Cluess
- Thread starter dalydoseofhoops
- Start date
[quote="MainMan" post=340751][quote="Section9" post=340726][quote="Johnnie Drama" post=340712][quote="MainMan" post=340708][quote="SJU61982" post=340705]
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
What kind of argument is this?
You could say that about anyone not coaching in a power conference.
Jim Calhoun beat up on his mid-major opponents while at Northeastern.
Rollie at Stony Brook
PJ at Wagner
Jim O'Brien at St. Bonnies
Ben Howland at Northern Arizona
Jay Wright at Hofstra.
Cooley at Fairfield.
And on and on.....[/quote]
I get it that low mid majors have moved on to success, and a lot have failed as well. All the guys you mentioned were much younger when they made the leap. My thing is I don't think a 60 year old Cluess is the answer for the reasons I've stated before. If he's the best we can do then we're in for another rinse, spin and repeat in four years.
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
What kind of argument is this?
You could say that about anyone not coaching in a power conference.
Jim Calhoun beat up on his mid-major opponents while at Northeastern.
Rollie at Stony Brook
PJ at Wagner
Jim O'Brien at St. Bonnies
Ben Howland at Northern Arizona
Jay Wright at Hofstra.
Cooley at Fairfield.
And on and on.....[/quote]
I get it that low mid majors have moved on to success, and a lot have failed as well. All the guys you mentioned were much younger when they made the leap. My thing is I don't think a 60 year old Cluess is the answer for the reasons I've stated before. If he's the best we can do then we're in for another rinse, spin and repeat in four years.
[quote="Section9" post=340801][quote="SJU61982" post=340755][quote="Section9" post=340737][quote="SJU61982" post=340732][quote="Section9" post=340726][quote="Johnnie Drama" post=340712][quote="MainMan" post=340708][quote="SJU61982" post=340705]
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
These are exactly the same kind of questions Cluess faced when he went from high school ball to junior college.
He faced them again when he went from JC to college ball.
He faced them again when he went from D2 coaching, to D1 coaching.
The only constant in this, is that he has proven the so-called "experts" wrong every time. Maybe he won't this time, but IMO, the odds are overwhelmingly in his favor.[/quote]
All the steps you describe are baby steps compared to jumping to top D. 1 competition. I have absolutely no confidence that he pull it off at SJU.[/quote]
OK, what realistic candidate do you have more confidence in? And don't say "anybody", that's not an answer.
I can't believe that this many intelligent people, both fans and media, are so against his hiring. You can never be 100% sure of anybody, but he check all the marks for me.
Did you object to Fran's hiring? He came from the MAAC. Yes, he was unstable, but he had the program on the right track.
Would you have objected to us hiring Cooley, or Willard, at the times Providence and Seton Hall took them? Willard to the Hall surprised me at the time, I will admit, but it's worked out for them.
The MAAC is not a death knell for coaches moving to the big time. Quite a few of them have actually been very successful, and Cluess's resume is better then any of the three I just mentioned, at the time of the hiring (well, Fran won an NCAA game, so maybe not him, but definitely better then the other two).[/quote]
i'd take Scheyer over Cluess.
As far as Fran was concerned, it was a different scenario then. First he was a lot younger, Cluess is 60. And, yeah, Franny was a wacko, but who knew then, Fran was in his 30s and had long-term potential. I don't see Cleuss aging gracefully as our coach.
Fran brought in a fantastic local recruiting class. The dynamic has changed. Today virtually all those kids would go to prep schools out of the area. Think Cluess has the gravitas to chase after and sign 4* kids the majority of whom are outside the area? I don't.
You use Cooley and Willard as examples, and to answer your question, no I wouldn't have been pleased if we hired either. Yeah, they worked out but I'm just not willing to take the same chance with Cluess.[/quote]
I'm not big on Scheyer, though I admit some personel bias. Maybe he can do the job very well, but the record coming from Coach K's tree is not overly impressive.
Guys like Tommy Amaker, Johnny Dawkins, Jeff Capel, et al. have usually been good for one nice run into the second weekend of the NCAAs (which I admit, would be real nice to get around here), but after that they flame out. It's kind of similar to what Mike Jarvis did here, and I know for a fact, that you were one of Jarvis's first detractors.
The only Duke assistant that's had prolonged success at one place is Mike Brey, and he's firmly entrenched in South Bend, so that's not happening.
Cluess gives us a better chance at sustained success, IMO. He's won everywhere he's been, and for a long time at that (except Suffolk, because he was only there one year). He deserves the chance to prove you and all of the naysayers wrong, which I think he'll do
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
These are exactly the same kind of questions Cluess faced when he went from high school ball to junior college.
He faced them again when he went from JC to college ball.
He faced them again when he went from D2 coaching, to D1 coaching.
The only constant in this, is that he has proven the so-called "experts" wrong every time. Maybe he won't this time, but IMO, the odds are overwhelmingly in his favor.[/quote]
All the steps you describe are baby steps compared to jumping to top D. 1 competition. I have absolutely no confidence that he pull it off at SJU.[/quote]
OK, what realistic candidate do you have more confidence in? And don't say "anybody", that's not an answer.
I can't believe that this many intelligent people, both fans and media, are so against his hiring. You can never be 100% sure of anybody, but he check all the marks for me.
Did you object to Fran's hiring? He came from the MAAC. Yes, he was unstable, but he had the program on the right track.
Would you have objected to us hiring Cooley, or Willard, at the times Providence and Seton Hall took them? Willard to the Hall surprised me at the time, I will admit, but it's worked out for them.
The MAAC is not a death knell for coaches moving to the big time. Quite a few of them have actually been very successful, and Cluess's resume is better then any of the three I just mentioned, at the time of the hiring (well, Fran won an NCAA game, so maybe not him, but definitely better then the other two).[/quote]
i'd take Scheyer over Cluess.
As far as Fran was concerned, it was a different scenario then. First he was a lot younger, Cluess is 60. And, yeah, Franny was a wacko, but who knew then, Fran was in his 30s and had long-term potential. I don't see Cleuss aging gracefully as our coach.
