Ray Morgan
Well-known member
1. Can anyone confirm Fuschia's comment that the stipend, under certain circumstances, is still available as a recruiting tool? If so, what kind of money is there for living at home?
Four Recruting Classes: A Summary
- Thread starter Ray Morgan
- Start date
Class of 72
Active member
[quote="we are sju" post=316916][quote="Chicago Days" post=316909][quote="we are sju" post=316901]Not sure why people don't seem to understand that ST John's University is not a desirable spot for big time HS recruits? Outside of getting someone shady like Cal or Sean Miller, which will never happen not going to get talented HS recruits w/o baggage accept for the random kid that truly wants to stay hope. And the problem with that is NY is no longer the talent base it was when Louie was coaching. To get talent whoever the coach is, he or she (When Mullin leaves who knows where next coach comes from so not ruling anything out) will have to be creative.[/quote]
Granted our facilities are not on par with most successful high-major programs and we still suffer for our ‘commuter school’ label, but Gonzaga, early on in building a nationa basketball rep, had a lousy campus and facilities and still plays in a weak conference, and Louisiville is, well, in Louisiville, and Seton Hall is a small school in a leafy suburb, while Providence is, well, in Providence.
What these other schools have, are superb Staffs and wise and energetic ADs who have made correct decisiones on recruits and modernizing their facilities and who have built winning programs.
That’s our model and I see no reason why St. John’s, in NYC, in the BEC, cannot attain it.[/quote]
It is in Queens, a commuter school, campus is not great and judging by cheerleaders has a coed problem. Tack on we have been mediocre to terrible for going on what 25 years......Yes if someone could figure out to get us in tourney consistently for a prolonged period of time then yes the recruiting will see an uptick. But therein lies the rub.Have to win before you get the big HS recruits. Now how do we do that w/o throwing out blanket "we need to get better HS recruits"?[/quote]
What does Queens and the cheerleaders have go do with anything? Why body shame teenage girls? Having school spirit is the main qualification for cheerleading.
AND the commuter school excuse is as old as you. While we have over 16,500 undergrads, only 2,000 or so are on the Staten Island campus. There are over 4,500 students in university housing in and around the Queens campus. That resident population compares closely to schools such as Gonzaga, Xavier, Butler, Providence, Villanova. Even top academic Basketball schools like Georgetown and Duke have undergraduate populations of under 7,000 students living on campus. The size of the school is irrelevant.
Yes, winning helps getting recruits. But it doesn't take much research to figure out that who the head coach is may be the biggest factor. When those successful coaches move to less successful programs that success follows them even though they inherit an inferior program. They recruit and change the culture. Having experience and success as a head coach is a big factor. Look at Jaime Dixon at TCU. Look at Eric Musselman at Nevada.
The two guys I regret we never hired were John Kresse and Bob McKillop. Both would have changed the St. John's basketball image post Carnesecca.
Yes, we all want go win games and we love our redmen basketball but let's face reality. We hired a former player who had never coached so much as a CYO team. He is surrounded by former players who never coached. The results to date have more to do with that head scratching hiring than campuses and girls. We debate this situation ad nauseam because it is always a factor in why recruits select other programs. I hope that image changes this year.
Granted our facilities are not on par with most successful high-major programs and we still suffer for our ‘commuter school’ label, but Gonzaga, early on in building a nationa basketball rep, had a lousy campus and facilities and still plays in a weak conference, and Louisiville is, well, in Louisiville, and Seton Hall is a small school in a leafy suburb, while Providence is, well, in Providence.
What these other schools have, are superb Staffs and wise and energetic ADs who have made correct decisiones on recruits and modernizing their facilities and who have built winning programs.
That’s our model and I see no reason why St. John’s, in NYC, in the BEC, cannot attain it.[/quote]
It is in Queens, a commuter school, campus is not great and judging by cheerleaders has a coed problem. Tack on we have been mediocre to terrible for going on what 25 years......Yes if someone could figure out to get us in tourney consistently for a prolonged period of time then yes the recruiting will see an uptick. But therein lies the rub.Have to win before you get the big HS recruits. Now how do we do that w/o throwing out blanket "we need to get better HS recruits"?[/quote]
What does Queens and the cheerleaders have go do with anything? Why body shame teenage girls? Having school spirit is the main qualification for cheerleading.
AND the commuter school excuse is as old as you. While we have over 16,500 undergrads, only 2,000 or so are on the Staten Island campus. There are over 4,500 students in university housing in and around the Queens campus. That resident population compares closely to schools such as Gonzaga, Xavier, Butler, Providence, Villanova. Even top academic Basketball schools like Georgetown and Duke have undergraduate populations of under 7,000 students living on campus. The size of the school is irrelevant.
