Can SJU become a perennial NCAA fixture

Under Lou it was more then a 20 win seasons it was often a top 20 ranking at seasons end
In other sections of this site concern has been voiced regarding the ranking of the university as a university and the business school. I think these and other noted short comings are related including basketball team.
.

You're correct, they're all connected. 75 percent of the US news rankings are built around the following three alumni giving ( being number 1), retention rates ( number 2), and facilities ( number 3). Academics is five percent I believe. If the basketball team improved, alumni donations increases hence ranking increases.

Only two of our schools (school of law , and Pharmacy) and recently the school of education have been solidly strong because of our name and reputation in those fields. To be honest I'm more worried about my grad school (Howard) than SJU. But SJU just has to win more games.

U.S. News Methodology

The indicators include input measures that reflect a school's student body, its faculty and its financial resources, along with outcome measures that signal how well the institution educates students.

The measures, their weights in the ranking formula and an explanation of each follow.

Graduation and retention rates (22.5 percent): The higher the proportion of first-year students who return to campus for sophomore year and eventually graduate, the better a school is apt to be at offering the classes and services that students need to succeed.

This measure has two components: six-year graduation rate (80 percent of the score) and first-year retention rate (20 percent). The graduation rate indicates the average proportion of a graduating class earning a degree in six years or less; we consider first-year student classes that started from fall 2006 through fall 2009. First-year retention indicates the average proportion of first-year students who entered the school in the fall 2011 through fall 2014 and returned the following fall.

Undergraduate academic reputation (22.5 percent): The U.S. News ranking formula gives weight to the opinions of those in a position to judge a school's undergraduate academic excellence. The academic peer assessment survey allows top academics – presidents, provosts and deans of admissions – to account for intangibles at peer institutions, such as faculty dedication to teaching.

To get another set of important opinions on National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges, U.S. News also surveyed 2,200 counselors at public high schools, each of which was a gold, silver or bronze medal winner in a recent edition of the U.S. News Best High Schools rankings. The counselors surveyed represent every state and the District of Columbia.

Each academic and counselor surveyed was asked to rate schools' academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). Those who didn't know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly were asked to mark "don't know."

The score used in the rankings is the average score of those who rated the school on the 5-point scale; "don't knows" are not counted as part of the average. To reduce the impact of strategic voting by respondents, U.S. News eliminated the two highest and two lowest scores each school received before calculating the average score.

The academic peer assessment score in this year's rankings is based on the results from surveys in spring 2015 and spring 2016.

Both the Regional Universities and Regional Colleges rankings rely on one assessment score, by the academic peer group, for this measure in the rankings formula. In the case of National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges, the academic peer assessment accounts for 15 percentage points of the weighting in the ranking methodology, and 7.5 percentage points go to the high school counselors' ratings.

The results from the three most recent years of counselor surveys, from spring 2014, spring 2015 and spring 2016, were averaged to compute the high school counselor reputation score. This was done to increase the number of ratings each college received from the high school counselors and to reduce the year-to-year volatility in the average counselor score.

Ipsos Public Affairs collected the data in spring 2016. Of the 4,635 academics who were sent questionnaires, 39 percent responded. This response rate is down very slightly from the 40 percent response rate in spring 2015 and the 42 percent response rate to the surveys conducted in spring 2014 and spring 2013.

The counselors' one-year response rate was 9 percent for the spring 2016 surveys, up slightly from 7 percent in spring 2015.

Faculty resources (20 percent): Research shows that the more satisfied students are about their contact with professors, the more they will learn and the more likely they are to graduate. U.S. News uses five factors from the 2015-2016 academic year to assess a school's commitment to instruction.

Class size is 40 percent of this measure. Schools receive the most credit in this index for their proportion of undergraduate classes with fewer than 20 students. Classes with 20-29 students score second highest; those with 30-39 students, third highest; and those with 40-49 students, fourth highest. Classes that have 50 or more students receive no credit.

Faculty salary (35 percent) is the average faculty pay, plus benefits, during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 academic years, adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living using indexes from the consulting firm Runzheimer International. U.S. News also weighs the proportion of professors with the highest degree in their fields (15 percent), the student-faculty ratio (5 percent) and the proportion of faculty who are full time (5 percent).