Fran brought in a fantastic local recruiting class. The dynamic has changed. Today virtually all those kids would go to prep schools out of the area. Think Cluess has the gravitas to chase after and sign 4* kids the majority of whom are outside the area? I don't.
You use Cooley and Willard as examples, and to answer your question, no I wouldn't have been pleased if we hired either. Yeah, they worked out but I'm just not willing to take the same chance with Cluess.[/quote]
I'm not big on Scheyer, though I admit some personel bias. Maybe he can do the job very well, but the record coming from Coach K's tree is not overly impressive.
Guys like Tommy Amaker, Johnny Dawkins, Jeff Capel, et al. have usually been good for one nice run into the second weekend of the NCAAs (which I admit, would be real nice to get around here), but after that they flame out. It's kind of similar to what Mike Jarvis did here, and I know for a fact, that you were one of Jarvis's first detractors.
The only Duke assistant that's had prolonged success at one place is Mike Brey, and he's firmly entrenched in South Bend, so that's not happening.
Cluess gives us a better chance at sustained success, IMO. He's won everywhere he's been, and for a long time at that (except Suffolk, because he was only there one year). He deserves the chance to prove you and all of the naysayers wrong, which I think he'll do
JohnnyFever
Active member
[quote="Marillac" post=340788][quote="Mike Zaun" post=340768][quote="Marillac" post=340752][quote="Mike Zaun" post=340739]Why berate Cragg? He has done a great job here so far and has pulled all the right levers so far. We missed out on Hurley but that's only because we can't afford him even with Repole helping apparently. We will never win bidding wars with F5 schools. No one has technically been announced yet, but even if it's Cluess we have to give him a chance. Believe in Cragg until proven otherwise. I believe Paultz said it best when he said Cragg won't perform miracles but he will do the best he can or something similar. Hurley would've been a miracle because we don't have money to compete with ASU.[/quote]
Why berate Mullin? Stop with your selective protections.
Cragg paid four mill to buyout a coach that made the tournament just to get kicked in the nuts by Hurley and then scramble to Cluess only to find that his buyout is two mill! Six mill for a slight improvement for a school that can’t even match a second tier university’s salary for its third most popular sport.
It’s a clown show.[/quote]
Just remember, you're the one backing the guy who went 32 games below .500 and didn't bother to tell his players he was leaving in person...or recruit...or coach...or do much of anything. I'm backing the guy that presumably forced that guy out. I'd say my guy is better than your guy right now. Mullin already made tons of stupid mistakes and caused enough damage. Cragg hasn't made any clear mistake yet. Hurley was out of our price range. That's not on the AD. Let's see who we hire first before butchering Cragg who has zero track record of bad decisions for now.[/quote]
Please give me Cragg’s record of good decisions. I’ll be happy to wait. Not once in his career did Cragg have to replace a head baketball coach. What does the senior administrator for basketball even do...make sure the hotel for the Final Four has a hot tub?[/quote]
Come on Marillac, you're only giving me batting practice fastballs down Broadway! At least try to fool me with a knuckle ball from R.A. Dickey! Well, for one he got the ball rolling for facility upgrades. And oh yeah, he showed Mullin the door. The guy who never recruited, coached, stayed around, disrespected his players, held the program hostage for a while, and from many rumors never donated. From what I've heard he wasn't at all warm and cuddly with St. John's when he was not a coach, almost never visited, and even when he was coach he was negligent. This idea of Mullin being some big cuddly bear with us and the program is a flat out myth. He came for money, shook every last penny out that he could and Cragg told him not to let the door hit him in the arse on the way out.
Why berate Mullin? Stop with your selective protections.
Cragg paid four mill to buyout a coach that made the tournament just to get kicked in the nuts by Hurley and then scramble to Cluess only to find that his buyout is two mill! Six mill for a slight improvement for a school that can’t even match a second tier university’s salary for its third most popular sport.
It’s a clown show.[/quote]
Just remember, you're the one backing the guy who went 32 games below .500 and didn't bother to tell his players he was leaving in person...or recruit...or coach...or do much of anything. I'm backing the guy that presumably forced that guy out. I'd say my guy is better than your guy right now. Mullin already made tons of stupid mistakes and caused enough damage. Cragg hasn't made any clear mistake yet. Hurley was out of our price range. That's not on the AD. Let's see who we hire first before butchering Cragg who has zero track record of bad decisions for now.[/quote]
Please give me Cragg’s record of good decisions. I’ll be happy to wait. Not once in his career did Cragg have to replace a head baketball coach. What does the senior administrator for basketball even do...make sure the hotel for the Final Four has a hot tub?[/quote]
Come on Marillac, you're only giving me batting practice fastballs down Broadway! At least try to fool me with a knuckle ball from R.A. Dickey! Well, for one he got the ball rolling for facility upgrades. And oh yeah, he showed Mullin the door. The guy who never recruited, coached, stayed around, disrespected his players, held the program hostage for a while, and from many rumors never donated. From what I've heard he wasn't at all warm and cuddly with St. John's when he was not a coach, almost never visited, and even when he was coach he was negligent. This idea of Mullin being some big cuddly bear with us and the program is a flat out myth. He came for money, shook every last penny out that he could and Cragg told him not to let the door hit him in the arse on the way out.
[quote="redmanwest" post=340716]This is apart of the problem. St. John's should NOT be recruiting against the likes of KA, NC et al. We should be looking for solid 3 and 4s that can grow with the program. A major issue for the last 2 coaches was recruiting out of our league, or putting too many eggs in unrealistic baskets. We need to right-size our expectations, implement a system that can work with the 3s and 4s we have overlooked for too long and BUILD a program.