Yes, winning helps getting recruits. But it doesn't take much research to figure out that who the head coach is may be the biggest factor. When those successful coaches move to less successful programs that success follows them even though they inherit an inferior program. They recruit and change the culture. Having experience and success as a head coach is a big factor. Look at Jaime Dixon at TCU. Look at Eric Musselman at Nevada.
The two guys I regret we never hired were John Kresse and Bob McKillop. Both would have changed the St. John's basketball image post Carnesecca.
Yes, we all want go win games and we love our redmen basketball but let's face reality. We hired a former player who had never coached so much as a CYO team. He is surrounded by former players who never coached. The results to date have more to do with that head scratching hiring than campuses and girls. We debate this situation ad nauseam because it is always a factor in why recruits select other programs. I hope that image changes this year.
Two sides to every argument. I can recall before the dorms were built on campus a common reason being given for not getting further in the NCAAs was we were at a disadvantage not having on campus facilities for athletes.
Ray Morgan
Well-known member
[quote="jackfro" post=316956]Three reasons for lack of success since 2000: stipend disappeared, Riverside connection disappeared and most importantly, years and years of success under coaches Lapchick and Carnesecca disappeared.[/quote]
Which calls for a new and dynamic approach. First response was a much greater reliance on the JUCO and transfer market. That has worked, but has its limitations.. Now staff and A.D. and yes, major donors, need to work on finding answers.
Which calls for a new and dynamic approach. First response was a much greater reliance on the JUCO and transfer market. That has worked, but has its limitations.. Now staff and A.D. and yes, major donors, need to work on finding answers.
Ray Morgan
Well-known member
[quote="Enright" post=316958]Two sides to every argument. I can recall before the dorms were built on campus a common reason being given for not getting further in the NCAAs was we were at a disadvantage not having on campus facilities for athletes.[/quote]
It was the reason given for limiting our recruiting to tri state players. Dorms did provide a campus life for out of town recruits, but I guess a thousand a month in the pocket was an awful nice perk to offer a local kid who could live at home and enjoy the legal recruiting practice.
It was the reason given for limiting our recruiting to tri state players. Dorms did provide a campus life for out of town recruits, but I guess a thousand a month in the pocket was an awful nice perk to offer a local kid who could live at home and enjoy the legal recruiting practice.
Class of 72
Active member
[quote="Ray Morgan" post=316960][quote="Enright" post=316958]Two sides to every argument. I can recall before the dorms were built on campus a common reason being given for not getting further in the NCAAs was we were at a disadvantage not having on campus facilities for athletes.[/quote]
It was the reason given for limiting our recruiting to tri state players. Dorms did provide a campus life for out of town recruits, but I guess a thousand a month in the pocket was an awful nice perk to offer a local kid who could live at home and enjoy the legal recruiting practice.[/quote]
Before dorms the players lived in off campus housing selected by the program. The players did not live at home for the most part. The current players still prefer to live off campus as do many athletes who are upper classmen at other schools because it allows them freedom in their [strike]sex[/strike] social life.
Current NCAA rules now allow for a limited stipend.
It was the reason given for limiting our recruiting to tri state players. Dorms did provide a campus life for out of town recruits, but I guess a thousand a month in the pocket was an awful nice perk to offer a local kid who could live at home and enjoy the legal recruiting practice.[/quote]
Before dorms the players lived in off campus housing selected by the program. The players did not live at home for the most part. The current players still prefer to live off campus as do many athletes who are upper classmen at other schools because it allows them freedom in their [strike]sex[/strike] social life.
Current NCAA rules now allow for a limited stipend.
Class of 72
Active member
[quote="Marillac" post=316918][quote="Mike Zaun" post=316903][quote="Marillac" post=316871][quote="Knight" post=316863]Starting to think that if there is no invite to the dance, then there is an amicable parting of the ways with CM and staff. Back to square one, but this time with an AD leading.[/quote]
Why even bring this up now?[/quote]
Why not? It's fair game IMO...of course we should all wait until the end of the year to judge and hopefully things get back on track, but fanbases of teams are constantly discussing this stuff. Were us Jets fans not allowed to discuss the possibility of a Bowles replacement while he was still coach? That happened for years even before he was on the hottest of seats and it was warm. If it can't be discussed here then where can it be discussed? It's a SJ basketball forum after all. Just how I see it. People need outlets to discuss these things, it's healthy after a buildup of frustration. You give him the rest of the year and see what happens, but it's not outrageous to discuss the possibility IMO simultaneously. No one is speaking in definite terms. Just my take, feel free to disagree.
Also we are sju, the tri state is chock full of talent. That's not the issue. The issue is we don't have a winning culture and our staff may need tweaking. I think both are related. If it's not allowed here, anyone can feel free to discuss it on the Mullin's Maniacs forum
[/quote]
You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd.
We could win just two more or go on to win the Big East and make the Sweet 16. Why not just wait 8-9 weeks and judge the full season?
