Cluess

[quote="bamafan" post=341689][quote="Paultzman" post=341679][quote="Beast of the East" post=341676]1) What are the odds of any high school coach developing a traditionally crappy program (St. Mary's) into a nationally ranked program that at one point was ranked best in the nation? Answer: Given there are about 36,000 high schools and secondary schools in the US, probably at least 25,000 to one.

2) What are the odds of a high school coach who had never coached in college before taking a D2 job and immediately establishing a premier D2 program, winning 80% of his games overall in 5 seasons (120-33). Given there are 300 D2 schools, and this kind of success immediately is almost unprecedented, I'd put those odds at maybe 10,000 to one

3) What are the odds that a successful D2 coach can walk into a D1 program that is in the dumper, and in nine seasons, win the automatic bid 6 times, and for good measure the regular season title 4 additional times? You guess that one.

Now imagine if that guy was now say 40? How many big conference schools would be jumping all over that guy if he would go anywhere to build on his record of success? My guess is a couple dozen.

How many guys have ever had this type of overall success at every single stop in their career, winning almost immediately no matter what he was handed? Almost no one.

Well we could spend a few million on a guy who in the ACC in 6 seasons, finished 10th, 12th, and 14th in 3 of them, went 3-15 this season and 8-10 last season in conference. To me, that's a guy you contemplate firing, not hiring.[/quote]

Cluess does seem the safe, logical pick to replace a SJU legend. Will Cragg take that route or opt for someone with either more risk or does he have somebody in mind with great track record in high D1 program if that is realistic.? (Doubt latter myself)

Suspect only Cragg knows. He seems the type to tune out the noise, avoid social media distractions and focus. This week may prove interesting. His stakes are high. If his recommended candidate is accepted and fails, I could see a short stay for him here.[/quote]
You may be right Paultzman but most ADs get a second chance at a big coaching hire not one before they have to walk the plank 9That one's for you Chicago Days:)[/quote]

Our athletic department gets a chance every four or 5 years, and can contemplate failure after a season or two.
 
[quote="bamafan" post=341689][quote="Paultzman" post=341679][quote="Beast of the East" post=341676]1) What are the odds of any high school coach developing a traditionally crappy program (St. Mary's) into a nationally ranked program that at one point was ranked best in the nation? Answer: Given there are about 36,000 high schools and secondary schools in the US, probably at least 25,000 to one.

2) What are the odds of a high school coach who had never coached in college before taking a D2 job and immediately establishing a premier D2 program, winning 80% of his games overall in 5 seasons (120-33). Given there are 300 D2 schools, and this kind of success immediately is almost unprecedented, I'd put those odds at maybe 10,000 to one

3) What are the odds that a successful D2 coach can walk into a D1 program that is in the dumper, and in nine seasons, win the automatic bid 6 times, and for good measure the regular season title 4 additional times? You guess that one.

Now imagine if that guy was now say 40? How many big conference schools would be jumping all over that guy if he would go anywhere to build on his record of success? My guess is a couple dozen.

How many guys have ever had this type of overall success at every single stop in their career, winning almost immediately no matter what he was handed? Almost no one.

Well we could spend a few million on a guy who in the ACC in 6 seasons, finished 10th, 12th, and 14th in 3 of them, went 3-15 this season and 8-10 last season in conference. To me, that's a guy you contemplate firing, not hiring.[/quote]

Cluess does seem the safe, logical pick to replace a SJU legend. Will Cragg take that route or opt for someone with either more risk or does he have somebody in mind with great track record in high D1 program if that is realistic.? (Doubt latter myself)

Suspect only Cragg knows. He seems the type to tune out the noise, avoid social media distractions and focus. This week may prove interesting. His stakes are high. If his recommended candidate is accepted and fails, I could see a short stay for him here.[/quote]
You may be right Paultzman but most ADs get a second chance at a big coaching hire not one before they are asked to walk the plank (that one's for you Chicago Days:)[/quote]
True at most places Bama ...
 