[quote="redken" post=340703][quote="MCNPA" post=340638][quote="sjc88" post=340632]I don’t see how hiring Cluess helps the recruiting problem. Let’s say you are a good PG. Not blue blood good but good. You are being recruited by Providence, Seton Hall and Georgetown. Who are you going with? Cooley, Willard, Ewing or Cluess? Most people don’t have a clue (no pun intended) who the hell Cluess is. Given the fact he is 60 year old coach he has been operating in relative obscurity he is basically unknown to kids and families. Even a massive effort is not going to close that gap.[/quote]
No recruits know who Nate Oats formerly of Buffalo is either. Cluess’ ties to NYC are very strong and all the coaches and players know who he is. What you’re saying is patently untrue. Willard was a nobody before he took the Hall job. Players come to play for good coaches period. It also takes an eye for talent which Cluess has. Some strong recruiting assistants and we will be landing players.[/quote]
Difference with Oats is that he wasn't having to recruit BE-level players, whereas Cluess would have to recruit against the likes of Kansas, UNC, Ohio State, etc., as well as against other BE teams who have recognizable (and popular, and winning) head coaches. Cluess might well be a good coach (although I'm uncomfortable with his lack of emphasis on defense), but he doesn't seem to have the type of personality or name recognition that recruits would excite recruits. Hope I'm wrong, but ...[/quote][/quote]
So if we've been recruiting a local kid for three years and then he blows up in his senior year, we should just give up on the time and effort we put into it once the blue-bloods start taking an interest in him, as often happens? Also, you make it sound like recruiting 4-star kids is a given; it's not. They're highly sought after by plenty of higher-level programs, and this is where Cluess's lack of recognition (and "buzz") is a huge question mark.
[quote="redken" post=340703][quote="MCNPA" post=340638][quote="sjc88" post=340632]I don’t see how hiring Cluess helps the recruiting problem. Let’s say you are a good PG. Not blue blood good but good. You are being recruited by Providence, Seton Hall and Georgetown. Who are you going with? Cooley, Willard, Ewing or Cluess? Most people don’t have a clue (no pun intended) who the hell Cluess is. Given the fact he is 60 year old coach he has been operating in relative obscurity he is basically unknown to kids and families. Even a massive effort is not going to close that gap.[/quote]
No recruits know who Nate Oats formerly of Buffalo is either. Cluess’ ties to NYC are very strong and all the coaches and players know who he is. What you’re saying is patently untrue. Willard was a nobody before he took the Hall job. Players come to play for good coaches period. It also takes an eye for talent which Cluess has. Some strong recruiting assistants and we will be landing players.[/quote]
Difference with Oats is that he wasn't having to recruit BE-level players, whereas Cluess would have to recruit against the likes of Kansas, UNC, Ohio State, etc., as well as against other BE teams who have recognizable (and popular, and winning) head coaches. Cluess might well be a good coach (although I'm uncomfortable with his lack of emphasis on defense), but he doesn't seem to have the type of personality or name recognition that recruits would excite recruits. Hope I'm wrong, but ...[/quote][/quote]
So if we've been recruiting a local kid for three years and then he blows up in his senior year, we should just give up on the time and effort we put into it once the blue-bloods start taking an interest in him, as often happens? Also, you make it sound like recruiting 4-star kids is a given; it's not. They're highly sought after by plenty of higher-level programs, and this is where Cluess's lack of recognition (and "buzz") is a huge question mark.
Last edited:
[quote="Section9" post=340806][quote="MainMan" post=340751][quote="Section9" post=340726][quote="Johnnie Drama" post=340712][quote="MainMan" post=340708][quote="SJU61982" post=340705]
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
What kind of argument is this?
You could say that about anyone not coaching in a power conference.
Jim Calhoun beat up on his mid-major opponents while at Northeastern.
Rollie at Stony Brook
PJ at Wagner
Jim O'Brien at St. Bonnies
Ben Howland at Northern Arizona
Jay Wright at Hofstra.
Cooley at Fairfield.
And on and on.....[/quote]
I get it that low mid majors have moved on to success, and a lot have failed as well. All the guys you mentioned were much younger when they made the leap. My thing is I don't think a 60 year old Cluess is the answer for the reasons I've stated before. If he's the best we can do then we're in for another rinse, spin and repeat in four years.[/quote]
I actually think the chances of another "rinse, spin and repeat in four years" is much slimmer with Cluess then with most other guys, especially younger ones. Given the fact that there are always going to be schools laying in wait with way more $ to throw around to a young, successful coach. We already know for near certain that if Cluess wins here, which he will IMO, that he's not looking to go anywhere. .
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
What kind of argument is this?
You could say that about anyone not coaching in a power conference.
Jim Calhoun beat up on his mid-major opponents while at Northeastern.
Rollie at Stony Brook
PJ at Wagner
Jim O'Brien at St. Bonnies
Ben Howland at Northern Arizona
Jay Wright at Hofstra.
Cooley at Fairfield.
And on and on.....[/quote]
I get it that low mid majors have moved on to success, and a lot have failed as well. All the guys you mentioned were much younger when they made the leap. My thing is I don't think a 60 year old Cluess is the answer for the reasons I've stated before. If he's the best we can do then we're in for another rinse, spin and repeat in four years.[/quote]
I actually think the chances of another "rinse, spin and repeat in four years" is much slimmer with Cluess then with most other guys, especially younger ones. Given the fact that there are always going to be schools laying in wait with way more $ to throw around to a young, successful coach. We already know for near certain that if Cluess wins here, which he will IMO, that he's not looking to go anywhere. .
[quote="Section9" post=340806][quote="MainMan" post=340751][quote="Section9" post=340726][quote="Johnnie Drama" post=340712][quote="MainMan" post=340708][quote="SJU61982" post=340705]
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
What kind of argument is this?
You could say that about anyone not coaching in a power conference.
Jim Calhoun beat up on his mid-major opponents while at Northeastern.
Rollie at Stony Brook
PJ at Wagner
Jim O'Brien at St. Bonnies
Ben Howland at Northern Arizona
Jay Wright at Hofstra.
Cooley at Fairfield.