How can anyone seriously be discussing firing ANOTHER coach?! Do we EVER learn? It's a 3-5 year rebuild every goddamn time. You lose commitments and rapport built with kids spanning 4-5 classes.
Mullin isnt going anywhere next year so this talk does nothing but put negative energy out there and make it tougher for our staff to recruit the missing pieces of a team that could be better next year.[/quote]
I agree when you say "You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd."
However, don't criticize this kid when 2 weeks ago in a burst of exuberance you started a topic about "mid-year" report cards. Of course we weren't 3-4 in the conference then and on the cusp of a national ranking.
You, of all people, should know to be conservative when we have fair weather because a red storm is always on the next horizon.
Why even bring this up now?[/quote]
Why not? It's fair game IMO...of course we should all wait until the end of the year to judge and hopefully things get back on track, but fanbases of teams are constantly discussing this stuff. Were us Jets fans not allowed to discuss the possibility of a Bowles replacement while he was still coach? That happened for years even before he was on the hottest of seats and it was warm. If it can't be discussed here then where can it be discussed? It's a SJ basketball forum after all. Just how I see it. People need outlets to discuss these things, it's healthy after a buildup of frustration. You give him the rest of the year and see what happens, but it's not outrageous to discuss the possibility IMO simultaneously. No one is speaking in definite terms. Just my take, feel free to disagree.
Also we are sju, the tri state is chock full of talent. That's not the issue. The issue is we don't have a winning culture and our staff may need tweaking. I think both are related. If it's not allowed here, anyone can feel free to discuss it on the Mullin's Maniacs forum
[/quote]You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd.
We could win just two more or go on to win the Big East and make the Sweet 16. Why not just wait 8-9 weeks and judge the full season?
How can anyone seriously be discussing firing ANOTHER coach?! Do we EVER learn? It's a 3-5 year rebuild every goddamn time. You lose commitments and rapport built with kids spanning 4-5 classes.
Mullin isnt going anywhere next year so this talk does nothing but put negative energy out there and make it tougher for our staff to recruit the missing pieces of a team that could be better next year.[/quote]
I agree when you say "You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd."
However, don't criticize this kid when 2 weeks ago in a burst of exuberance you started a topic about "mid-year" report cards. Of course we weren't 3-4 in the conference then and on the cusp of a national ranking.
You, of all people, should know to be conservative when we have fair weather because a red storm is always on the next horizon.
we are sju
Active member
[quote="Class of 72" post=316955][quote="we are sju" post=316916][quote="Chicago Days" post=316909][quote="we are sju" post=316901]Not sure why people don't seem to understand that ST John's University is not a desirable spot for big time HS recruits? Outside of getting someone shady like Cal or Sean Miller, which will never happen not going to get talented HS recruits w/o baggage accept for the random kid that truly wants to stay hope. And the problem with that is NY is no longer the talent base it was when Louie was coaching. To get talent whoever the coach is, he or she (When Mullin leaves who knows where next coach comes from so not ruling anything out) will have to be creative.[/quote]
Granted our facilities are not on par with most successful high-major programs and we still suffer for our ‘commuter school’ label, but Gonzaga, early on in building a nationa basketball rep, had a lousy campus and facilities and still plays in a weak conference, and Louisiville is, well, in Louisiville, and Seton Hall is a small school in a leafy suburb, while Providence is, well, in Providence.
What these other schools have, are superb Staffs and wise and energetic ADs who have made correct decisiones on recruits and modernizing their facilities and who have built winning programs.
That’s our model and I see no reason why St. John’s, in NYC, in the BEC, cannot attain it.[/quote]
It is in Queens, a commuter school, campus is not great and judging by cheerleaders has a coed problem. Tack on we have been mediocre to terrible for going on what 25 years......Yes if someone could figure out to get us in tourney consistently for a prolonged period of time then yes the recruiting will see an uptick. But therein lies the rub.Have to win before you get the big HS recruits. Now how do we do that w/o throwing out blanket "we need to get better HS recruits"?[/quote]
What does Queens and the cheerleaders have go do with anything? Why body shame teenage girls? Having school spirit is the main qualification for cheerleading.
AND the commuter school excuse is as old as you. While we have over 16,500 undergrads, only 2,000 or so are on the Staten Island campus. There are over 4,500 students in university housing in and around the Queens campus. That resident population compares closely to schools such as Gonzaga, Xavier, Butler, Providence, Villanova. Even top academic Basketball schools like Georgetown and Duke have undergraduate populations of under 7,000 students living on campus. The size of the school is irrelevant.
Yes, winning helps getting recruits. But it doesn't take much research to figure out that who the head coach is may be the biggest factor. When those successful coaches move to less successful programs that success follows them even though they inherit an inferior program. They recruit and change the culture. Having experience and success as a head coach is a big factor. Look at Jaime Dixon at TCU. Look at Eric Musselman at Nevada.
The two guys I regret we never hired were John Kresse and Bob McKillop. Both would have changed the St. John's basketball image post Carnesecca.
