If we don't get a bid?
- Thread starter Dan V
- Start date
beast of the east
Active member
[quote="MJDinkins" post=327708][quote="Jack Williams" post=327705]Non-NIT/CBI/CIT BS wins matter double and triple in March.
Giants went 9-7 and got into the playoffs as a wildcard but won the super bowl all the same. Postseason matters more than anything. March is everything. Let’s see what we do[/quote]
Styles also make fights. If our staff won't change their gameplan against decent-to-legit bigs, then our trip to the NCAA's could be short lived if we face a particular team early.[/quote]
It's my perception that earlier in the year we were doing much better with that with our guards doubling down in the post once the ball went in there. They harassed big men, sometimes stealing the ball, forcing bad shots, or forcing turnovers. It seems as though we've stopped doing that completely. Your thoughts?
Giants went 9-7 and got into the playoffs as a wildcard but won the super bowl all the same. Postseason matters more than anything. March is everything. Let’s see what we do[/quote]
Styles also make fights. If our staff won't change their gameplan against decent-to-legit bigs, then our trip to the NCAA's could be short lived if we face a particular team early.[/quote]
It's my perception that earlier in the year we were doing much better with that with our guards doubling down in the post once the ball went in there. They harassed big men, sometimes stealing the ball, forcing bad shots, or forcing turnovers. It seems as though we've stopped doing that completely. Your thoughts?
[quote="Beast of the East" post=327718][quote="MJDinkins" post=327708][quote="Jack Williams" post=327705]Non-NIT/CBI/CIT BS wins matter double and triple in March.
Giants went 9-7 and got into the playoffs as a wildcard but won the super bowl all the same. Postseason matters more than anything. March is everything. Let’s see what we do[/quote]
Styles also make fights. If our staff won't change their gameplan against decent-to-legit bigs, then our trip to the NCAA's could be short lived if we face a particular team early.[/quote]
It's my perception that earlier in the year we were doing much better with that with our guards doubling down in the post once the ball went in there. They harassed big men, sometimes stealing the ball, forcing bad shots, or forcing turnovers. It seems as though we've stopped doing that completely. Your thoughts?[/quote]
I agree. Good way to combat the opponents bigs.
Giants went 9-7 and got into the playoffs as a wildcard but won the super bowl all the same. Postseason matters more than anything. March is everything. Let’s see what we do[/quote]
Styles also make fights. If our staff won't change their gameplan against decent-to-legit bigs, then our trip to the NCAA's could be short lived if we face a particular team early.[/quote]
It's my perception that earlier in the year we were doing much better with that with our guards doubling down in the post once the ball went in there. They harassed big men, sometimes stealing the ball, forcing bad shots, or forcing turnovers. It seems as though we've stopped doing that completely. Your thoughts?[/quote]
I agree. Good way to combat the opponents bigs.
Redmen88
Well-known member
I was okay with the Mullin hire and I think he has brought in a fair share of good players, albeit, not the best mix of shooters, height, etc, however, it seems as if the players do not progress. They play much the same as when they first got here. Where is the progression for SImon or Clark or anyone? We rarely make in game adjustments. The coaching is atrocious. I am not for switching coaches as it would be another setback bit we desperately need an assistant with experience that will help develop our players and teach them how to play college bball. If we had kentuck or Duke talent than I think the current approach could work but we don't so we have to work harder. Hope SJU figures this out this year. I would hate to go into next year with the same staff as this year.
Spocky Ramone
Well-known member
[quote="dee" post=327720]If we dont get a bid. Pick up phone and call pitino[/quote]
Or maybe Larry Brown, he’s always on the prowl for a new gig, so if things don’t work out he won’t be around for long
Or maybe Larry Brown, he’s always on the prowl for a new gig, so if things don’t work out he won’t be around for long
[quote="Beast of the East" post=327697][quote="sirvoo" post=327679]Mullin’s name and legend bought him the 4th year at the helm. Anyone else would have been fired for 3 awful seasons.