[quote="SJUFAN2" post=341682]

Fair points, but how many head coaches out there fall into the category of being great without a great staff? 10?
How many of them would want this job at 2-3m a year? Zero?

Any coach we hire is going to have to have a great staff with skill sets that accentuate his own. Mullin isn't here because he didn't get that. Lavin is gone because he lost sight of that as well.

I don't know Cluess, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I see a coach who is:

1- A winner at every level he's coached
2- Experienced at building and running a clean program
3- Someone who recruits ABOVE his programs level.
4- A guy who is deeply connected to, and respected by local HS and AAU programs.
5- A guy who WANTS this job and isn't going to use it as a stepping stone to a bigger payday.
6- A guy who works his ass off to be successful
7- A guy who doesn't need a bench coach to help him with X's and O's or game management.
8- A guy who plays a style that is attractive to this generation of players.

Cluess isn't my top choice this time around, but I'd be happy to have him. To me, he'd be to St Johns what Ed Cooley is to Providence. We'd be top half of the league just about every year and we'd make some noise in our own tournament every March.

I'm not sure we can ask for, or expect, more than that considering the last 20 years this program has had.[/quote]

Agree with your assessment of Cluess. Also agree that if at this point if SJU can't attract a totally complete coach, and is limited to options that will rely more on staff to supplement their own shortcomings, Cluess is a quality option. I also think Beast's point is well made that age is a factor here. If Cluess had a similar resume at even 50 he probably seems a lot more dynamic, and maybe that shouldn't matter.

I do however think there are more complete coaches out there and I probably should have clarified the criteria. I specifically mentioned Hurley and Cooley because in my view they are Tier 3 (at best) type coaches of the caliber that SJU could reasonably have attracted within the last ~5 years. Setting aside of course Tier 1 no doubters (K, Izzo, Wright, Williams etc.) and Tier 2 where they seem to win everywhere they go albeit not at the highest level yet (Mack, Buzz, Dixon, Martin, etc.).

Based on a very quick review Tiers 1 and 2 seem to comprise about 40 coaches. Could be a little higher or lower but I think that's a fair ballpark. SJU would hire any of these coaches instantaneously, but would likely need something very unique to happen to attract that level of established coach here.

I think Cooley and Hurley are two examples of the next level, where they have demonstrated the ability to develop a program to consistently compete at top of its conference and make NCAA, but haven't advanced much beyond that. I still think - could be wrong - that SJU can get this type of coach.

I think that kind of hire is a step up from Cluess, with a primary differentiation being those guys don't seem to generate an immediate "need comprehensive staff" reaction. To varying degrees as it's definitely not a 1:1 comparison the open market has generally supported that, as each of those 3 became college HCs at similar times and Hurley/Cooley have clearly advanced more quickly than has Cluess.

But who knows, maybe that's easy to say about Cooley now that he's had a chance to prove it and has, Cluess could/would do same and in a few years this is moot with Cluess demonstrating himself to be a program leader in his own right at this level. I just get worried, and maybe it has to do more with the last two coaches than Cluess himself, when we hear "will need the right staff to address X." The need for staff supplement has been a story here for the better part of 10 years, and with the right HC it really shouldn't be.
 
If Mullin is costing SJU $4 mil, plus Slice's payoff, is Cluess' $2.5 mil buyout too rich for us?
 
Part of the problem with Cluess is the style of basketball he wants to play. His teams have not defended well. After watching Mullin implement something similar (so called player friendly) I would rather shoot for someone who demands more accountability. Just one man’s opinion.
 
[quote="Knight" post=341703]If Mullin is costing SJU $4 mil, plus Slice's payoff, is Cluess' $2.5 mil buyout too rich for us?[/quote]

Here's an intelligent post. Hard to find on this site these days. Don't be surprised if the school takes an economic path for the hire. Seems as if Tom Bradley's boy didn't get his guy so he's likely not supporting a lesser candidate.
 
[quote="SJU1512" post=341668]As others have noted there are scenarios, after a comprehensive process, where Cluess is a reasonable hire.

