Fire Lavin!
- Thread starter Ilzion
- Start date
FYI, was just in the gym and watching the ending of the Duke game with a casual fan who happened to be in there as well. Long story short, turns out he was a West Virginia fan, and when I told him I was a St. John's fan, he said that Lavin is horrible and isn't a good coach at all. Just thought that was interesting coming from an impartial observer of our team.
westchesterjoe
Active member
i had a dream that one of the following:
Masiello, WOJO,COLLINS, OR, ADD YOUR OWN FAVORITE..
Was Coaching our Team next year and we got to the Sweet 16...
Then, i had a nightmare that Lavin Coached our team to a 15 and 15 record and 8th place in the BE.. AND, NO NIT..
We aren`t even sure that Adonis is coming here, if he doesn`t then what do we do with Joey? I guess he`ll be a walkon.
People want Lavin extended so he`s not a lame duck coach. Before that though, could we get some verbals from some top 5 recruits Briscoe and Diallo), just to let us know that if he`s extended that they will be on board. They could back off of it if they want since it would be only a verbal and not signing the loi. So that would be no harm right?
I know i`ll probably get sarcastic comments back at me.
I just don`t get extending him for possibly the same results.
People want Lavin extended so he`s not a lame duck coach. Before that though, could we get some verbals from some top 5 recruits Briscoe and Diallo), just to let us know that if he`s extended that they will be on board. They could back off of it if they want since it would be only a verbal and not signing the loi. So that would be no harm right?
I know i`ll probably get sarcastic comments back at me.
I just don`t get extending him for possibly the same results.
beast of the east
Active member
Doesn't it work the other way? Meaning, that no one would want to commit to a coach whose contract expires midway through their eligibility. I don't understand what you don't understand.
Class of 72
Active member
Guess that explains his crappy recruiting this year.
Beast, isn`t verbally committing and actually signing the LOI two different things?
Verbally commit then see what happens, if they don`t extend him then they could uncommit to SJU.
Recruits uncommit all the time, no?
Then if they extended him, atleast he would have 2 5star players coming to SJU.
Of course that assuming that SJU is their top choice, if not then nm
beast of the east
Active member
Players choosing a school need the stability of knowing that the guy who is recruiting them will be around. Here is the difference between a NLI and verbal.
National Letter of Intent (NLI): The NLI is a binding agreement between the prospective student-athlete and the school. By signing a National Letter of Intent you are agreeing to attend a school full-time for one academic year. In turn, the school agrees to provide athletics financial aid for one academic year. Since you are agreeing to attend the school, it is putting the academic interests of the prospective student-athlete first. If there is a coaching change the prospect is still bound by the NLI. So, in NCAA recruiting, you are committing to the school, not the coach when signing a NLI. However, you can request a release from the agreement, but it is at the full discretion of the school. Once you have signed the NLI, all recruitment efforts from other schools are banned as you are committed to the school you signed with. The NLI is a way to protect the athlete and the school. The NLI is only pertinent to Division 1 and 2 sports. To fully commit to a Division 3 school you must pay your initial deposit to the school.
Verbal Commitment: For the most part, verbal agreements work like the NLI, without the written, binding contract. As such, you should be careful when offering a verbal commitment with a school. However, it is bad business for teams to go back on verbal agreements with players. Again, this is a verbal agreement and lacks any enforcement.
beast of the east
Active member
.
westchesterjoe
Active member
There is a hole in the argument that Coaching extensions give security/flexibility to recruits or, players . Coaches leave for better jobs, get fired, resign or, go to the NBA. There are no insurance policies that tell recruits they will get out of their commitment. And, once enrolled as Players, they have to sit out a year if they choose to transfer, unless they get a hardship waiver.
Case in point, BUZZ may get some of his Marquette recruits to follow him to VT but, it's not automatic. Current players are basically stuck for that 1 year period, if they choose to transfer. Often times, incoming recruits or players will stay after a Coaching change, if they think the new Coach will benefit them. Buzz may not like the current commits for VT either and suggest they look elsewhere.
At the bottom line, Coaching extensions are really for the benefit of the Coaches, not the players or recruits. There is a lot of bs in thinking it hurts recruiting , formulated mostly by the Coaches Agents.
Reading this thread and watching the tournament has led me to wonder if STJ is way too right-handed; i.e. doesn't reverse the ball well because D'Lo and PGIV and Jakarr, and just about everybody except Jamal, are more comfortable going right and don't shoot as well going left. (Rysheed may be the exception to this and our successes with him at full strength may be the answer to this post but I am asking others to look at this possibility.) Assuming coaches chart this sort of stuff and evidence backs my amateur's observation, how do you coach against your own talents' tendencies?
beast of the east
Active member
Joe, I don't know how to respond when your reasoning lacks common sense. Do you not think that when you are competing hard for a kid, that other colleges are in his ear, telling the kid that the other school's coach has a contract expiring the next year or two? Don't you think that a kid who is recruited heavily by one coach could be disregarded or even encouraged to leave by another (case in point Ron Roberts). Based on the content, I don't think you listen to objective reasoning but its true. You also do not read, because to establish this security for recruits you extend a coach but without guarantees - in effect you are making a public declaration of continuity without a monetary commitment.
beast of the east
Active member
I may be in the minority, and I'm not disregarding Harrison's importance to the team, but once Jordan got going here, we were entirely two different teams when he is on the floor and when he isn't. He is not only dynamic, but he is a floor general, often directing players to move with one hand as he dribbles with the other. He leaves the court, and we look like a philharmonic without a conductor. Well maybe more like a high school band without a conductor. I think at this point our trajectory without Jordan would be very troubling. With him and one plum to fall into our laps for next season, and this team should be NCAA bound.
Could not agree with you more on Jordan. Many on this board (myself included) stated our frustration during the preseason (and the first Providence game) that he wasn't getting more minutes. That appears to be in the past and if he's sound next year, he will be a beast.
beast of the east
Active member
As long as they hand him the keys to the team, make Harrison the #1 option and not the only option, get 15 ppg out of Sampson, and come up with a better option than Phil Greene as your next scorer, and we could be a top 25 team, assuming Obekpa is back
At this point, I don't even need a plum to fall into our laps. Let's just get Obekpa back, that's priority 1,2, and3. Delarosa would be nice, but he'll never be more than a role player IMO. Which we need, don't get me wrong. We need front court depth.
But get Obekpa back, and next season will hold a lot of promise.
But get Obekpa back, and next season will hold a lot of promise.
beast of the east
Active member
I'd love a banger who can drop 10 pts a game and 8 boards. Someone with the potential of say, a Sanchez but who delivers.