And on and on.....[/quote]
I get it that low mid majors have moved on to success, and a lot have failed as well. All the guys you mentioned were much younger when they made the leap. My thing is I don't think a 60 year old Cluess is the answer for the reasons I've stated before. If he's the best we can do then we're in for another rinse, spin and repeat in four years.[/quote]
Well, if they choose your man Schuyelr, and he's as successful as you think he will be, then you're probably looking at the same thing in 4 or 5 years anyway, when he gets a better job.
Now, if you think he's a better answer then Cluess based on ability, fine. I would disagree, but you are entitled to that.
There is no perfect, young, candidate that is going to stay here for a decade. Or at least, I don't know of any likely ones, so just go with the guy who you think is best for the job.
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
What kind of argument is this?
You could say that about anyone not coaching in a power conference.
Jim Calhoun beat up on his mid-major opponents while at Northeastern.
Rollie at Stony Brook
PJ at Wagner
Jim O'Brien at St. Bonnies
Ben Howland at Northern Arizona
Jay Wright at Hofstra.
Cooley at Fairfield.
And on and on.....[/quote]
I get it that low mid majors have moved on to success, and a lot have failed as well. All the guys you mentioned were much younger when they made the leap. My thing is I don't think a 60 year old Cluess is the answer for the reasons I've stated before. If he's the best we can do then we're in for another rinse, spin and repeat in four years.[/quote]
Well, if they choose your man Schuyelr, and he's as successful as you think he will be, then you're probably looking at the same thing in 4 or 5 years anyway, when he gets a better job.
Now, if you think he's a better answer then Cluess based on ability, fine. I would disagree, but you are entitled to that.
There is no perfect, young, candidate that is going to stay here for a decade. Or at least, I don't know of any likely ones, so just go with the guy who you think is best for the job.
Last edited:
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=340809][quote="Marillac" post=340788][quote="Mike Zaun" post=340768][quote="Marillac" post=340752][quote="Mike Zaun" post=340739]Why berate Cragg? He has done a great job here so far and has pulled all the right levers so far. We missed out on Hurley but that's only because we can't afford him even with Repole helping apparently. We will never win bidding wars with F5 schools. No one has technically been announced yet, but even if it's Cluess we have to give him a chance. Believe in Cragg until proven otherwise. I believe Paultz said it best when he said Cragg won't perform miracles but he will do the best he can or something similar. Hurley would've been a miracle because we don't have money to compete with ASU.[/quote]
As Ric Flair used to say: To be the man, you gotta fire the man!
Why berate Mullin? Stop with your selective protections.
Cragg paid four mill to buyout a coach that made the tournament just to get kicked in the nuts by Hurley and then scramble to Cluess only to find that his buyout is two mill! Six mill for a slight improvement for a school that can’t even match a second tier university’s salary for its third most popular sport.
It’s a clown show.[/quote]
Just remember, you're the one backing the guy who went 32 games below .500 and didn't bother to tell his players he was leaving in person...or recruit...or coach...or do much of anything. I'm backing the guy that presumably forced that guy out. I'd say my guy is better than your guy right now. Mullin already made tons of stupid mistakes and caused enough damage. Cragg hasn't made any clear mistake yet. Hurley was out of our price range. That's not on the AD. Let's see who we hire first before butchering Cragg who has zero track record of bad decisions for now.[/quote]
Please give me Cragg’s record of good decisions. I’ll be happy to wait. Not once in his career did Cragg have to replace a head baketball coach. What does the senior administrator for basketball even do...make sure the hotel for the Final Four has a hot tub?[/quote]
Come on Marillac, you're only giving me batting practice fastballs down Broadway! At least try to fool me with a knuckle ball from R.A. Dickey! Well, for one he got the ball rolling for facility upgrades. And oh yeah, he showed Mullin the door. The guy who never recruited, coached, stayed around, disrespected his players, held the program hostage for a while, and from many rumors never donated. From what I've heard he wasn't at all warm and cuddly with St. John's when he was not a coach, almost never visited, and even when he was coach he was negligent. This idea of Mullin being some big cuddly bear with us and the program is a flat out myth. He came for money, shook every last penny out that he could and Cragg told him not to let the door hit him in the arse on the way out.[/quote]
As Ric Flair used to say: To be the man, you gotta fire the man!
Why berate Mullin? Stop with your selective protections.
Cragg paid four mill to buyout a coach that made the tournament just to get kicked in the nuts by Hurley and then scramble to Cluess only to find that his buyout is two mill! Six mill for a slight improvement for a school that can’t even match a second tier university’s salary for its third most popular sport.
It’s a clown show.[/quote]
Just remember, you're the one backing the guy who went 32 games below .500 and didn't bother to tell his players he was leaving in person...or recruit...or coach...or do much of anything. I'm backing the guy that presumably forced that guy out. I'd say my guy is better than your guy right now. Mullin already made tons of stupid mistakes and caused enough damage. Cragg hasn't made any clear mistake yet. Hurley was out of our price range. That's not on the AD. Let's see who we hire first before butchering Cragg who has zero track record of bad decisions for now.[/quote]
Please give me Cragg’s record of good decisions. I’ll be happy to wait. Not once in his career did Cragg have to replace a head baketball coach. What does the senior administrator for basketball even do...make sure the hotel for the Final Four has a hot tub?[/quote]
Come on Marillac, you're only giving me batting practice fastballs down Broadway! At least try to fool me with a knuckle ball from R.A. Dickey! Well, for one he got the ball rolling for facility upgrades. And oh yeah, he showed Mullin the door. The guy who never recruited, coached, stayed around, disrespected his players, held the program hostage for a while, and from many rumors never donated. From what I've heard he wasn't at all warm and cuddly with St. John's when he was not a coach, almost never visited, and even when he was coach he was negligent. This idea of Mullin being some big cuddly bear with us and the program is a flat out myth. He came for money, shook every last penny out that he could and Cragg told him not to let the door hit him in the arse on the way out.[/quote]
[quote="Adam" post=340526]I keep seeing talk about how we "got rid of Mullin", but I don't buy it. What other option was there besides extending him? Mullin didn't deserve an extension and unlike Lavin he didn't want to be here with only 2 years remaining. That's his choice but I'm glad he wasn't extended. I'd much rather have Cluess next year anyways.