If he lands Precious or Kuminga in the next 2 weeks (doubtful) OR goes on a run and we win 4 more games inclusive of BET and NCAA’s then he should get his 5th year. Otherwise it’s time to move on.[/quote]
You are kidding, right? He has a 5 year guaranteed deal, likely with an extension clause. No one would come here for a 3 year deal..[/quote]
No Beast I am not kidding! You sign a guy to a 5 year deal. He goes 8-24, 14-19 and 16-17 in his first 3 years. Is that satisfactory?
First of all you should have a buyout clause in any deal especially for a coach who has never actually coached in his life! But let’s say they did not implement a buyout clause because well.. we are St. John’s.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that a coach should be fired for that record in years 1-3 regardless of what his contract stipulates? And he should be fired this offseason unless he pulls a rabbit out of the hat as I mentioned earlier.
If he lands Precious or Kuminga in the next 2 weeks (doubtful) OR goes on a run and we win 4 more games inclusive of BET and NCAA’s then he should get his 5th year. Otherwise it’s time to move on.[/quote]
You are kidding, right? He has a 5 year guaranteed deal, likely with an extension clause. No one would come here for a 3 year deal..[/quote]
No Beast I am not kidding! You sign a guy to a 5 year deal. He goes 8-24, 14-19 and 16-17 in his first 3 years. Is that satisfactory?
First of all you should have a buyout clause in any deal especially for a coach who has never actually coached in his life! But let’s say they did not implement a buyout clause because well.. we are St. John’s.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that a coach should be fired for that record in years 1-3 regardless of what his contract stipulates? And he should be fired this offseason unless he pulls a rabbit out of the hat as I mentioned earlier.
I think the question should be do we really deserve a bid? Based on our Schedule and the way we finished I’d say no also how we can not defend teams with a good big man and the game plans our staff has provided which would not be a formula1
for us to succeed it appears getting a bid would just bring about pain now yes being in it and we we played really special than we could possibly get by the 1st round but then what our chance of winning would probably be 1000-1 I hope we can Put tohether a real good team next yr and provide results that show we deserve to play with the best teams
for us to succeed it appears getting a bid would just bring about pain now yes being in it and we we played really special than we could possibly get by the 1st round but then what our chance of winning would probably be 1000-1 I hope we can Put tohether a real good team next yr and provide results that show we deserve to play with the best teams
Spocky Ramone
Well-known member
My metric for a successful season was making the tournament. Most still have us in. Even a play-in game flameout meets this criterion. No bid, and it’s a disappointment.
That said, Coach is not being shown the door. Any change would be on his terms. That’s the reality of the situation.
And, for the record, I would like to see one more year regardless. Everyone is having fits about next year’s roster, we will have more size and depth. Probably no Sha$ level player, but the quantity (with quality) may more than compensate.
That said, Coach is not being shown the door. Any change would be on his terms. That’s the reality of the situation.
And, for the record, I would like to see one more year regardless. Everyone is having fits about next year’s roster, we will have more size and depth. Probably no Sha$ level player, but the quantity (with quality) may more than compensate.
Class of 72
Active member
Have we reached the point where we will argue any irrelevant point regarding Mullin?
Here's an example:
"Mullin played in the 1985 final four so he did not graduate in 1998!
Mullin was a few credits short when his eligibility at St. John's ended. He is class of 98, because that is when he came back, and finished up."
Really? Who gives a crap that he was 6 credits short? He ended his career in 1985. That's 34 years ago.
I'm sure he never lost his love for St. John's as he visited Lou Carnesecca every time he returned to New York for family get togethers. Very few members of that 85 team ever returned to attend games as they had careers to attend to in other parts of the country.
I think we win one more game in the Big East tournament. A 21 win season is respectable. However, there is no assurance of any long term success given the current and future players unless all the predictions are wrong with next year's transfers/recruits. Precious could change that but there are no Shamorie Ponds coming and our most important position at point guard is going to be manned by a guy who already announced he's leaving. You can't make stuff like that up.
If there is no change in the senior staff our recruiting and game preparations will continue to be on a lower level than our competitors.
Here's an example:
"Mullin played in the 1985 final four so he did not graduate in 1998!
Mullin was a few credits short when his eligibility at St. John's ended. He is class of 98, because that is when he came back, and finished up."
Really? Who gives a crap that he was 6 credits short? He ended his career in 1985. That's 34 years ago.