Student selectivity (12.5 percent): A school's academic atmosphere is determined in part by students' abilities and ambitions.

This measure has three components. U.S. News factors in the admissions test scores for all enrollees who took the critical reading and math portions of the SAT and the composite ACT score (65 percent of the selectivity score).

U.S. News also considers the proportion of enrolled first-year students at National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school classes or the proportion of enrolled first-year students at Regional Universities and Regional Colleges who graduated in the top quarter of their classes (25 percent).

The third component is the acceptance rate, or the ratio of students admitted to applicants (10 percent).

The data are all for the fall 2015 entering class. While the ranking calculation takes account of both the SAT and ACT scores of all entering students, the ranking tables on usnews.com display the score range for whichever test most students took.

U.S. News use footnotes online to indicate schools that did not report to U.S. News the fall 2015 SAT and ACT scores for all first-time, first-year, degree-seeking students for whom the schools had data. Schools sometimes fail to report SAT and ACT scores for students in these specific categories: athletes, international students, minority students, legacies, those admitted by special arrangement and those who started in summer 2015.

U.S. News also uses footnotes to indicate schools that declined to tell U.S. News whether all students with SAT and ACT test scores were represented.

For schools that did not report all scores or that declined to say whether all scores were reported, U.S. News reduced the value of their SAT and ACT scores in the Best Colleges ranking model by 15 percent. This practice is not new; since the 1997 rankings, U.S. News has discounted the value of such schools' reported scores in the ranking model, because the effect of leaving students out could be that lower scores are omitted.

If a school told U.S. News that it included all students with scores in its reported SAT and ACT scores, then those scores were counted fully in the rankings and were not footnoted.

If less than 75 percent of the fall 2015 entering class submitted SAT and ACT scores, their test scores were discounted by 15 percent in the ranking calculations. U.S. News also used this policy in the 2016 edition of the rankings.

Financial resources (10 percent): Generous per-student spending indicates that a college can offer a wide variety of programs and services. U.S. News measures financial resources by using the average spending per student on instruction, research, student services and related educational expenditures in the 2014 and 2015 fiscal years. Spending on sports, dorms and hospitals doesn't count.

Graduation rate performance (7.5 percent): This indicator of added value shows the effect of the college's programs and policies on the graduation rate of students after controlling for spending and student characteristics, such as test scores and the proportion receiving Pell Grants. U.S. News measures the difference between a school's six-year graduation rate for the class that entered in 2009 and the rate U.S. News had predicted for the class.

If the school's actual graduation rate for the 2009 entering class is higher than the rate U.S. News predicted for that same class, then the college is enhancing achievement, or overperforming. If a school's actual graduation rate is lower than the U.S. News prediction, then it is underperforming.

Alumni giving rate (5 percent): This reflects the average percentage of living alumni with bachelor's degrees who gave to their school during 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, which is an indirect measure of student satisfaction.

To arrive at a school's rank, U.S. News first calculated the weighted sum of its standardized scores. The final scores were rescaled so that the top school in each category received a value of 100, and the other schools' weighted scores were calculated as a proportion of that top score. Final scores were rounded to the nearest whole number and ranked in descending order. Schools that are tied appear in alphabetical order and are marked as tied on all ranking tables.
 
Under Lou it was more then a 20 win seasons it was often a top 20 ranking at seasons end
In other sections of this site concern has been voiced regarding the ranking of the university as a university and the business school. I think these and other noted short comings are related including basketball team.
.

You're correct, they're all connected. 75 percent of the US news rankings are built around the following three alumni giving ( being number 1), retention rates ( number 2), and facilities ( number 3). Academics is five percent I believe. If the basketball team improved, alumni donations increases hence ranking increases.

Only two of our schools (school of law , and Pharmacy) and recently the school of education have been solidly strong because of our name and reputation in those fields. To be honest I'm more worried about my grad school (Howard) than SJU. But SJU just has to win more games.

U.S. News Methodology

The indicators include input measures that reflect a school's student body, its faculty and its financial resources, along with outcome measures that signal how well the institution educates students.

The measures, their weights in the ranking formula and an explanation of each follow.