Can anyone answer how you would've handled Mullin? Would you have extended him?[/quote]
I think that's the point, Adam. You nailed it. Mullin's demand of a gtd-extension shocked Cragg. He was right to refuse to grant one. That set the ball rolling. Cragg immediately picked Hurley.
Maybe other guys were on the list and called, but for whatever reasons, a no go. I don't know.
The roster was imploding. Time was short. Cluess was the fall-back. That's the way I see it, at any rate.
Can anyone answer how you would've handled Mullin? Would you have extended him?[/quote]
I think that's the point, Adam. You nailed it. Mullin's demand of a gtd-extension shocked Cragg. He was right to refuse to grant one. That set the ball rolling. Cragg immediately picked Hurley.
Maybe other guys were on the list and called, but for whatever reasons, a no go. I don't know.
The roster was imploding. Time was short. Cluess was the fall-back. That's the way I see it, at any rate.
Last edited:
[quote="Monte" post=340811][quote="Section9" post=340806][quote="MainMan" post=340751][quote="Section9" post=340726][quote="Johnnie Drama" post=340712][quote="MainMan" post=340708][quote="SJU61982" post=340705]
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
What kind of argument is this?
You could say that about anyone not coaching in a power conference.
Jim Calhoun beat up on his mid-major opponents while at Northeastern.
Rollie at Stony Brook
PJ at Wagner
Jim O'Brien at St. Bonnies
Ben Howland at Northern Arizona
Jay Wright at Hofstra.
Cooley at Fairfield.
And on and on.....[/quote]
I get it that low mid majors have moved on to success, and a lot have failed as well. All the guys you mentioned were much younger when they made the leap. My thing is I don't think a 60 year old Cluess is the answer for the reasons I've stated before. If he's the best we can do then we're in for another rinse, spin and repeat in four years.[/quote]
I actually think the chances of another "rinse, spin and repeat in four years" is much slimmer with Cluess then with most other guys, especially younger ones. Given the fact that there are always going to be schools laying in wait with way more $ to throw around to a young, successful coach. We already know for near certain that if Cluess wins here, which he will IMO, that he's not looking to go anywhere. .[/quote]
If we have a "young successful" coach that gets lured away for bigger bucks that's a win for us because we haven't had that in a while. I'll take my chances on hiring a replacement.
Look, I just am not buying Cluess, that's my opinion FWIW.
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
What kind of argument is this?
You could say that about anyone not coaching in a power conference.
Jim Calhoun beat up on his mid-major opponents while at Northeastern.
Rollie at Stony Brook
PJ at Wagner
Jim O'Brien at St. Bonnies
Ben Howland at Northern Arizona
Jay Wright at Hofstra.
Cooley at Fairfield.
And on and on.....[/quote]
I get it that low mid majors have moved on to success, and a lot have failed as well. All the guys you mentioned were much younger when they made the leap. My thing is I don't think a 60 year old Cluess is the answer for the reasons I've stated before. If he's the best we can do then we're in for another rinse, spin and repeat in four years.[/quote]
I actually think the chances of another "rinse, spin and repeat in four years" is much slimmer with Cluess then with most other guys, especially younger ones. Given the fact that there are always going to be schools laying in wait with way more $ to throw around to a young, successful coach. We already know for near certain that if Cluess wins here, which he will IMO, that he's not looking to go anywhere. .[/quote]
If we have a "young successful" coach that gets lured away for bigger bucks that's a win for us because we haven't had that in a while. I'll take my chances on hiring a replacement.
Look, I just am not buying Cluess, that's my opinion FWIW.
[quote="MainMan" post=340808][quote="Section9" post=340801]
i'd take Scheyer over Cluess.
[/quote]
What could possibly go wrong with a hot associate head coach from a storied program coming to a major rebuild?
[img ]https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2077339431/norm.gif[/img][/quote]
Are you seriously comparing Scheyer to Norm?
i'd take Scheyer over Cluess.
[/quote]
What could possibly go wrong with a hot associate head coach from a storied program coming to a major rebuild?
[img ]https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2077339431/norm.gif[/img][/quote]
Are you seriously comparing Scheyer to Norm?
[quote="SJU61982" post=340807][quote="Section9" post=340801][quote="SJU61982" post=340755][quote="Section9" post=340737][quote="SJU61982" post=340732][quote="Section9" post=340726][quote="Johnnie Drama" post=340712][quote="MainMan" post=340708][quote="SJU61982" post=340705]
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
These are exactly the same kind of questions Cluess faced when he went from high school ball to junior college.
He faced them again when he went from JC to college ball.
He faced them again when he went from D2 coaching, to D1 coaching.
The only constant in this, is that he has proven the so-called "experts" wrong every time. Maybe he won't this time, but IMO, the odds are overwhelmingly in his favor.[/quote]
All the steps you describe are baby steps compared to jumping to top D. 1 competition. I have absolutely no confidence that he pull it off at SJU.[/quote]
OK, what realistic candidate do you have more confidence in? And don't say "anybody", that's not an answer.
I can't believe that this many intelligent people, both fans and media, are so against his hiring. You can never be 100% sure of anybody, but he check all the marks for me.
Did you object to Fran's hiring? He came from the MAAC. Yes, he was unstable, but he had the program on the right track.
Would you have objected to us hiring Cooley, or Willard, at the times Providence and Seton Hall took them? Willard to the Hall surprised me at the time, I will admit, but it's worked out for them.
The MAAC is not a death knell for coaches moving to the big time. Quite a few of them have actually been very successful, and Cluess's resume is better then any of the three I just mentioned, at the time of the hiring (well, Fran won an NCAA game, so maybe not him, but definitely better then the other two).[/quote]
i'd take Scheyer over Cluess.
As far as Fran was concerned, it was a different scenario then. First he was a lot younger, Cluess is 60. And, yeah, Franny was a wacko, but who knew then, Fran was in his 30s and had long-term potential. I don't see Cleuss aging gracefully as our coach.