I'm sure he never lost his love for St. John's as he visited Lou Carnesecca every time he returned to New York for family get togethers. Very few members of that 85 team ever returned to attend games as they had careers to attend to in other parts of the country.
I think we win one more game in the Big East tournament. A 21 win season is respectable. However, there is no assurance of any long term success given the current and future players unless all the predictions are wrong with next year's transfers/recruits. Precious could change that but there are no Shamorie Ponds coming and our most important position at point guard is going to be manned by a guy who already announced he's leaving. You can't make stuff like that up.
If there is no change in the senior staff our recruiting and game preparations will continue to be on a lower level than our competitors.
[quote="Beast of the East" post=327718][quote="MJDinkins" post=327708][quote="Jack Williams" post=327705]Non-NIT/CBI/CIT BS wins matter double and triple in March.
Giants went 9-7 and got into the playoffs as a wildcard but won the super bowl all the same. Postseason matters more than anything. March is everything. Let’s see what we do[/quote]
Styles also make fights. If our staff won't change their gameplan against decent-to-legit bigs, then our trip to the NCAA's could be short lived if we face a particular team early.[/quote]
It's my perception that earlier in the year we were doing much better with that with our guards doubling down in the post once the ball went in there. They harassed big men, sometimes stealing the ball, forcing bad shots, or forcing turnovers. It seems as though we've stopped doing that completely. Your thoughts?[/quote]
We're still trying to attempt that particular gameplan, But teams with decent-to-legit bigs are either setting screens (whether, false or legit) and rolling to the basket to get mismatches on our team (Govan killed us with false screen actions during our game at MSG). We're either fouling or their bigs are kicking it out to open shooters (usually, in the corner.... Providence worked us in the right corner during our game at MSG).
The defense you mentioned will still occasionally work with a team where we don't necessarily have to respect their big(s) to score. But if a team has any big(s) who is a real threat to score, then this doesn't work. Teams will slow the game down and go to work on us in the post. Eventually, it'll create open looks from the perimeter.
We don't exactly play fundamental defense. Our defense is based on steals, deflections and occasionally blocks.
It creates a bunch of slapping and fouling, which we've been a lot of lately. We've become an easy prepare, especially with teams who can easily exploit us with decent-to-solid big.
Giants went 9-7 and got into the playoffs as a wildcard but won the super bowl all the same. Postseason matters more than anything. March is everything. Let’s see what we do[/quote]
Styles also make fights. If our staff won't change their gameplan against decent-to-legit bigs, then our trip to the NCAA's could be short lived if we face a particular team early.[/quote]
It's my perception that earlier in the year we were doing much better with that with our guards doubling down in the post once the ball went in there. They harassed big men, sometimes stealing the ball, forcing bad shots, or forcing turnovers. It seems as though we've stopped doing that completely. Your thoughts?[/quote]
We're still trying to attempt that particular gameplan, But teams with decent-to-legit bigs are either setting screens (whether, false or legit) and rolling to the basket to get mismatches on our team (Govan killed us with false screen actions during our game at MSG). We're either fouling or their bigs are kicking it out to open shooters (usually, in the corner.... Providence worked us in the right corner during our game at MSG).
The defense you mentioned will still occasionally work with a team where we don't necessarily have to respect their big(s) to score. But if a team has any big(s) who is a real threat to score, then this doesn't work. Teams will slow the game down and go to work on us in the post. Eventually, it'll create open looks from the perimeter.
We don't exactly play fundamental defense. Our defense is based on steals, deflections and occasionally blocks.
It creates a bunch of slapping and fouling, which we've been a lot of lately. We've become an easy prepare, especially with teams who can easily exploit us with decent-to-solid big.
Last edited:
[quote="sirvoo" post=327733][quote="Beast of the East" post=327697][quote="sirvoo" post=327679]Mullin’s name and legend bought him the 4th year at the helm. Anyone else would have been fired for 3 awful seasons.
If he lands Precious or Kuminga in the next 2 weeks (doubtful) OR goes on a run and we win 4 more games inclusive of BET and NCAA’s then he should get his 5th year. Otherwise it’s time to move on.[/quote]
You are kidding, right? He has a 5 year guaranteed deal, likely with an extension clause. No one would come here for a 3 year deal..[/quote]
No Beast I am not kidding! You sign a guy to a 5 year deal. He goes 8-24, 14-19 and 16-17 in his first 3 years. Is that satisfactory?