One thing that would concern me however is something MJDinkins mentioned last week - seems like a Cluess hire / success would almost be viewed as contingent upon him hiring a bigtime staff.

Look we just learned the hard way how important that is. For any coach, even established great ones, let alone one who had never coached before in Mullin or someone making the jump from the MAAC to the Big East like Cluess.

But it would be nice for a change with an SJU hire if a bigtime staff didn't seem so much like a contingency for the head coach, because the head coach was enough in his own right.

With Lavin it was - great recruiter, needed a bench coach (true). With Mullin it was - great for program profile and revenue in GM type capacity, needs bench coach and recruiters (true). Now with Cluess it seems like - hoops junkie who can really coach the game, knows how to build winning culture, and is respected locally, but needs staff who can recruit at this level particularly on national stage (my guess is also true).

Again nothing wrong with hiring a staff to supplement areas that aren't a strength - that's what you would expect logically, and frankly doing so consistently would be an improvement over the prior two coaches who for whatever reason wouldn't commit to doing so year over year.

But to use two examples of guys I would take here in an instant, they clearly have great/good staffs, but I don't look at Dan Hurley or Ed Cooley and say "they need X on staff to make it work". Because they are wall to wall coaches, recruiters, program runners, fundraisers, and everything else involved in their own right. Having a dyanamic and complete staff is just another supplement, not a necessity.

Not a prerequisite to winning, but would be a concern for me to go this route a third consecutive time.[/quote]

I don’t see anything wrong with with what’s being said about wanting Cluess to have as strong a staff as he can possibly get. Remember, Louie had Ron Rutledge(recruiting), Al Lobalbo(defense) and Brian Mahoney(X and Os). While I think Cluess would do just fine with whoever he brought in, obviously we all want the strongest staff possible to compliment him. Most would be saying the same thing about any coach(except Pitino) who was brought in here.
 
Last edited:
[quote="SJUFAN2" post=341682][quote="SJU1512" post=341668]As others have noted there are scenarios, after a comprehensive process, where Cluess is a reasonable hire.

One thing that would concern me however is something MJDinkins mentioned last week - seems like a Cluess hire / success would almost be viewed as contingent upon him hiring a bigtime staff.

Look we just learned the hard way how important that is. For any coach, even established great ones, let alone one who had never coached before in Mullin or someone making the jump from the MAAC to the Big East like Cluess.

But it would be nice for a change with an SJU hire if a bigtime staff didn't seem so much like a contingency for the head coach, because the head coach was enough in his own right.

With Lavin it was - great recruiter, needed a bench coach (true). With Mullin it was - great for program profile and revenue in GM type capacity, needs bench coach and recruiters (true). Now with Cluess it seems like - hoops junkie who can really coach the game, knows how to build winning culture, and is respected locally, but needs staff who can recruit at this level particularly on national stage (my guess is also true).

Again nothing wrong with hiring a staff to supplement areas that aren't a strength - that's what you would expect logically, and frankly doing so consistently would be an improvement over the prior two coaches who for whatever reason wouldn't commit to doing so year over year.

But to use two examples of guys I would take here in an instant, they clearly have great/good staffs, but I don't look at Dan Hurley or Ed Cooley and say "they need X on staff to make it work". Because they are wall to wall coaches, recruiters, program runners, fundraisers, and everything else involved in their own right. Having a dyanamic and complete staff is just another supplement, not a necessity.

Not a prerequisite to winning, but would be a concern for me to go this route a third consecutive time.[/quote]

Fair points, but how many head coaches out there fall into the category of being great without a great staff? 10?
How many of them would want this job at 2-3m a year? Zero?

Any coach we hire is going to have to have a great staff with skill sets that accentuate his own. Mullin isn't here because he didn't get that. Lavin is gone because he lost sight of that as well.

I don't know Cluess, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I see a coach who is:

1- A winner at every level he's coached
2- Experienced at building and running a clean program
3- Someone who recruits ABOVE his programs level.
4- A guy who is deeply connected to, and respected by local HS and AAU programs.
5- A guy who WANTS this job and isn't going to use it as a stepping stone to a bigger payday.
6- A guy who works his ass off to be successful
7- A guy who doesn't need a bench coach to help him with X's and O's or game management.
8- A guy who plays a style that is attractive to this generation of players.

Cluess isn't my top choice this time around, but I'd be happy to have him. To me, he'd be to St Johns what Ed Cooley is to Providence. We'd be top half of the league just about every year and we'd make some noise in our own tournament every March.

I'm not sure we can ask for, or expect, more than that considering the last 20 years this program has had.[/quote]

Agree with all you’re saying. Let me just add that I expect Cluess to do even better here than Cooley has done at PC, because I feel that he’s at least as good an X and O guy, and he’ll get even better talent here to NYC then Cooley does to Providence. Still think when all is said and done Cluess is not only the final choice, but he’s an excellent choice.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Chris7" post=341711][quote="Knight" post=341703]If Mullin is costing SJU $4 mil, plus Slice's payoff, is Cluess' $2.5 mil buyout too rich for us?[/quote]

Here's an intelligent post. Hard to find on this site these days. Don't be surprised if the school takes an economic path for the hire. Seems as if Tom Bradley's boy didn't get his guy so he's likely not supporting a lesser candidate.[/quote]

Why settle for anything but the best.
That's just stupid to me
 
[quote="Beast of the East" post=341676]1) What are the odds of any high school coach developing a traditionally crappy program (St. Mary's) into a nationally ranked program that at one point was ranked best in the nation? Answer: Given there are about 36,000 high schools and secondary schools in the US, probably at least 25,000 to one.

2) What are the odds of a high school coach who had never coached in college before taking a D2 job and immediately establishing a premier D2 program, winning 80% of his games overall in 5 seasons (120-33). Given there are 300 D2 schools, and this kind of success immediately is almost unprecedented, I'd put those odds at maybe 10,000 to one

3) What are the odds that a successful D2 coach can walk into a D1 program that is in the dumper, and in nine seasons, win the automatic bid 6 times, and for good measure the regular season title 4 additional times? You guess that one.

Now imagine if that guy was now say 40? How many big conference schools would be jumping all over that guy if he would go anywhere to build on his record of success? My guess is a couple dozen.

How many guys have ever had this type of overall success at every single stop in their career, winning almost immediately no matter what he was handed? Almost no one.

Well we could spend a few million on a guy who in the ACC in 6 seasons, finished 10th, 12th, and 14th in 3 of them, went 3-15 this season and 8-10 last season in conference. To me, that's a guy you contemplate firing, not hiring.[/quote]

Hold on a minute here. This is really not a fair picture being painted.

2014 15-17 (6-12)
2015 32-6 (14-4) 3 seed elite 8
2016 24-12 (11-7) 6 seed elite 8
2017 26-10 (12-6) 5 seed 2nd round
2018 21-15 (8-10) missed Bonzi Colson for 15 conference games due to injury
2019 14-19 (3-15)

Keep in mind that the 2018 certainly would have been an NCAA team with a healthy Colson. So, a crappy first year and last year sandwiched around 4 years that (with a healthy Colson) are all better than anything we have seen in 20 years. This is not to put down Cluess who has won anywhere he has been, but to defend the record of Brey who has been a very good coach for a long time.
 
Cragg can't allow the new coach to bring in "do nothing" assistant coaches such as Keady and Richmond. If the choice is Cluess then obviously we need an assistant with a strong defensive background. It would also be nice having a head coach handling the x's and o's.
 
[quote="cappy105" post=341766]the longer this goes on the more I want Cluess[/quote]

A lot of good, well-reasoned posts herein - no extremes or unrealistic propositions - whomever the head coach will be = we need a staff that can augment the that person - no one HC can or should try to "do it all" - synergy
thanks for all the insights.
For whatever reason I still feel this can shake out productively with a good new coach and staff. is a process and we are moving along - even if not fast enough for some.
It
 
[quote="weathermannyc" post=341722][quote="Beast of the East" post=341676]1) What are the odds of any high school coach developing a traditionally crappy program (St. Mary's) into a nationally ranked program that at one point was ranked best in the nation? Answer: Given there are about 36,000 high schools and secondary schools in the US, probably at least 25,000 to one.