Fran brought in a fantastic local recruiting class. The dynamic has changed. Today virtually all those kids would go to prep schools out of the area. Think Cluess has the gravitas to chase after and sign 4* kids the majority of whom are outside the area? I don't.
You use Cooley and Willard as examples, and to answer your question, no I wouldn't have been pleased if we hired either. Yeah, they worked out but I'm just not willing to take the same chance with Cluess.[/quote]
I'm not big on Scheyer, though I admit some personel bias. Maybe he can do the job very well, but the record coming from Coach K's tree is not overly impressive.
Guys like Tommy Amaker, Johnny Dawkins, Jeff Capel, et al. have usually been good for one nice run into the second weekend of the NCAAs (which I admit, would be real nice to get around here), but after that they flame out. It's kind of similar to what Mike Jarvis did here, and I know for a fact, that you were one of Jarvis's first detractors.
The only Duke assistant that's had prolonged success at one place is Mike Brey, and he's firmly entrenched in South Bend, so that's not happening.
Cluess gives us a better chance at sustained success, IMO. He's won everywhere he's been, and for a long time at that (except Suffolk, because he was only there one year). He deserves the chance to prove you and all of the naysayers wrong, which I think he'll do[/quote]
Mike, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
These are exactly the same kind of questions Cluess faced when he went from high school ball to junior college.
He faced them again when he went from JC to college ball.
He faced them again when he went from D2 coaching, to D1 coaching.
The only constant in this, is that he has proven the so-called "experts" wrong every time. Maybe he won't this time, but IMO, the odds are overwhelmingly in his favor.[/quote]
All the steps you describe are baby steps compared to jumping to top D. 1 competition. I have absolutely no confidence that he pull it off at SJU.[/quote]
OK, what realistic candidate do you have more confidence in? And don't say "anybody", that's not an answer.
I can't believe that this many intelligent people, both fans and media, are so against his hiring. You can never be 100% sure of anybody, but he check all the marks for me.
Did you object to Fran's hiring? He came from the MAAC. Yes, he was unstable, but he had the program on the right track.
Would you have objected to us hiring Cooley, or Willard, at the times Providence and Seton Hall took them? Willard to the Hall surprised me at the time, I will admit, but it's worked out for them.
The MAAC is not a death knell for coaches moving to the big time. Quite a few of them have actually been very successful, and Cluess's resume is better then any of the three I just mentioned, at the time of the hiring (well, Fran won an NCAA game, so maybe not him, but definitely better then the other two).[/quote]
i'd take Scheyer over Cluess.
As far as Fran was concerned, it was a different scenario then. First he was a lot younger, Cluess is 60. And, yeah, Franny was a wacko, but who knew then, Fran was in his 30s and had long-term potential. I don't see Cleuss aging gracefully as our coach.
Fran brought in a fantastic local recruiting class. The dynamic has changed. Today virtually all those kids would go to prep schools out of the area. Think Cluess has the gravitas to chase after and sign 4* kids the majority of whom are outside the area? I don't.
You use Cooley and Willard as examples, and to answer your question, no I wouldn't have been pleased if we hired either. Yeah, they worked out but I'm just not willing to take the same chance with Cluess.[/quote]
I'm not big on Scheyer, though I admit some personel bias. Maybe he can do the job very well, but the record coming from Coach K's tree is not overly impressive.
Guys like Tommy Amaker, Johnny Dawkins, Jeff Capel, et al. have usually been good for one nice run into the second weekend of the NCAAs (which I admit, would be real nice to get around here), but after that they flame out. It's kind of similar to what Mike Jarvis did here, and I know for a fact, that you were one of Jarvis's first detractors.
The only Duke assistant that's had prolonged success at one place is Mike Brey, and he's firmly entrenched in South Bend, so that's not happening.
Cluess gives us a better chance at sustained success, IMO. He's won everywhere he's been, and for a long time at that (except Suffolk, because he was only there one year). He deserves the chance to prove you and all of the naysayers wrong, which I think he'll do[/quote]
Mike, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
[quote="Section9" post=340819][quote="SJU61982" post=340807][quote="Section9" post=340801][quote="SJU61982" post=340755][quote="Section9" post=340737][quote="SJU61982" post=340732][quote="Section9" post=340726][quote="Johnnie Drama" post=340712][quote="MainMan" post=340708][quote="SJU61982" post=340705]
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
These are exactly the same kind of questions Cluess faced when he went from high school ball to junior college.
He faced them again when he went from JC to college ball.
He faced them again when he went from D2 coaching, to D1 coaching.
The only constant in this, is that he has proven the so-called "experts" wrong every time. Maybe he won't this time, but IMO, the odds are overwhelmingly in his favor.[/quote]
All the steps you describe are baby steps compared to jumping to top D. 1 competition. I have absolutely no confidence that he pull it off at SJU.[/quote]
OK, what realistic candidate do you have more confidence in? And don't say "anybody", that's not an answer.
I can't believe that this many intelligent people, both fans and media, are so against his hiring. You can never be 100% sure of anybody, but he check all the marks for me.
Did you object to Fran's hiring? He came from the MAAC. Yes, he was unstable, but he had the program on the right track.
Would you have objected to us hiring Cooley, or Willard, at the times Providence and Seton Hall took them? Willard to the Hall surprised me at the time, I will admit, but it's worked out for them.
The MAAC is not a death knell for coaches moving to the big time. Quite a few of them have actually been very successful, and Cluess's resume is better then any of the three I just mentioned, at the time of the hiring (well, Fran won an NCAA game, so maybe not him, but definitely better then the other two).[/quote]
i'd take Scheyer over Cluess.
As far as Fran was concerned, it was a different scenario then. First he was a lot younger, Cluess is 60. And, yeah, Franny was a wacko, but who knew then, Fran was in his 30s and had long-term potential. I don't see Cleuss aging gracefully as our coach.