Graduation and retention rates (22.5 percent): The higher the proportion of first-year students who return to campus for sophomore year and eventually graduate, the better a school is apt to be at offering the classes and services that students need to succeed.

This measure has two components: six-year graduation rate (80 percent of the score) and first-year retention rate (20 percent). The graduation rate indicates the average proportion of a graduating class earning a degree in six years or less; we consider first-year student classes that started from fall 2006 through fall 2009. First-year retention indicates the average proportion of first-year students who entered the school in the fall 2011 through fall 2014 and returned the following fall.

Undergraduate academic reputation (22.5 percent): The U.S. News ranking formula gives weight to the opinions of those in a position to judge a school's undergraduate academic excellence. The academic peer assessment survey allows top academics – presidents, provosts and deans of admissions – to account for intangibles at peer institutions, such as faculty dedication to teaching.

To get another set of important opinions on National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges, U.S. News also surveyed 2,200 counselors at public high schools, each of which was a gold, silver or bronze medal winner in a recent edition of the U.S. News Best High Schools rankings. The counselors surveyed represent every state and the District of Columbia.

Each academic and counselor surveyed was asked to rate schools' academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). Those who didn't know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly were asked to mark "don't know."

The score used in the rankings is the average score of those who rated the school on the 5-point scale; "don't knows" are not counted as part of the average. To reduce the impact of strategic voting by respondents, U.S. News eliminated the two highest and two lowest scores each school received before calculating the average score.

The academic peer assessment score in this year's rankings is based on the results from surveys in spring 2015 and spring 2016.

Both the Regional Universities and Regional Colleges rankings rely on one assessment score, by the academic peer group, for this measure in the rankings formula. In the case of National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges, the academic peer assessment accounts for 15 percentage points of the weighting in the ranking methodology, and 7.5 percentage points go to the high school counselors' ratings.

The results from the three most recent years of counselor surveys, from spring 2014, spring 2015 and spring 2016, were averaged to compute the high school counselor reputation score. This was done to increase the number of ratings each college received from the high school counselors and to reduce the year-to-year volatility in the average counselor score.

Ipsos Public Affairs collected the data in spring 2016. Of the 4,635 academics who were sent questionnaires, 39 percent responded. This response rate is down very slightly from the 40 percent response rate in spring 2015 and the 42 percent response rate to the surveys conducted in spring 2014 and spring 2013.

The counselors' one-year response rate was 9 percent for the spring 2016 surveys, up slightly from 7 percent in spring 2015.

Faculty resources (20 percent): Research shows that the more satisfied students are about their contact with professors, the more they will learn and the more likely they are to graduate. U.S. News uses five factors from the 2015-2016 academic year to assess a school's commitment to instruction.

Class size is 40 percent of this measure. Schools receive the most credit in this index for their proportion of undergraduate classes with fewer than 20 students. Classes with 20-29 students score second highest; those with 30-39 students, third highest; and those with 40-49 students, fourth highest. Classes that have 50 or more students receive no credit.

Faculty salary (35 percent) is the average faculty pay, plus benefits, during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 academic years, adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living using indexes from the consulting firm Runzheimer International. U.S. News also weighs the proportion of professors with the highest degree in their fields (15 percent), the student-faculty ratio (5 percent) and the proportion of faculty who are full time (5 percent).

Student selectivity (12.5 percent): A school's academic atmosphere is determined in part by students' abilities and ambitions.

This measure has three components. U.S. News factors in the admissions test scores for all enrollees who took the critical reading and math portions of the SAT and the composite ACT score (65 percent of the selectivity score).

U.S. News also considers the proportion of enrolled first-year students at National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school classes or the proportion of enrolled first-year students at Regional Universities and Regional Colleges who graduated in the top quarter of their classes (25 percent).

The third component is the acceptance rate, or the ratio of students admitted to applicants (10 percent).

The data are all for the fall 2015 entering class. While the ranking calculation takes account of both the SAT and ACT scores of all entering students, the ranking tables on usnews.com display the score range for whichever test most students took.