2) What are the odds of a high school coach who had never coached in college before taking a D2 job and immediately establishing a premier D2 program, winning 80% of his games overall in 5 seasons (120-33). Given there are 300 D2 schools, and this kind of success immediately is almost unprecedented, I'd put those odds at maybe 10,000 to one

3) What are the odds that a successful D2 coach can walk into a D1 program that is in the dumper, and in nine seasons, win the automatic bid 6 times, and for good measure the regular season title 4 additional times? You guess that one.

Now imagine if that guy was now say 40? How many big conference schools would be jumping all over that guy if he would go anywhere to build on his record of success? My guess is a couple dozen.

How many guys have ever had this type of overall success at every single stop in their career, winning almost immediately no matter what he was handed? Almost no one.

Well we could spend a few million on a guy who in the ACC in 6 seasons, finished 10th, 12th, and 14th in 3 of them, went 3-15 this season and 8-10 last season in conference. To me, that's a guy you contemplate firing, not hiring.[/quote]

Hold on a minute here. This is really not a fair picture being painted.

2014 15-17 (6-12)
2015 32-6 (14-4) 3 seed elite 8
2016 24-12 (11-7) 6 seed elite 8
2017 26-10 (12-6) 5 seed 2nd round
2018 21-15 (8-10) missed Bonzi Colson for 15 conference games due to injury
2019 14-19 (3-15)

Keep in mind that the 2018 certainly would have been an NCAA team with a healthy Colson. So, a crappy first year and last year sandwiched around 4 years that (with a healthy Colson) are all better than anything we have seen in 20 years. This is not to put down Cluess who has won anywhere he has been, but to defend the record of Brey who has been a very good coach for a long time.[/quote]

Yes, and Steve LAvin answered my question, "How is D'Angelo feeling?" before the that NCAA game in Charlotte with a 5 miute answer of how much better we'd be with Sampson, Harkless, etc. You could say the same about how much better SJU would have been if Shamorie, HEron, and even Keita were at full strength and played all games. Then we could talk about last season, and....
 
[quote="cappy105" post=341766]the longer this goes on the more I want Cluess[/quote]

At this point, I'd be good with either Cluess or Brey or Scheyer, complemented with solid staffs, the sooner the better.
I seem to be the lonesome buzzard on the cliff about this, but the roster looks like Rocky Balboa at his worst against Ivan Drago.
Lets do it already.
This week, I hope.
 
weathermannyc wrote: Hold on a minute here. This is really not a fair picture being painted.

2014 15-17 (6-12)
2015 32-6 (14-4) 3 seed elite 8
2016 24-12 (11-7) 6 seed elite 8
2017 26-10 (12-6) 5 seed 2nd round
2018 21-15 (8-10) missed Bonzi Colson for 15 conference games due to injury
2019 14-19 (3-15)

Keep in mind that the 2018 certainly would have been an NCAA team with a healthy Colson. So, a crappy first year and last year sandwiched around 4 years that (with a healthy Colson) are all better than anything we have seen in 20 years. This is not to put down Cluess who has won anywhere he has been, but to defend the record of Brey who has been a very good coach for a long time.

Yes, and Brey made the dance 9 of the 13 years that ND was in BE which we'd love to sign up for. Doubt he's coming here and I'm not advocating for it, but he is clearly a very good coach. The two Elite eights he's made since joining the ACC 6 years ago match our two Elite eights over the past 34 years....
 
[quote="Chicago Days" post=341775][quote="cappy105" post=341766]the longer this goes on the more I want Cluess[/quote]

At this point, I'd be good with either Cluess or Brey or Scheyer, complemented with solid staffs, the sooner the better.
I seem to be the lonesome buzzard on the cliff about this, but the roster looks like Rocky Balboa at his worst against Ivan Drago.
Lets do it already.
This week, I hope.[/quote]
You are like a weather vane Chicago :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top