Yes, we all want go win games and we love our redmen basketball but let's face reality. We hired a former player who had never coached so much as a CYO team. He is surrounded by former players who never coached. The results to date have more to do with that head scratching hiring than campuses and girls. We debate this situation ad nauseam because it is always a factor in why recruits select other programs. I hope that image changes this year.[/quote]
I agree about McKillop.
Granted our facilities are not on par with most successful high-major programs and we still suffer for our ‘commuter school’ label, but Gonzaga, early on in building a nationa basketball rep, had a lousy campus and facilities and still plays in a weak conference, and Louisiville is, well, in Louisiville, and Seton Hall is a small school in a leafy suburb, while Providence is, well, in Providence.
What these other schools have, are superb Staffs and wise and energetic ADs who have made correct decisiones on recruits and modernizing their facilities and who have built winning programs.
That’s our model and I see no reason why St. John’s, in NYC, in the BEC, cannot attain it.[/quote]
It is in Queens, a commuter school, campus is not great and judging by cheerleaders has a coed problem. Tack on we have been mediocre to terrible for going on what 25 years......Yes if someone could figure out to get us in tourney consistently for a prolonged period of time then yes the recruiting will see an uptick. But therein lies the rub.Have to win before you get the big HS recruits. Now how do we do that w/o throwing out blanket "we need to get better HS recruits"?[/quote]
What does Queens and the cheerleaders have go do with anything? Why body shame teenage girls? Having school spirit is the main qualification for cheerleading.
AND the commuter school excuse is as old as you. While we have over 16,500 undergrads, only 2,000 or so are on the Staten Island campus. There are over 4,500 students in university housing in and around the Queens campus. That resident population compares closely to schools such as Gonzaga, Xavier, Butler, Providence, Villanova. Even top academic Basketball schools like Georgetown and Duke have undergraduate populations of under 7,000 students living on campus. The size of the school is irrelevant.
Yes, winning helps getting recruits. But it doesn't take much research to figure out that who the head coach is may be the biggest factor. When those successful coaches move to less successful programs that success follows them even though they inherit an inferior program. They recruit and change the culture. Having experience and success as a head coach is a big factor. Look at Jaime Dixon at TCU. Look at Eric Musselman at Nevada.
The two guys I regret we never hired were John Kresse and Bob McKillop. Both would have changed the St. John's basketball image post Carnesecca.
Yes, we all want go win games and we love our redmen basketball but let's face reality. We hired a former player who had never coached so much as a CYO team. He is surrounded by former players who never coached. The results to date have more to do with that head scratching hiring than campuses and girls. We debate this situation ad nauseam because it is always a factor in why recruits select other programs. I hope that image changes this year.[/quote]
I agree about McKillop.
[quote="Class of 72" post=316966][quote="Marillac" post=316918][quote="Mike Zaun" post=316903][quote="Marillac" post=316871][quote="Knight" post=316863]Starting to think that if there is no invite to the dance, then there is an amicable parting of the ways with CM and staff. Back to square one, but this time with an AD leading.[/quote]
Why even bring this up now?[/quote]
Why not? It's fair game IMO...of course we should all wait until the end of the year to judge and hopefully things get back on track, but fanbases of teams are constantly discussing this stuff. Were us Jets fans not allowed to discuss the possibility of a Bowles replacement while he was still coach? That happened for years even before he was on the hottest of seats and it was warm. If it can't be discussed here then where can it be discussed? It's a SJ basketball forum after all. Just how I see it. People need outlets to discuss these things, it's healthy after a buildup of frustration. You give him the rest of the year and see what happens, but it's not outrageous to discuss the possibility IMO simultaneously. No one is speaking in definite terms. Just my take, feel free to disagree.
Also we are sju, the tri state is chock full of talent. That's not the issue. The issue is we don't have a winning culture and our staff may need tweaking. I think both are related. If it's not allowed here, anyone can feel free to discuss it on the Mullin's Maniacs forum[/quote]
You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd.
We could win just two more or go on to win the Big East and make the Sweet 16. Why not just wait 8-9 weeks and judge the full season?
How can anyone seriously be discussing firing ANOTHER coach?! Do we EVER learn? It's a 3-5 year rebuild every goddamn time. You lose commitments and rapport built with kids spanning 4-5 classes.
Mullin isnt going anywhere next year so this talk does nothing but put negative energy out there and make it tougher for our staff to recruit the missing pieces of a team that could be better next year.[/quote]
I agree when you say "You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd."
However, don't criticize this kid when 2 weeks ago in a burst of exuberance you started a topic about "mid-year" report cards. Of course we weren't 3-4 in the conference then and on the cusp of a national ranking.