Fran brought in a fantastic local recruiting class. The dynamic has changed. Today virtually all those kids would go to prep schools out of the area. Think Cluess has the gravitas to chase after and sign 4* kids the majority of whom are outside the area? I don't.
You use Cooley and Willard as examples, and to answer your question, no I wouldn't have been pleased if we hired either. Yeah, they worked out but I'm just not willing to take the same chance with Cluess.[/quote]
I'm not big on Scheyer, though I admit some personel bias. Maybe he can do the job very well, but the record coming from Coach K's tree is not overly impressive.
Guys like Tommy Amaker, Johnny Dawkins, Jeff Capel, et al. have usually been good for one nice run into the second weekend of the NCAAs (which I admit, would be real nice to get around here), but after that they flame out. It's kind of similar to what Mike Jarvis did here, and I know for a fact, that you were one of Jarvis's first detractors.
The only Duke assistant that's had prolonged success at one place is Mike Brey, and he's firmly entrenched in South Bend, so that's not happening.
Cluess gives us a better chance at sustained success, IMO. He's won everywhere he's been, and for a long time at that (except Suffolk, because he was only there one year). He deserves the chance to prove you and all of the naysayers wrong, which I think he'll do[/quote]
Mike, we'll just have to agree to disagree.[/quote]
Wouldn't be the first time we've done that.
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
These are exactly the same kind of questions Cluess faced when he went from high school ball to junior college.
He faced them again when he went from JC to college ball.
He faced them again when he went from D2 coaching, to D1 coaching.
The only constant in this, is that he has proven the so-called "experts" wrong every time. Maybe he won't this time, but IMO, the odds are overwhelmingly in his favor.[/quote]
All the steps you describe are baby steps compared to jumping to top D. 1 competition. I have absolutely no confidence that he pull it off at SJU.[/quote]
OK, what realistic candidate do you have more confidence in? And don't say "anybody", that's not an answer.
I can't believe that this many intelligent people, both fans and media, are so against his hiring. You can never be 100% sure of anybody, but he check all the marks for me.
Did you object to Fran's hiring? He came from the MAAC. Yes, he was unstable, but he had the program on the right track.
Would you have objected to us hiring Cooley, or Willard, at the times Providence and Seton Hall took them? Willard to the Hall surprised me at the time, I will admit, but it's worked out for them.
The MAAC is not a death knell for coaches moving to the big time. Quite a few of them have actually been very successful, and Cluess's resume is better then any of the three I just mentioned, at the time of the hiring (well, Fran won an NCAA game, so maybe not him, but definitely better then the other two).[/quote]
i'd take Scheyer over Cluess.
As far as Fran was concerned, it was a different scenario then. First he was a lot younger, Cluess is 60. And, yeah, Franny was a wacko, but who knew then, Fran was in his 30s and had long-term potential. I don't see Cleuss aging gracefully as our coach.
Fran brought in a fantastic local recruiting class. The dynamic has changed. Today virtually all those kids would go to prep schools out of the area. Think Cluess has the gravitas to chase after and sign 4* kids the majority of whom are outside the area? I don't.
You use Cooley and Willard as examples, and to answer your question, no I wouldn't have been pleased if we hired either. Yeah, they worked out but I'm just not willing to take the same chance with Cluess.[/quote]
I'm not big on Scheyer, though I admit some personel bias. Maybe he can do the job very well, but the record coming from Coach K's tree is not overly impressive.
Guys like Tommy Amaker, Johnny Dawkins, Jeff Capel, et al. have usually been good for one nice run into the second weekend of the NCAAs (which I admit, would be real nice to get around here), but after that they flame out. It's kind of similar to what Mike Jarvis did here, and I know for a fact, that you were one of Jarvis's first detractors.
The only Duke assistant that's had prolonged success at one place is Mike Brey, and he's firmly entrenched in South Bend, so that's not happening.
Cluess gives us a better chance at sustained success, IMO. He's won everywhere he's been, and for a long time at that (except Suffolk, because he was only there one year). He deserves the chance to prove you and all of the naysayers wrong, which I think he'll do[/quote]
Mike, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
[/quote]Wouldn't be the first time we've done that.
[quote="Section9" post=340817][quote="Monte" post=340811][quote="Section9" post=340806][quote="MainMan" post=340751][quote="Section9" post=340726][quote="Johnnie Drama" post=340712][quote="MainMan" post=340708][quote="SJU61982" post=340705]
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
What kind of argument is this?
You could say that about anyone not coaching in a power conference.
Jim Calhoun beat up on his mid-major opponents while at Northeastern.
Rollie at Stony Brook
PJ at Wagner
Jim O'Brien at St. Bonnies
Ben Howland at Northern Arizona
Jay Wright at Hofstra.
Cooley at Fairfield.
And on and on.....[/quote]
I get it that low mid majors have moved on to success, and a lot have failed as well. All the guys you mentioned were much younger when they made the leap. My thing is I don't think a 60 year old Cluess is the answer for the reasons I've stated before. If he's the best we can do then we're in for another rinse, spin and repeat in four years.[/quote]
I actually think the chances of another "rinse, spin and repeat in four years" is much slimmer with Cluess then with most other guys, especially younger ones. Given the fact that there are always going to be schools laying in wait with way more $ to throw around to a young, successful coach. We already know for near certain that if Cluess wins here, which he will IMO, that he's not looking to go anywhere. .[/quote]
If we have a "young successful" coach that gets lured away for bigger bucks that's a win for us because we haven't had that in a while. I'll take my chances on hiring a replacement.
Look, I just am not buying Cluess, that's my opinion FWIW.[/quote]
I get it. I’m not 100% sold, but I’m warming to the idea.
Big guys? That's another story. That's where you may have a beef with Cluess's recruiting, but I'll stay open-minded, because he's proven everything else, IMO.[/quote]
Cluess' best players were arguably Mike Glover, who played like a beast down low, and 6'9 David Laury, who was the league MVP.[/quote]
You can throw in Jordan Washington as well.[/quote]
Yeah, they beat up on low mid major teams, how's that gonna fly in the BE? And I'm hot excusing Chris from his small ball either.[/quote]
What kind of argument is this?