U.S. News use footnotes online to indicate schools that did not report to U.S. News the fall 2015 SAT and ACT scores for all first-time, first-year, degree-seeking students for whom the schools had data. Schools sometimes fail to report SAT and ACT scores for students in these specific categories: athletes, international students, minority students, legacies, those admitted by special arrangement and those who started in summer 2015.

U.S. News also uses footnotes to indicate schools that declined to tell U.S. News whether all students with SAT and ACT test scores were represented.

For schools that did not report all scores or that declined to say whether all scores were reported, U.S. News reduced the value of their SAT and ACT scores in the Best Colleges ranking model by 15 percent. This practice is not new; since the 1997 rankings, U.S. News has discounted the value of such schools' reported scores in the ranking model, because the effect of leaving students out could be that lower scores are omitted.

If a school told U.S. News that it included all students with scores in its reported SAT and ACT scores, then those scores were counted fully in the rankings and were not footnoted.

If less than 75 percent of the fall 2015 entering class submitted SAT and ACT scores, their test scores were discounted by 15 percent in the ranking calculations. U.S. News also used this policy in the 2016 edition of the rankings.

Financial resources (10 percent): Generous per-student spending indicates that a college can offer a wide variety of programs and services. U.S. News measures financial resources by using the average spending per student on instruction, research, student services and related educational expenditures in the 2014 and 2015 fiscal years. Spending on sports, dorms and hospitals doesn't count.

Graduation rate performance (7.5 percent): This indicator of added value shows the effect of the college's programs and policies on the graduation rate of students after controlling for spending and student characteristics, such as test scores and the proportion receiving Pell Grants. U.S. News measures the difference between a school's six-year graduation rate for the class that entered in 2009 and the rate U.S. News had predicted for the class.

If the school's actual graduation rate for the 2009 entering class is higher than the rate U.S. News predicted for that same class, then the college is enhancing achievement, or overperforming. If a school's actual graduation rate is lower than the U.S. News prediction, then it is underperforming.

Alumni giving rate (5 percent): This reflects the average percentage of living alumni with bachelor's degrees who gave to their school during 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, which is an indirect measure of student satisfaction.

To arrive at a school's rank, U.S. News first calculated the weighted sum of its standardized scores. The final scores were rescaled so that the top school in each category received a value of 100, and the other schools' weighted scores were calculated as a proportion of that top score. Final scores were rounded to the nearest whole number and ranked in descending order. Schools that are tied appear in alphabetical order and are marked as tied on all ranking tables.

I apologize for my error. I thought alumni giving was much more important than stated. I remember reading about alumni giving rates being a significant factor on the Washington Post. L
 
Perennial? Fixture?

I'll take once every three years and set off fireworks.

We fired a coach that did better than that! Except for the year he missed coaching due to illness, Lav went to the post season every year with two NCAA tournament appearances. Even Jarvis went to 3 NCAA tournament appearances out of 5 years and in his final full year of coaching won the NIT.
There is a gulf between appearances only because Norm Roberts was a disaster as a coach and recruiter.
Chris Mullin may turn into another coaching mistake if Matt Abdelmassih does not deliver big time in the next two recruiting cycles because so far we have not seen any form of defensive structure established and the offense is even less structured.
Mullin will need one stud per year to hide his coaching deficiencies. That is not an insurmountable goal.
John Calamari on the other hand needs at least 4 five star All Americans every year to hide his coaching deficiencies and he gets them ea$ily. Even so, I can count on one finger the number of national championships he owns.
Mullin can get to a post season every year with the players. If, by year 4 St. John's is not a basketball destination for elite players, the experiment with inexperience will be over. At that point pay the 3 to 4 million for a name coach and stop the experiments like Roberts, Lavin and Mullin.

Probably has underachieved considering his talent but Cal basically has a new team every year. Coaching that way is more difficult even with the incredible talent. Heck coach K gets upset early the years he doesn't win.

Half his other players stay 2 to 4 years and except for a couple of walk ons all of the bench players that don't go pro are 4 star or above players. He chooses to start his most NBA lottery pick players which mitigates their "college" experience.
If Mullin signed one (not 4) McDonald's AA every year we would be an NCAA tournament team every year and likely a sweet 16 team. Unfortunately, SJ is lucky to sign one every 10 years.
 
You can sign a Markelle Fultz or a Ben Simmons and still not make the tournament. Its not only the players.
 
Just need to established a class-staggered, talented roster. We are on the way if we can avoid transfers, etc.

I agree with JohnnyFan that staggered classes without transfers will go a long way towards stability.

St. John's must refine its recruiting to avoid players that create drama and have solid 4 year college careers.

Those of you old enough to know who Eddie Donovan was, may recall him repeatedly saying "to win you do not meet the best players but you do need the players who play together best". Eddie's statement was not double talk but reflected that winning teams play tough defense and cohesive offense. Xavier, Villanova, Gonzaga and others have won over the years with 3* and 4* players who understand the "team first" concept.

I also agree with the above poster that indicated that the NCAA has confirmed to him the distance between St.John's and established NCAA tourney teams. In particular I am skeptical of Coach Mullins offense this season which seemingly lacked set plays and frequently appears hurried and disorganized (distinguish "hurried" from "fast pace") when viewed against most team that have appeared in the tournament.

Xavier, Villanova, Gonzaga and other privates have made true institutional commitments to college basketball which IMO St.John's did not under Harrington.

So yeah, in my opinion St.John's can become a regular participant in the NCAA tourney if the basketball team and the University get their collective act together.

We've also got to avoid staff members who create drama
 
You can sign a Markelle Fultz or a Ben Simmons and still not make the tournament. Its not only the players.

I agree that one player won't be a guarantee but getting at least a 4 Star every year is a must with upper class balance. If you can't with that formula then coaching becomes the bigger issue.
 
You can sign a Markelle Fultz or a Ben Simmons and still not make the tournament. Its not only the players.

I agree that one player won't be a guarantee but getting at least a 4 Star every year is a must with upper class balance. If you can't with that formula then coaching becomes the bigger issue.

I am not a recruiting expert but just from memory here were some of our best recruiting years:
Sealy and Werdann were both McDonald's AA and together with Jayson Williams , Louie couldn't make the tourney.

Lopez and Hamilton and Mahoney finished under 500

Fran got Artest to join Felipe, Hamiltpn and Postell and they finished under 500

Lavin's class with Harkless, Pointer and Harrison were under 500 and you can't even blame Lavin for it as Dunlap was coaching.
 
You can sign a Markelle Fultz or a Ben Simmons and still not make the tournament. Its not only the players.

I agree that one player won't be a guarantee but getting at least a 4 Star every year is a must with upper class balance. If you can't with that formula then coaching becomes the bigger issue.

I am not a recruiting expert but just from memory here were some of our best recruiting years:
Sealy and Werdann were both McDonald's AA and together with Jayson Williams , Louie couldn't make the tourney.

Lopez and Hamilton and Mahoney finished under 500

Fran got Artest to join Felipe, Hamiltpn and Postell and they finished under 500

Lavin's class with Harkless, Pointer and Harrison were under 500 and you can't even blame Lavin for it as Dunlap was coaching.

We made the NCAA tournament Artest's freshman year. Lost to Detriot in the first round.

The common missing link on all the other teams you mentioned, IMO, was a lack of quality point guard play.

Harvery was out because of academics Sealy's freshman year, and Buchanan didn't pick up his game until that tournament (understandable for a freshman). The less said about Tarik Turner's career, the better, and the point guard for Lav's freshmen were Lindsey (who left) and Greene, neither of whom were true points.

You can have all the talented kids you want, but to be a championship caliber team, someone needs to get those guys the ball, in the right spot.
 
You can sign a Markelle Fultz or a Ben Simmons and still not make the tournament. Its not only the players.

I agree that one player won't be a guarantee but getting at least a 4 Star every year is a must with upper class balance. If you can't with that formula then coaching becomes the bigger issue.

I am not a recruiting expert but just from memory here were some of our best recruiting years:
Sealy and Werdann were both McDonald's AA and together with Jayson Williams , Louie couldn't make the tourney.

Lopez and Hamilton and Mahoney finished under 500

Fran got Artest to join Felipe, Hamiltpn and Postell and they finished under 500

Lavin's class with Harkless, Pointer and Harrison were under 500 and you can't even blame Lavin for it as Dunlap was coaching.

We made the NCAA tournament Artest's freshman year. Lost to Detriot in the first round.

The common missing link on all the other teams you mentioned, IMO, was a lack of quality point guard play.

Harvery was out because of academics Sealy's freshman year, and Buchanan didn't pick up his game until that tournament (understandable for a freshman). The less said about Tarik Turner's career, the better, and the point guard for Lav's freshmen were Lindsey (who left) and Greene, neither of whom were true points.

You can have all the talented kids you want, but to be a championship caliber team, someone needs to get those guys the ball, in the right spot.

Yeah my bad about Artest. Year before they finished under 500.
Was just pointing out that getting the players is just half the battle and I don't think Cal is a terrible coach. Def not one of the best but he is certainly good enough to coach the talent he brings in.
 
You can sign a Markelle Fultz or a Ben Simmons and still not make the tournament. Its not only the players.

I agree that one player won't be a guarantee but getting at least a 4 Star every year is a must with upper class balance. If you can't with that formula then coaching becomes the bigger issue.

I am not a recruiting expert but just from memory here were some of our best recruiting years:
Sealy and Werdann were both McDonald's AA and together with Jayson Williams , Louie couldn't make the tourney.

Lopez and Hamilton and Mahoney finished under 500

Fran got Artest to join Felipe, Hamiltpn and Postell and they finished under 500

Lavin's class with Harkless, Pointer and Harrison were under 500 and you can't even blame Lavin for it as Dunlap was coaching.

We made the NCAA tournament Artest's freshman year. Lost to Detriot in the first round.

The common missing link on all the other teams you mentioned, IMO, was a lack of quality point guard play.

Harvery was out because of academics Sealy's freshman year, and Buchanan didn't pick up his game until that tournament (understandable for a freshman). The less said about Tarik Turner's career, the better, and the point guard for Lav's freshmen were Lindsey (who left) and Greene, neither of whom were true points.

You can have all the talented kids you want, but to be a championship caliber team, someone needs to get those guys the ball, in the right spot.

Yeah my bad about Artest. Year before they finished under 500.
Was just pointing out that getting the players is just half the battle and I don't think Cal is a terrible coach. Def not one of the best but he is certainly good enough to coach the talent he brings in.
Agree on Cal and your points and examples show you what great coaching jobs have been done by St. John's coaches over the years.
 
SJU can become a perennial NCAA fixture again but this may be the last chance it has with Mullin to turn the corner. If things do not turn around in next 3 years it will become much harder as the memories are fading fast and the next class of recruits could care less what SJU was before they were born or when their parents were kids. Mullin is not one to settle for being average and I think chose the job partly because of his love for the school. I am confident that Mullin does not want to be seen as a "loser" and with his competitiveness mentality will work his behind off to restore the program and when it is restored most people will not remember the losing years as only die hard people here were watching.
 
In some ways the Big East is as competitive as ever. The only program in the 10 team league that is clearly a bottom dweller is DePaul. Every other school runs a competitive program that will not be easy to climb over. We finished above Georgetown this year, but as an alum sitting next to me at MSG reminded, they had a top 25 recruiting class, and no one expects them to be down for long.

Gonzaga runs a great program. I don't know what the most consecutive NCAA bids we've had, but no way does it approach 19. They benefit from a weaker conference than the Big East, but then again, Cluess has gone to the dance 4 of 6 years out of the MAAC. The Big East gets a lot of bids per year, but you can be competitive (like we were this year) and still get nosed out by a good margin (9-9 gives you a shot, 7-11 rightfully does not).

It's amazing that Creighton can attract kids to Omaha, but then again, the fans there are great and fill the place.
Butler plays team ball and I think they are a purist's pleasure to watch.
Seton Hall has become a tough out any time you play them.
Nova is Nova - the class of the league for now.
Even with a crappy team, the size and athleticism of Gtown is always daunting.
Complain about Cooley all you want - his Providence teams usually get better end to end.
Xavier, as been pointed out, has had tremendous success over an extended period of time.
Marquette are not slouches either.

Solid program, yes. Perennial NCAA bids, I don't know. We are just so far from that now.
 
Back
Top