You, of all people, should know to be conservative when we have fair weather because a red storm is always on the next horizon.[/quote]
Just wanted to point out that 78% of GTown undergrads lived in University owned or operated/affiliated housing. Have to with the rents around there. Having a similar problem for off campus housing around UCLA. At Duke it's 81% by the way and I doubt they have the same rent issues in bustling Durham.
Why even bring this up now?[/quote]
Why not? It's fair game IMO...of course we should all wait until the end of the year to judge and hopefully things get back on track, but fanbases of teams are constantly discussing this stuff. Were us Jets fans not allowed to discuss the possibility of a Bowles replacement while he was still coach? That happened for years even before he was on the hottest of seats and it was warm. If it can't be discussed here then where can it be discussed? It's a SJ basketball forum after all. Just how I see it. People need outlets to discuss these things, it's healthy after a buildup of frustration. You give him the rest of the year and see what happens, but it's not outrageous to discuss the possibility IMO simultaneously. No one is speaking in definite terms. Just my take, feel free to disagree.
Also we are sju, the tri state is chock full of talent. That's not the issue. The issue is we don't have a winning culture and our staff may need tweaking. I think both are related. If it's not allowed here, anyone can feel free to discuss it on the Mullin's Maniacs forum
[/quote]You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd.
We could win just two more or go on to win the Big East and make the Sweet 16. Why not just wait 8-9 weeks and judge the full season?
How can anyone seriously be discussing firing ANOTHER coach?! Do we EVER learn? It's a 3-5 year rebuild every goddamn time. You lose commitments and rapport built with kids spanning 4-5 classes.
Mullin isnt going anywhere next year so this talk does nothing but put negative energy out there and make it tougher for our staff to recruit the missing pieces of a team that could be better next year.[/quote]
I agree when you say "You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd."
However, don't criticize this kid when 2 weeks ago in a burst of exuberance you started a topic about "mid-year" report cards. Of course we weren't 3-4 in the conference then and on the cusp of a national ranking.
You, of all people, should know to be conservative when we have fair weather because a red storm is always on the next horizon.
[/quote]Just wanted to point out that 78% of GTown undergrads lived in University owned or operated/affiliated housing. Have to with the rents around there. Having a similar problem for off campus housing around UCLA. At Duke it's 81% by the way and I doubt they have the same rent issues in bustling Durham.
JohnnyFever
Active member
Jack, your last post nailed it. Of course we all want Mullin to succeed and make the tourney. But you shouldn't just keep a coach because you dread losing recruits. The point is, if you don't have a good coach it doesn't matter who your recruits are unless it's someone like Zion or some McDonald's All American. I too expect more and I refuse to believe that 3-4 in the conference is where we want to be at our best. Just think about that for a second. We are barely considered in the tourney right now and that's only a guess. We were just ranked #24 and now we are essentially a bubble team. That's the problem. We are a legit top 25 team talent wise. The tourney shouldn't even be in question...that's the point. Right now it is and I hope like hell we get it together and fast. Once you get in a hole in this conference, it's nearly impossible to dig out.
Bottom line, I don't care if our coach is Ghandi. If he can't coach, you move on. Doesn't mean you hate Ghandi. Doesn't mean you are "negative". It means you're being logical. If a coach can't show anything in 4 or 5 years with these players, that means they never will.
Bottom line, I don't care if our coach is Ghandi. If he can't coach, you move on. Doesn't mean you hate Ghandi. Doesn't mean you are "negative". It means you're being logical. If a coach can't show anything in 4 or 5 years with these players, that means they never will.
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=316976]Jack, your last post nailed it. Of course we all want Mullin to succeed and make the tourney. But you shouldn't just keep a coach because you dread losing recruits. The point is, if you don't have a good coach it doesn't matter who your recruits are unless it's someone like Zion or some McDonald's All American. I too expect more and I refuse to believe that 3-4 in the conference is where we want to be at our best. Just think about that for a second. We are barely considered in the tourney right now and that's only a guess. We were just ranked #24 and now we are essentially a bubble team. That's the problem. We are a legit top 25 team talent wise. The tourney shouldn't even be in question...that's the point. Right now it is and I hope like hell we get it together and fast. Once you get in a hole in this conference, it's nearly impossible to dig out.
Bottom line, I don't care if our coach is Ghandi. If he can't coach, you move on. Doesn't mean you hate Ghandi. Doesn't mean you are "negative". It means you're being logical. If a coach can't show anything in 4 or 5 years with these players, that means they never will.[/quote]
Ghandi seldom recruits anymore
Bottom line, I don't care if our coach is Ghandi. If he can't coach, you move on. Doesn't mean you hate Ghandi. Doesn't mean you are "negative". It means you're being logical. If a coach can't show anything in 4 or 5 years with these players, that means they never will.[/quote]
Ghandi seldom recruits anymore
[quote="Paultzman" post=316856][quote="SLYFOXX1968" post=316854]MZ, Paschall has become a very good shooter from outside . It enhances his post game . He also moves well , with and without the Ball. And , he is a big body . I know he played a year or 2 at Fordham after HS in Dobbs Ferry and then transferred to Nova . A question to ask is, Fordham is good for Academics but, has fallen into second tier level as a BB program . Was Paschall ever recruited by Mullin or Lavin as a High schooler ? Seems like somebody should have been on him then ?[/quote]
After Paschall left Fordham, Matt had just arrived & tried to get involved to no avail as Nova was positioned well via Tom Pecora. Initially, after playing at Dobbs Ferry HS, many teams missed out on him. That happens.[/quote]
Recall at the time his parents were focused on academics.