You could say that about anyone not coaching in a power conference.
Jim Calhoun beat up on his mid-major opponents while at Northeastern.
Rollie at Stony Brook
PJ at Wagner
Jim O'Brien at St. Bonnies
Ben Howland at Northern Arizona
Jay Wright at Hofstra.
Cooley at Fairfield.
And on and on.....[/quote]
I get it that low mid majors have moved on to success, and a lot have failed as well. All the guys you mentioned were much younger when they made the leap. My thing is I don't think a 60 year old Cluess is the answer for the reasons I've stated before. If he's the best we can do then we're in for another rinse, spin and repeat in four years.[/quote]
I actually think the chances of another "rinse, spin and repeat in four years" is much slimmer with Cluess then with most other guys, especially younger ones. Given the fact that there are always going to be schools laying in wait with way more $ to throw around to a young, successful coach. We already know for near certain that if Cluess wins here, which he will IMO, that he's not looking to go anywhere. .[/quote]
If we have a "young successful" coach that gets lured away for bigger bucks that's a win for us because we haven't had that in a while. I'll take my chances on hiring a replacement.
Look, I just am not buying Cluess, that's my opinion FWIW.[/quote]
I get it. I’m not 100% sold, but I’m warming to the idea.
I'm not at all concerned what conference Cluess is coming from. Tons of quality coaches have come from smaller conferences.
I'm just not sold on his style of play and how it'll translate here without the necessary talent. As, I stated a couple of weeks ago.... He won't have the same advantages at St. John's as he had at Iona when it comes to particular personnel at his disposal. If he's adept at adapting, then he might be capable of working out here. Though the term "working out" is debatable. My "working out" is challenging Villanova on a routine basis. Some other folks "working out" may be along the lines of Providence and Seton Hall.
I'm just not sold on his style of play and how it'll translate here without the necessary talent. As, I stated a couple of weeks ago.... He won't have the same advantages at St. John's as he had at Iona when it comes to particular personnel at his disposal. If he's adept at adapting, then he might be capable of working out here. Though the term "working out" is debatable. My "working out" is challenging Villanova on a routine basis. Some other folks "working out" may be along the lines of Providence and Seton Hall.
On the Big East scale, a Cluess hire would fall someplace between a DePaul hire and a Providence hire.
Nova, Hall, Marquette got it right on up-and-coming coaches and they are now top-of-the-league perennials.
DePaul keeps hiring guys who have been around a while and not making any progress. Providence picked a better one, which has gotten them more or less to the middle of the league.
I don't see Cluess propelling the program the way Wright/Willard/Wojo did theirs (hmmm, maybe secret is hiring coaches whose name begins with the letter W?). I see it more as a move in the DePaul-Providence vein where if it goes poorly you continue to stink, and if it goes well, you make some progress but not to the top of the league.
Hard for me to get excited about that sort of hire. Either bring in a real pro (Pitino, Frank Martin, etc) or find a real up and comer (Odom, since they already let Oats get away). Either way they're going to have to pay a price for it, but better to spend smart money than dumb money.
Nova, Hall, Marquette got it right on up-and-coming coaches and they are now top-of-the-league perennials.
DePaul keeps hiring guys who have been around a while and not making any progress. Providence picked a better one, which has gotten them more or less to the middle of the league.
I don't see Cluess propelling the program the way Wright/Willard/Wojo did theirs (hmmm, maybe secret is hiring coaches whose name begins with the letter W?). I see it more as a move in the DePaul-Providence vein where if it goes poorly you continue to stink, and if it goes well, you make some progress but not to the top of the league.
Hard for me to get excited about that sort of hire. Either bring in a real pro (Pitino, Frank Martin, etc) or find a real up and comer (Odom, since they already let Oats get away). Either way they're going to have to pay a price for it, but better to spend smart money than dumb money.
beast of the east
Active member
[quote="lawmanfan" post=340854]On the Big East scale, a Cluess hire would fall someplace between a DePaul hire and a Providence hire.
Nova, Hall, Marquette got it right on up-and-coming coaches and they are now top-of-the-league perennials.
DePaul keeps hiring guys who have been around a while and not making any progress. Providence picked a better one, which has gotten them more or less to the middle of the league.
I don't see Cluess propelling the program the way Wright/Willard/Wojo did theirs (hmmm, maybe secret is hiring coaches whose name begins with the letter W?). I see it more as a move in the DePaul-Providence vein where if it goes poorly you continue to stink, and if it goes well, you make some progress but not to the top of the league.
Hard for me to get excited about that sort of hire. Either bring in a real pro (Pitino, Frank Martin, etc) or find a real up and comer (Odom, since they already let Oats get away). Either way they're going to have to pay a price for it, but better to spend smart money than dumb money.[/quote]
Serious question for anyone with time on their hands or ESPKEN: Who was the last St. John's Coach to go to the NCAA tournament 6 times in 8 years and 4 times in a row? Looie.
Nova, Hall, Marquette got it right on up-and-coming coaches and they are now top-of-the-league perennials.
DePaul keeps hiring guys who have been around a while and not making any progress. Providence picked a better one, which has gotten them more or less to the middle of the league.
I don't see Cluess propelling the program the way Wright/Willard/Wojo did theirs (hmmm, maybe secret is hiring coaches whose name begins with the letter W?). I see it more as a move in the DePaul-Providence vein where if it goes poorly you continue to stink, and if it goes well, you make some progress but not to the top of the league.
Hard for me to get excited about that sort of hire. Either bring in a real pro (Pitino, Frank Martin, etc) or find a real up and comer (Odom, since they already let Oats get away). Either way they're going to have to pay a price for it, but better to spend smart money than dumb money.[/quote]
Serious question for anyone with time on their hands or ESPKEN: Who was the last St. John's Coach to go to the NCAA tournament 6 times in 8 years and 4 times in a row? Looie.
Last edited: