired, and 1 was poached (Buzz year 1- Wojo has remained since year 2).

Now for the 3 that were fired: Georgetown, DePaul and St. John's all appear to be on the right track under their new coaches. Georgetown is about to break out while DePaul is finally recruiting 4 star players.

These 3 teams were in the new Big East basement nearly every year. When was the last time they weren't playing Wednesday night as 7-10 seeds? You realize that not all 10 teams can finish in the top 5, right? Should they have just kept their current coaches to appease you and your silly made up narrative?
 
Last edited:
Sources: Matchups for the 2019 Gavitt Games are set. Per Rothstein

Villanova at Ohio State
Michigan State at Seton Hall
Creighton at Michigan
Purdue at Marquette
Providence at Northwestern
Penn State at Georgetown
Minnesota at Butler
DePaul at Iowa

SJU’s turn to sit out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote="Paultzman" post=350418]Sources: Matchups for the 2019 Gavitt Games are set. Per Rothstein

Villanova at Ohio State
Michigan State at Seton Hall
Creighton at Michigan
Purdue at Marquette
Providence at Northwestern
Penn State at Georgetown
Minnesota at Butler
DePaul at Iowa

SJU’s turn to sit out.[/quote]

MSU v the Hall is the prime matchup, if Powell returns (which I think he will, though that's just a guess).

A lot of people have the Pirates in the Top 10 nationally, if he does come back. I personally think that's a little high, but they will be good.
 
[quote="Paultzman" post=350418]Sources: Matchups for the 2019 Gavitt Games are set. Per Rothstein

Villanova at Ohio State
Michigan State at Seton Hall
Creighton at Michigan
Purdue at Marquette
Providence at Northwestern
Penn State at Georgetown
Minnesota at Butler
DePaul at Iowa

SJU’s turn to sit out.[/quote]

MSU is participating for the first time (the only holdout). So much for the narrative that the Big East was getting a raw deal by MSU not participating.

(Some on this board have been pushing that narrative... I won't say who but they know who they are)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top