Expectations
- Thread starter Marillac
- Start date
I've been a big proponent, for a variety of reasons, of Lavin recruiting more in our own back yard. Now I could honestly care less where talented kids come, however recruiting locally (tri-state area) makes it a whole lot easier to stay on a kid and certainly increases the chances of landing a kid. Still not quite sure why he needs to travel to Bosbia, Italy, Florida, etc. etc. to find 2nd and 3rd tier talent and walk-ons, when we have plenty of those same kids right here in NYC, LI and NJ. If you're going to take a reach kid, why not take him from a local program which will help establish a relationship with that program and which will, in all likelihood, reap dividends down the road?
SJU lost out on McCullogh because;
1) Syracuse out draws SJU in attendance 24,000 to 8,000
2) Syracuse plays in the best conference in the country, SJU plays in the seventh or eight best
3) Syracuse for the last 25 years wins 25 or more games and makes the tournament
SJjU lost out on Briscoe because of Kentucky and Calipari and not because Lavin got out recruited by an ass't coach
If anyone feels that Hurley,Cluess or any other replacement would have these two recruits playing for SJU they are in denial.
1) Syracuse out draws SJU in attendance 24,000 to 8,000
2) Syracuse plays in the best conference in the country, SJU plays in the seventh or eight best
3) Syracuse for the last 25 years wins 25 or more games and makes the tournament
SJjU lost out on Briscoe because of Kentucky and Calipari and not because Lavin got out recruited by an ass't coach
If anyone feels that Hurley,Cluess or any other replacement would have these two recruits playing for SJU they are in denial.
southernjohnny2
Member
Rucker is more of a showcase. I know they made changes recently like a hardwood floor, and the ability for ncaa kids to play.The NC-pro am summer league is filled with nc state, unc, and duke players and alumni, as well as NBA stars that just dont play one game to say they played there. I am talking about a summer league that can help advance a kids development. How many STJ players played this past summer in the Rucker tourney...You take a kid like Kennedy Meeks who spent the past summer playing in the NC pro-am and lost a bunch of weight and now is becoming a star power forward at UNC. he has progressed. I havent been to Rucker in years so I am asking not stating anything specific.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Right on Bama. Lavin cares more about being some sort of socialite in the city with his wife rather than busting his ass on the recruiting trail and being at campus in queens. He is completely detached from everything and I hear that he only is at campus for games and practice....MIA the rest of the time.
Hassan Martin was a 2014 recruit from Staten Island. Hassan was ranked as the #124 high schooler by Rivals. "Lav" and his hard working staff may have been too busy recruiting the 14 high schoolers who eventually said "no" to them during that cycle than to recruit Hassan.
Do you think that "Lav" has ever been to Staten Island?
TRabinowitz
Member
Syracuse was at Brewster almost every week when McCullough transferred there. SJU staff got outworked and out hustled for him.
This is my first opportunity to sit and share an opinion on the Coach - SJU just beat Minnesota so the immediate circumstances are pleasant. Great win. Great hussle. Now a couple of reflections. Pardon my long-windedness. My next posts, if any, will be brief.
1. I have not been seen for a while, some can relate going through a perfect (and unfortunate life) storm - but somehow , unlike the movie, I have herein been able to resurface for which I am grateful. Let's say I - like others - am still in the process resurfacing.
A few posters close to me informed me of a presidential discussion on a post, mentioning U.S.Grant and wondering where SS&G went??? By the way there are parallels between St.Johns and certain presidents.
2. I have no doubt that the noble and loyal Grant and his subordinate generals would be in the stands cheering on the Redmen through the days of Brian, Fran, Mike, Norm (did I leave anyone out?). Despite what some might think - a popular notion - both Grant and Eisenhower were remarkable men evolving into remarkable leaders (it took time for them to blossom). Both from humble backgrounds; both unlike the Lees and MacArthurs of the world and the latter's keen intelligence. There are an infinite arenas for brilliance and although not "book smart", Mr. Grant and Mr. Eisenhower excelled in other arenas.
3. How many of us struggle with modest homefronts or job circumstances. How many of us could lead major armies in major wars through major crises; then assume the role of Commander in Chief? And survive highly popular and intact. I could not nor would I choose to.