After Paschall left Fordham, Matt had just arrived & tried to get involved to no avail as Nova was positioned well via Tom Pecora. Initially, after playing at Dobbs Ferry HS, many teams missed out on him. That happens.[/quote]
Recall at the time his parents were focused on academics.
[quote="Class of 72" post=316966][quote="Marillac" post=316918][quote="Mike Zaun" post=316903][quote="Marillac" post=316871][quote="Knight" post=316863]Starting to think that if there is no invite to the dance, then there is an amicable parting of the ways with CM and staff. Back to square one, but this time with an AD leading.[/quote]
Why even bring this up now?[/quote]
Why not? It's fair game IMO...of course we should all wait until the end of the year to judge and hopefully things get back on track, but fanbases of teams are constantly discussing this stuff. Were us Jets fans not allowed to discuss the possibility of a Bowles replacement while he was still coach? That happened for years even before he was on the hottest of seats and it was warm. If it can't be discussed here then where can it be discussed? It's a SJ basketball forum after all. Just how I see it. People need outlets to discuss these things, it's healthy after a buildup of frustration. You give him the rest of the year and see what happens, but it's not outrageous to discuss the possibility IMO simultaneously. No one is speaking in definite terms. Just my take, feel free to disagree.
Also we are sju, the tri state is chock full of talent. That's not the issue. The issue is we don't have a winning culture and our staff may need tweaking. I think both are related. If it's not allowed here, anyone can feel free to discuss it on the Mullin's Maniacs forum[/quote]
You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd.
We could win just two more or go on to win the Big East and make the Sweet 16. Why not just wait 8-9 weeks and judge the full season?
How can anyone seriously be discussing firing ANOTHER coach?! Do we EVER learn? It's a 3-5 year rebuild every goddamn time. You lose commitments and rapport built with kids spanning 4-5 classes.
Mullin isnt going anywhere next year so this talk does nothing but put negative energy out there and make it tougher for our staff to recruit the missing pieces of a team that could be better next year.[/quote]
I agree when you say "You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd."
However, don't criticize this kid when 2 weeks ago in a burst of exuberance you started a topic about "mid-year" report cards. Of course we weren't 3-4 in the conference then and on the cusp of a national ranking.
You, of all people, should know to be conservative when we have fair weather because a red storm is always on the next horizon.[/quote]
I didn't start a mid-year report card thread. I don't think I even responded to it. Other than, you nailed it.
Why even bring this up now?[/quote]
Why not? It's fair game IMO...of course we should all wait until the end of the year to judge and hopefully things get back on track, but fanbases of teams are constantly discussing this stuff. Were us Jets fans not allowed to discuss the possibility of a Bowles replacement while he was still coach? That happened for years even before he was on the hottest of seats and it was warm. If it can't be discussed here then where can it be discussed? It's a SJ basketball forum after all. Just how I see it. People need outlets to discuss these things, it's healthy after a buildup of frustration. You give him the rest of the year and see what happens, but it's not outrageous to discuss the possibility IMO simultaneously. No one is speaking in definite terms. Just my take, feel free to disagree.
Also we are sju, the tri state is chock full of talent. That's not the issue. The issue is we don't have a winning culture and our staff may need tweaking. I think both are related. If it's not allowed here, anyone can feel free to discuss it on the Mullin's Maniacs forum
[/quote]You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd.
We could win just two more or go on to win the Big East and make the Sweet 16. Why not just wait 8-9 weeks and judge the full season?
How can anyone seriously be discussing firing ANOTHER coach?! Do we EVER learn? It's a 3-5 year rebuild every goddamn time. You lose commitments and rapport built with kids spanning 4-5 classes.
Mullin isnt going anywhere next year so this talk does nothing but put negative energy out there and make it tougher for our staff to recruit the missing pieces of a team that could be better next year.[/quote]
I agree when you say "You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd."
However, don't criticize this kid when 2 weeks ago in a burst of exuberance you started a topic about "mid-year" report cards. Of course we weren't 3-4 in the conference then and on the cusp of a national ranking.
You, of all people, should know to be conservative when we have fair weather because a red storm is always on the next horizon.
[/quote]I didn't start a mid-year report card thread. I don't think I even responded to it. Other than, you nailed it.