And their strengths and virtues (determination, honesty, personnel acumen and the like) were not suited for the 'politics" of our nation. Hence some would lean - as I am told inthe discussions on this site - toward evaluating Grant and Eisenhower as not such wonderful Presidents. They did not know how to play politics, perhaps perhaps too it was not in their DNA to "sell their souls" and bargain first to become re-elected and then to appease all the constituents, bring in the cash…whatever. I am not astute and surely not as informed as others in this arena. I do know, however, that what made Grant and Ike good soldiers did not serve them well in the White House.
4. By the way Ulysses should have been hired by the Mets, Jetys or as chief recruiter at St. John's since he had a superb eye for talent as indicated by his support of Sherman and Sheridan. He was the Gene Michael of the Civil War (our worst war because every man shot was an American).
A strange parallel exists between Abraham Lincoln hiring then firing generals (I believe ??? Burnside, Meade, McClellan, Hooker and others) until he landed the reliable and determined U.S. Grant - as St.Johns has hired a handful of unsuccessful head coaches until "we" landed Steve Lavin. I understand the disappointment in NCAA appearances or lack thereof and of recent recruiting. But I ask where could we find a better overall coach? And what is worth the risk of starting over with no guarantee of any improvement in recruiting or W-L records.
5. I'd like to turn to P.J.Carlisimo (spelling?) who was hired by Seton Hall in 1982. His records were 6-23; 9-19; 10-18; 14-18; 15-14; 22-13 and the school's first NCAA appearance (I believe) then the wondrous 31-7 season and run to the finals of the tournament. This was PJ's seventh season.
I recall the words of the great Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936). He never attended a St John's game though he could have before this death. On his deathbed, however, he summed up his view of the essence of success in life (which I assume also applies to college basketball): passion and gradualism.
6. I would continue to support Steve Lavin, who clearly is a man of passion, and practice gradualism which most significant achievements in life require (raising kids, bulding a business, developing some key virtue or habit, whatever). Patience and gradualism. And consideration of the alternatives as in alternative coaches.
I'm not convinced there are better alternatives.
all the best
great win tonight
It's good to be back
again pardon the long-windedness - wow so many words
I realize many of you know more than I when it comes to American history and St. John's basketball
1. I have not been seen for a while, some can relate going through a perfect (and unfortunate life) storm - but somehow , unlike the movie, I have herein been able to resurface for which I am grateful. Let's say I - like others - am still in the process resurfacing.
A few posters close to me informed me of a presidential discussion on a post, mentioning U.S.Grant and wondering where SS&G went??? By the way there are parallels between St.Johns and certain presidents.
2. I have no doubt that the noble and loyal Grant and his subordinate generals would be in the stands cheering on the Redmen through the days of Brian, Fran, Mike, Norm (did I leave anyone out?). Despite what some might think - a popular notion - both Grant and Eisenhower were remarkable men evolving into remarkable leaders (it took time for them to blossom). Both from humble backgrounds; both unlike the Lees and MacArthurs of the world and the latter's keen intelligence. There are an infinite arenas for brilliance and although not "book smart", Mr. Grant and Mr. Eisenhower excelled in other arenas.
3. How many of us struggle with modest homefronts or job circumstances. How many of us could lead major armies in major wars through major crises; then assume the role of Commander in Chief? And survive highly popular and intact. I could not nor would I choose to.
And their strengths and virtues (determination, honesty, personnel acumen and the like) were not suited for the 'politics" of our nation. Hence some would lean - as I am told inthe discussions on this site - toward evaluating Grant and Eisenhower as not such wonderful Presidents. They did not know how to play politics, perhaps perhaps too it was not in their DNA to "sell their souls" and bargain first to become re-elected and then to appease all the constituents, bring in the cash…whatever. I am not astute and surely not as informed as others in this arena. I do know, however, that what made Grant and Ike good soldiers did not serve them well in the White House.
4. By the way Ulysses should have been hired by the Mets, Jetys or as chief recruiter at St. John's since he had a superb eye for talent as indicated by his support of Sherman and Sheridan. He was the Gene Michael of the Civil War (our worst war because every man shot was an American).
A strange parallel exists between Abraham Lincoln hiring then firing generals (I believe ??? Burnside, Meade, McClellan, Hooker and others) until he landed the reliable and determined U.S. Grant - as St.Johns has hired a handful of unsuccessful head coaches until "we" landed Steve Lavin. I understand the disappointment in NCAA appearances or lack thereof and of recent recruiting. But I ask where could we find a better overall coach? And what is worth the risk of starting over with no guarantee of any improvement in recruiting or W-L records.