Are Nevada fans complaining about their lack of HS recruits? Bottom line if the team is winning it doesn’t matter how the roster was constructed.
[quote="stjohnnie75" post=316997]Are Nevada fans complaining about their lack of HS recruits? Bottom line if the team is winning it doesn’t matter how the roster was constructed.[/quote]
Nevada is an anomaly, not the norm. How many other schools are solely using that pattern and having similar success? Not many, that's for sure.
Lastly, we're not winning. At least, we haven't "won" anything yet with using a comparable formula.
Nevada is an anomaly, not the norm. How many other schools are solely using that pattern and having similar success? Not many, that's for sure.
Lastly, we're not winning. At least, we haven't "won" anything yet with using a comparable formula.
[quote="MJDinkins" post=317002][quote="stjohnnie75" post=316997]Are Nevada fans complaining about their lack of HS recruits? Bottom line if the team is winning it doesn’t matter how the roster was constructed.[/quote]
Nevada is an anomaly, not the norm. How many other schools are solely using that pattern and having similar success? Not many, that's for sure.
Lastly, we're not winning. At least, we haven't "won" anything yet with using a comparable formula.[/quote]
Agree but if we were winning (make final four this year and top 10 team next year) would we still bitch about HS recruiting? So is the real issue HS recruiting or just not winning?
Nevada is an anomaly, not the norm. How many other schools are solely using that pattern and having similar success? Not many, that's for sure.
Lastly, we're not winning. At least, we haven't "won" anything yet with using a comparable formula.[/quote]
Agree but if we were winning (make final four this year and top 10 team next year) would we still bitch about HS recruiting? So is the real issue HS recruiting or just not winning?
[quote="stjohnnie75" post=317004][quote="MJDinkins" post=317002][quote="stjohnnie75" post=316997]Are Nevada fans complaining about their lack of HS recruits? Bottom line if the team is winning it doesn’t matter how the roster was constructed.[/quote]
Nevada is an anomaly, not the norm. How many other schools are solely using that pattern and having similar success? Not many, that's for sure.
Lastly, we're not winning. At least, we haven't "won" anything yet with using a comparable formula.[/quote]
Agree but if we were winning (make final four this year and top 10 team next year) would we still bitch about HS recruiting? So is the real issue HS recruiting or just not winning?[/quote]
Both. As, I stated, solely or mainly relying on transfers (and playing winning ball ala Nevada) is an anomaly.
Nevada is an anomaly, not the norm. How many other schools are solely using that pattern and having similar success? Not many, that's for sure.
Lastly, we're not winning. At least, we haven't "won" anything yet with using a comparable formula.[/quote]
Agree but if we were winning (make final four this year and top 10 team next year) would we still bitch about HS recruiting? So is the real issue HS recruiting or just not winning?[/quote]
Both. As, I stated, solely or mainly relying on transfers (and playing winning ball ala Nevada) is an anomaly.
Last edited:
Class of 72
Active member
[quote="austour" post=316974][quote="Class of 72" post=316966][quote="Marillac" post=316918][quote="Mike Zaun" post=316903][quote="Marillac" post=316871][quote="Knight" post=316863]Starting to think that if there is no invite to the dance, then there is an amicable parting of the ways with CM and staff. Back to square one, but this time with an AD leading.[/quote]
Why even bring this up now?[/quote]
Why not? It's fair game IMO...of course we should all wait until the end of the year to judge and hopefully things get back on track, but fanbases of teams are constantly discussing this stuff. Were us Jets fans not allowed to discuss the possibility of a Bowles replacement while he was still coach? That happened for years even before he was on the hottest of seats and it was warm. If it can't be discussed here then where can it be discussed? It's a SJ basketball forum after all. Just how I see it. People need outlets to discuss these things, it's healthy after a buildup of frustration. You give him the rest of the year and see what happens, but it's not outrageous to discuss the possibility IMO simultaneously. No one is speaking in definite terms. Just my take, feel free to disagree.
Also we are sju, the tri state is chock full of talent. That's not the issue. The issue is we don't have a winning culture and our staff may need tweaking. I think both are related. If it's not allowed here, anyone can feel free to discuss it on the Mullin's Maniacs forum[/quote]
You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd.
We could win just two more or go on to win the Big East and make the Sweet 16. Why not just wait 8-9 weeks and judge the full season?
How can anyone seriously be discussing firing ANOTHER coach?! Do we EVER learn? It's a 3-5 year rebuild every goddamn time. You lose commitments and rapport built with kids spanning 4-5 classes.
Mullin isnt going anywhere next year so this talk does nothing but put negative energy out there and make it tougher for our staff to recruit the missing pieces of a team that could be better next year.[/quote]
I agree when you say "You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd."
However, don't criticize this kid when 2 weeks ago in a burst of exuberance you started a topic about "mid-year" report cards. Of course we weren't 3-4 in the conference then and on the cusp of a national ranking.
You, of all people, should know to be conservative when we have fair weather because a red storm is always on the next horizon.[/quote]
Just wanted to point out that 78% of GTown undergrads lived in University owned or operated/affiliated housing. Have to with the rents around there. Having a similar problem for off campus housing around UCLA. At Duke it's 81% by the way and I doubt they have the same rent issues in bustling Durham.[/quote]
Those numbers would equate closely to the 4500 St. John's undergrads in university housing. It comes down to numbers more than percentages. As for student and alumni vicinity to our basketball games, we obviously have over 20,000 total students in the city with over 100,000 alums in the greater metropolitan area. Imagine if we were a hot ticket with a top 10 basketball team? Forget Pauley Pavilion......Rabinowitz would be scalping his own tickets rather than someone elses.
Why even bring this up now?[/quote]
Why not? It's fair game IMO...of course we should all wait until the end of the year to judge and hopefully things get back on track, but fanbases of teams are constantly discussing this stuff. Were us Jets fans not allowed to discuss the possibility of a Bowles replacement while he was still coach? That happened for years even before he was on the hottest of seats and it was warm. If it can't be discussed here then where can it be discussed? It's a SJ basketball forum after all. Just how I see it. People need outlets to discuss these things, it's healthy after a buildup of frustration. You give him the rest of the year and see what happens, but it's not outrageous to discuss the possibility IMO simultaneously. No one is speaking in definite terms. Just my take, feel free to disagree.
Also we are sju, the tri state is chock full of talent. That's not the issue. The issue is we don't have a winning culture and our staff may need tweaking. I think both are related. If it's not allowed here, anyone can feel free to discuss it on the Mullin's Maniacs forum
[/quote]You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd.
We could win just two more or go on to win the Big East and make the Sweet 16. Why not just wait 8-9 weeks and judge the full season?
How can anyone seriously be discussing firing ANOTHER coach?! Do we EVER learn? It's a 3-5 year rebuild every goddamn time. You lose commitments and rapport built with kids spanning 4-5 classes.
Mullin isnt going anywhere next year so this talk does nothing but put negative energy out there and make it tougher for our staff to recruit the missing pieces of a team that could be better next year.[/quote]
I agree when you say "You're just wrong man. This is not the time. How do you even judge a team mid-season following a loss? It's absurd."
However, don't criticize this kid when 2 weeks ago in a burst of exuberance you started a topic about "mid-year" report cards. Of course we weren't 3-4 in the conference then and on the cusp of a national ranking.
You, of all people, should know to be conservative when we have fair weather because a red storm is always on the next horizon.
[/quote]Just wanted to point out that 78% of GTown undergrads lived in University owned or operated/affiliated housing. Have to with the rents around there. Having a similar problem for off campus housing around UCLA. At Duke it's 81% by the way and I doubt they have the same rent issues in bustling Durham.[/quote]
Those numbers would equate closely to the 4500 St. John's undergrads in university housing. It comes down to numbers more than percentages. As for student and alumni vicinity to our basketball games, we obviously have over 20,000 total students in the city with over 100,000 alums in the greater metropolitan area. Imagine if we were a hot ticket with a top 10 basketball team? Forget Pauley Pavilion......Rabinowitz would be scalping his own tickets rather than someone elses.
[quote="MJDinkins" post=317005][quote="stjohnnie75" post=317004][quote="MJDinkins" post=317002][quote="stjohnnie75" post=316997]Are Nevada fans complaining about their lack of HS recruits? Bottom line if the team is winning it doesn’t matter how the roster was constructed.[/quote]
Nevada is an anomaly, not the norm. How many other schools are solely using that pattern and having similar success? Not many, that's for sure.
Lastly, we're not winning. At least, we haven't "won" anything yet with using a comparable formula.[/quote]
Agree but if we were winning (make final four this year and top 10 team next year) would we still bitch about HS recruiting? So is the real issue HS recruiting or just not winning?[/quote]
Both. As, I stated, solely or mainly relying on transfers (and playing winning ball ala Nevada) is an anomaly.[/quote]
I guess we can agree to disagree. If we have success this year and next then I personally wouldn’t care how the roster was constructed.
Though it is an anomaly I don’t think you can say it isn’t working for Nevada.
Nevada is an anomaly, not the norm. How many other schools are solely using that pattern and having similar success? Not many, that's for sure.
Lastly, we're not winning. At least, we haven't "won" anything yet with using a comparable formula.[/quote]
Agree but if we were winning (make final four this year and top 10 team next year) would we still bitch about HS recruiting? So is the real issue HS recruiting or just not winning?[/quote]
Both. As, I stated, solely or mainly relying on transfers (and playing winning ball ala Nevada) is an anomaly.[/quote]
I guess we can agree to disagree. If we have success this year and next then I personally wouldn’t care how the roster was constructed.
Though it is an anomaly I don’t think you can say it isn’t working for Nevada.