5. I'd like to turn to P.J.Carlisimo (spelling?) who was hired by Seton Hall in 1982. His records were 6-23; 9-19; 10-18; 14-18; 15-14; 22-13 and the school's first NCAA appearance (I believe) then the wondrous 31-7 season and run to the finals of the tournament. This was PJ's seventh season.
I recall the words of the great Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936). He never attended a St John's game though he could have before this death. On his deathbed, however, he summed up his view of the essence of success in life (which I assume also applies to college basketball): passion and gradualism.
6. I would continue to support Steve Lavin, who clearly is a man of passion, and practice gradualism which most significant achievements in life require (raising kids, bulding a business, developing some key virtue or habit, whatever). Patience and gradualism. And consideration of the alternatives as in alternative coaches.
I'm not convinced there are better alternatives.
all the best
great win tonight
It's good to be back
again pardon the long-windedness - wow so many words
I realize many of you know more than I when it comes to American history and St. John's basketball
This is my first opportunity to sit and share an opinion on the Coach - SJU just beat Minnesota so the immediate circumstances are pleasant. Great win. Great hussle. Now a couple of reflections. Pardon my long-windedness. My next posts, if any, will be brief.
1. I have not been seen for a while, some can relate going through a perfect (and unfortunate life) storm - but somehow , unlike the movie, I have herein been able to resurface for which I am grateful. Let's say I - like others - am still in the process resurfacing.
A few posters close to me informed me of a presidential discussion on a post, mentioning U.S.Grant and wondering where SS&G went??? By the way there are parallels between St.Johns and certain presidents.
2. I have no doubt that the noble and loyal Grant and his subordinate generals would be in the stands cheering on the Redmen through the days of Brian, Fran, Mike, Norm (did I leave anyone out?). Despite what some might think - a popular notion - both Grant and Eisenhower were remarkable men evolving into remarkable leaders (it took time for them to blossom). Both from humble backgrounds; both unlike the Lees and MacArthurs of the world and the latter's keen intelligence. There are an infinite arenas for brilliance and although not "book smart", Mr. Grant and Mr. Eisenhower excelled in other arenas.
3. How many of us struggle with modest homefronts or job circumstances. How many of us could lead major armies in major wars through major crises; then assume the role of Commander in Chief? And survive highly popular and intact. I could not nor would I choose to.
And their strengths and virtues (determination, honesty, personnel acumen and the like) were not suited for the 'politics" of our nation. Hence some would lean - as I am told inthe discussions on this site - toward evaluating Grant and Eisenhower as not such wonderful Presidents. They did not know how to play politics, perhaps perhaps too it was not in their DNA to "sell their souls" and bargain first to become re-elected and then to appease all the constituents, bring in the cash…whatever. I am not astute and surely not as informed as others in this arena. I do know, however, that what made Grant and Ike good soldiers did not serve them well in the White House.
4. By the way Ulysses should have been hired by the Mets, Jetys or as chief recruiter at St. John's since he had a superb eye for talent as indicated by his support of Sherman and Sheridan. He was the Gene Michael of the Civil War (our worst war because every man shot was an American).
A strange parallel exists between Abraham Lincoln hiring then firing generals (I believe ??? Burnside, Meade, McClellan, Hooker and others) until he landed the reliable and determined U.S. Grant - as St.Johns has hired a handful of unsuccessful head coaches until "we" landed Steve Lavin. I understand the disappointment in NCAA appearances or lack thereof and of recent recruiting. But I ask where could we find a better overall coach? And what is worth the risk of starting over with no guarantee of any improvement in recruiting or W-L records.
5. I'd like to turn to P.J.Carlisimo (spelling?) who was hired by Seton Hall in 1982. His records were 6-23; 9-19; 10-18; 14-18; 15-14; 22-13 and the school's first NCAA appearance (I believe) then the wondrous 31-7 season and run to the finals of the tournament. This was PJ's seventh season.
I recall the words of the great Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936). He never attended a St John's game though he could have before this death. On his deathbed, however, he summed up his view of the essence of success in life (which I assume also applies to college basketball): passion and gradualism.
6. I would continue to support Steve Lavin, who clearly is a man of passion, and practice gradualism which most significant achievements in life require (raising kids, bulding a business, developing some key virtue or habit, whatever). Patience and gradualism. And consideration of the alternatives as in alternative coaches.
I'm not convinced there are better alternatives.
all the best
great win tonight
It's good to be back
again pardon the long-windedness - wow so many words
I realize many of you know more than I when it comes to American history and St. John's basketball
Not sure I follow your rhetoric (it's past midnight and I've had a few celebratory wines), but it's great to have you back ... But one thing I did grasp (or at least I think I did) -- and agree with -- is that, like you, I haven't yet jumped ship on Lavin. And again, great to have you back.
This is my first opportunity to sit and share an opinion on the Coach - SJU just beat Minnesota so the immediate circumstances are pleasant. Great win. Great hussle. Now a couple of reflections. Pardon my long-windedness. My next posts, if any, will be brief.
1. I have not been seen for a while, some can relate going through a perfect (and unfortunate life) storm - but somehow , unlike the movie, I have herein been able to resurface for which I am grateful. Let's say I - like others - am still in the process resurfacing.
A few posters close to me informed me of a presidential discussion on a post, mentioning U.S.Grant and wondering where SS&G went??? By the way there are parallels between St.Johns and certain presidents.
2. I have no doubt that the noble and loyal Grant and his subordinate generals would be in the stands cheering on the Redmen through the days of Brian, Fran, Mike, Norm (did I leave anyone out?). Despite what some might think - a popular notion - both Grant and Eisenhower were remarkable men evolving into remarkable leaders (it took time for them to blossom). Both from humble backgrounds; both unlike the Lees and MacArthurs of the world and the latter's keen intelligence. There are an infinite arenas for brilliance and although not "book smart", Mr. Grant and Mr. Eisenhower excelled in other arenas.
3. How many of us struggle with modest homefronts or job circumstances. How many of us could lead major armies in major wars through major crises; then assume the role of Commander in Chief? And survive highly popular and intact. I could not nor would I choose to.
And their strengths and virtues (determination, honesty, personnel acumen and the like) were not suited for the 'politics" of our nation. Hence some would lean - as I am told inthe discussions on this site - toward evaluating Grant and Eisenhower as not such wonderful Presidents. They did not know how to play politics, perhaps perhaps too it was not in their DNA to "sell their souls" and bargain first to become re-elected and then to appease all the constituents, bring in the cash…whatever. I am not astute and surely not as informed as others in this arena. I do know, however, that what made Grant and Ike good soldiers did not serve them well in the White House.
4. By the way Ulysses should have been hired by the Mets, Jetys or as chief recruiter at St. John's since he had a superb eye for talent as indicated by his support of Sherman and Sheridan. He was the Gene Michael of the Civil War (our worst war because every man shot was an American).
A strange parallel exists between Abraham Lincoln hiring then firing generals (I believe ??? Burnside, Meade, McClellan, Hooker and others) until he landed the reliable and determined U.S. Grant - as St.Johns has hired a handful of unsuccessful head coaches until "we" landed Steve Lavin. I understand the disappointment in NCAA appearances or lack thereof and of recent recruiting. But I ask where could we find a better overall coach? And what is worth the risk of starting over with no guarantee of any improvement in recruiting or W-L records.
5. I'd like to turn to P.J.Carlisimo (spelling?) who was hired by Seton Hall in 1982. His records were 6-23; 9-19; 10-18; 14-18; 15-14; 22-13 and the school's first NCAA appearance (I believe) then the wondrous 31-7 season and run to the finals of the tournament. This was PJ's seventh season.
I recall the words of the great Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936). He never attended a St John's game though he could have before this death. On his deathbed, however, he summed up his view of the essence of success in life (which I assume also applies to college basketball): passion and gradualism.
6. I would continue to support Steve Lavin, who clearly is a man of passion, and practice gradualism which most significant achievements in life require (raising kids, bulding a business, developing some key virtue or habit, whatever). Patience and gradualism. And consideration of the alternatives as in alternative coaches.
I'm not convinced there are better alternatives.
all the best
great win tonight
It's good to be back
again pardon the long-windedness - wow so many words
I realize many of you know more than I when it comes to American history and St. John's basketball
Not sure I follow your rhetoric (it's past midnight and I've had a few celebratory wines), but it's great to have you back ... But one thing I did grasp (or at least I think I did) -- and agree with -- is that, like you, I haven't yet jumped ship on Lavin. And again, great to have you back.
I also have not jumped ship and feel before even thinking that we should go thru 2015 with this staff
Good to see you back. This website has often been a salvation for me, even though I may not be the most articulate or well liked. I have learned it doesn't matter and to stay in the moment. I am concerned by next year but don't know how yesterday's game couldn't get you excited. I will be there to hope for a miracle tomorrow.