First of all you should have a buyout clause in any deal especially for a coach who has never actually coached in his life! But let’s say they did not implement a buyout clause because well.. we are St. John’s.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that a coach should be fired for that record in years 1-3 regardless of what his contract stipulates? And he should be fired this offseason unless he pulls a rabbit out of the hat as I mentioned earlier.[/quote]
As, I've stated before.... "Successful" coaches have been fired.
If he lands Precious or Kuminga in the next 2 weeks (doubtful) OR goes on a run and we win 4 more games inclusive of BET and NCAA’s then he should get his 5th year. Otherwise it’s time to move on.[/quote]
You are kidding, right? He has a 5 year guaranteed deal, likely with an extension clause. No one would come here for a 3 year deal..[/quote]
No Beast I am not kidding! You sign a guy to a 5 year deal. He goes 8-24, 14-19 and 16-17 in his first 3 years. Is that satisfactory?
First of all you should have a buyout clause in any deal especially for a coach who has never actually coached in his life! But let’s say they did not implement a buyout clause because well.. we are St. John’s.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that a coach should be fired for that record in years 1-3 regardless of what his contract stipulates? And he should be fired this offseason unless he pulls a rabbit out of the hat as I mentioned earlier.[/quote]
As, I've stated before.... "Successful" coaches have been fired.
[quote="SJU11Redmen" post=327631][quote="SJ_NYC" post=327624][quote="SJU11Redmen" post=327621]It would be a setback if we let this staff continue for another year. Everything broke right for us (Heron coming, Figgy committing, Ponds returning) and we haven't been able to capitalize on it. The experiment is over. Time for change.[/quote]
Nope[/quote]
What will change under the current regime? Mullin has shown he has no interest in changing the way he operates. This year was as good a group of talent as I believe this staff is capable of bringing in and we are squarely on the bubble with it.[/quote]
My stance on this is:
After what may become a disappointing season (still to be determined), Mullin should get two more years.
1. Recruiting is the best it's been in a long time. This regime has not recruited problem kids. None of the extreme baloney has occurred under this current regime, that occurred under the prior regime. These kids are good kids, and a lot of them are very talented. They only screwed up in not getting enough serviceable muscle/height this year.
2. Next year: You have a dynamic stud PG coming in, in Mack. Some height coming in. Wright also comes in. Then, we will probably play the transfer game again. That has worked very well for us. So next year's squad, and the following year's squad, are far from settled.
3. This year's performance. We were 20 minutes away / or one big-man away from an NCAA tournament birth, and we still might get it. Yes, they screwed up by not getting a more serviceable big man for this year. Roberts might get there, but he was too green this year. At times, the basketball this team has played has been very pretty. Other times, it's horrible. It's been a wild ride - but I suspect it's a wild ride for most border-line NCAA tournament teams.
4. If we had won the last games, NONE of you would be having this conversation in trying to get Mullin fired. It's seems foolish to make long term decisions based on such a short-term outcome.
4. You bring up 'change'? Change just for 'changes' sake? Be specific in exactly what you want to change. If you want to advocate for some assistant changes, then that's fine, people can argue away on that. I do not have a strong opinion on that.
5. Attendance. Mulling brings buzz and packs 'em in. That's worth a lot.
6. Switching coaches every four years is a fool's games. That is how you guarantee mediocrity. We are not a power 5 school with a power 5 budget or facilities. This program was in such piss-poor shape, that Mullin has to be given six years to turn this around.
Nope[/quote]
What will change under the current regime? Mullin has shown he has no interest in changing the way he operates. This year was as good a group of talent as I believe this staff is capable of bringing in and we are squarely on the bubble with it.[/quote]
My stance on this is:
After what may become a disappointing season (still to be determined), Mullin should get two more years.
1. Recruiting is the best it's been in a long time. This regime has not recruited problem kids. None of the extreme baloney has occurred under this current regime, that occurred under the prior regime. These kids are good kids, and a lot of them are very talented. They only screwed up in not getting enough serviceable muscle/height this year.
2. Next year: You have a dynamic stud PG coming in, in Mack. Some height coming in. Wright also comes in. Then, we will probably play the transfer game again. That has worked very well for us. So next year's squad, and the following year's squad, are far from settled.
3. This year's performance. We were 20 minutes away / or one big-man away from an NCAA tournament birth, and we still might get it. Yes, they screwed up by not getting a more serviceable big man for this year. Roberts might get there, but he was too green this year. At times, the basketball this team has played has been very pretty. Other times, it's horrible. It's been a wild ride - but I suspect it's a wild ride for most border-line NCAA tournament teams.
4. If we had won the last games, NONE of you would be having this conversation in trying to get Mullin fired. It's seems foolish to make long term decisions based on such a short-term outcome.
4. You bring up 'change'? Change just for 'changes' sake? Be specific in exactly what you want to change. If you want to advocate for some assistant changes, then that's fine, people can argue away on that. I do not have a strong opinion on that.
5. Attendance. Mulling brings buzz and packs 'em in. That's worth a lot.
6. Switching coaches every four years is a fool's games. That is how you guarantee mediocrity. We are not a power 5 school with a power 5 budget or facilities. This program was in such piss-poor shape, that Mullin has to be given six years to turn this around.
Last edited:
[quote="MJDinkins" post=327637][quote="SJU11Redmen" post=327631][quote="SJ_NYC" post=327624][quote="SJU11Redmen" post=327621]It would be a setback if we let this staff continue for another year. Everything broke right for us (Heron coming, Figgy committing, Ponds returning) and we haven't been able to capitalize on it. The experiment is over. Time for change.[/quote]
Nope[/quote]
What will change under the current regime? Mullin has shown he has no interest in changing the way he operates. This year was as good a group of talent as I believe this staff is capable of bringing in and we are squarely on the bubble with it.[/quote]
He thinks Mullin is a better coach than Lavin. Credibility shot. 'Nuff said.[/quote]]
Nope. My credibility is fine, thank you. It's hard to say if Lavin is a worse or better coach than Mullin. I remember Laving doing a lot of really stupid stuff. This year, we've seem some really pretty basketball. Some really horrid stuff too. Seem fairly consistent for St. John's basketball for the last twenty-five years. I generally think Mullin is a better coach than Lavin, but we can debate that. That's fine if we agree to disagree.
Also, you can go back and check, I did not advocate for a change away from Lavin. I did not want him to get canned. I only finally acquiesced to the idea at the very end. I was advocating for more years for Lavin, similar to what I'm advocating now.
You can't change coaches every four years. That's all I'm arguing. That's my tenet.
Firing a coach, every four years, as is often advocated on this board is a completely stupid way to operate a franchise. This is a franchise. Six years at a minimum per coach, unless that coach is negligent. Lavin, for those who have a better memory, was probably more more negligent in managing the franchise. "Insiders' on this board have alluded to that. This coaching staff, as a whole, is not negligent.
Again, constantly changes coaches absolutely guarantees mediocrity. Some of you, not all of you, just advocate change to stir the pot. I hope the board of trustees / the AD / and other key decision makers don't fall for such tomfoolery.
Six years for Mullin, or any coach, at a minimum. That's what I'm advocating.
Nope[/quote]
What will change under the current regime? Mullin has shown he has no interest in changing the way he operates. This year was as good a group of talent as I believe this staff is capable of bringing in and we are squarely on the bubble with it.[/quote]
He thinks Mullin is a better coach than Lavin. Credibility shot. 'Nuff said.[/quote]]
Nope. My credibility is fine, thank you. It's hard to say if Lavin is a worse or better coach than Mullin. I remember Laving doing a lot of really stupid stuff. This year, we've seem some really pretty basketball. Some really horrid stuff too. Seem fairly consistent for St. John's basketball for the last twenty-five years. I generally think Mullin is a better coach than Lavin, but we can debate that. That's fine if we agree to disagree.
Also, you can go back and check, I did not advocate for a change away from Lavin. I did not want him to get canned. I only finally acquiesced to the idea at the very end. I was advocating for more years for Lavin, similar to what I'm advocating now.
You can't change coaches every four years. That's all I'm arguing. That's my tenet.
Firing a coach, every four years, as is often advocated on this board is a completely stupid way to operate a franchise. This is a franchise. Six years at a minimum per coach, unless that coach is negligent. Lavin, for those who have a better memory, was probably more more negligent in managing the franchise. "Insiders' on this board have alluded to that. This coaching staff, as a whole, is not negligent.
Again, constantly changes coaches absolutely guarantees mediocrity. Some of you, not all of you, just advocate change to stir the pot. I hope the board of trustees / the AD / and other key decision makers don't fall for such tomfoolery.
Six years for Mullin, or any coach, at a minimum. That's what I'm advocating.
[quote="SJ_NYC" post=327773][quote="SJU11Redmen" post=327631][quote="SJ_NYC" post=327624][quote="SJU11Redmen" post=327621]It would be a setback if we let this staff continue for another year. Everything broke right for us (Heron coming, Figgy committing, Ponds returning) and we haven't been able to capitalize on it. The experiment is over. Time for change.[/quote]
Nope[/quote]
What will change under the current regime? Mullin has shown he has no interest in changing the way he operates. This year was as good a group of talent as I believe this staff is capable of bringing in and we are squarely on the bubble with it.[/quote]
My stance on this is:
After what may become a disappointing season (still to be determined), Mullin should get two more years.
1. Recruiting is the best it's been in a long time. This regime has not recruited problem kids. None of the extreme baloney has occurred under this current regime, that occurred under the prior regime. These kids are good kids, and a lot of them are very talented. They only screwed up in not getting enough serviceable muscle/height this year.
2. Next year: You have a dynamic stud PG coming in, in Mack. Some height coming in. Wright also comes in. Then, we will probably play the transfer game again. That has worked very well for us. So next year's squad, and the following year's squad, are far from settled.
3. This year's performance. We were 20 minutes away / or one big-man away from an NCAA tournament birth, and we still might get it. Yes, they screwed up by not getting a more serviceable big man for this year. Roberts might get there, but he was too green this year. At times, the basketball this team has played has been very pretty. Other times, it's horrible. It's been a wild ride - but I suspect it's a wild ride for most border-line NCAA tournament teams.
4. If we had won the last games, NONE of you would be having this conversation in trying to get Mullin fired. It's seems foolish to make long term decisions based on such a short-term outcome.
4. You bring up 'change'? Change just for 'changes' sake? Be specific in exactly what you want to change. If you want to advocate for some assistant changes, then that's fine, people can argue away on that. I do not have a strong opinion on that.
5. Attendance. Mulling brings buzz and packs 'em in. That's worth a lot.
6. Switching coaches every four years is a fool's games. That is how you guarantee mediocrity. We are not a power 5 school with a power 5 budget or facilities. This program was in such piss-poor shape, that Mullin has to be given six years to turn this around.[/quote]
LOL!!!!
Nope[/quote]
What will change under the current regime? Mullin has shown he has no interest in changing the way he operates. This year was as good a group of talent as I believe this staff is capable of bringing in and we are squarely on the bubble with it.[/quote]
My stance on this is:
After what may become a disappointing season (still to be determined), Mullin should get two more years.
1. Recruiting is the best it's been in a long time. This regime has not recruited problem kids. None of the extreme baloney has occurred under this current regime, that occurred under the prior regime. These kids are good kids, and a lot of them are very talented. They only screwed up in not getting enough serviceable muscle/height this year.
2. Next year: You have a dynamic stud PG coming in, in Mack. Some height coming in. Wright also comes in. Then, we will probably play the transfer game again. That has worked very well for us. So next year's squad, and the following year's squad, are far from settled.
3. This year's performance. We were 20 minutes away / or one big-man away from an NCAA tournament birth, and we still might get it. Yes, they screwed up by not getting a more serviceable big man for this year. Roberts might get there, but he was too green this year. At times, the basketball this team has played has been very pretty. Other times, it's horrible. It's been a wild ride - but I suspect it's a wild ride for most border-line NCAA tournament teams.
4. If we had won the last games, NONE of you would be having this conversation in trying to get Mullin fired. It's seems foolish to make long term decisions based on such a short-term outcome.
4. You bring up 'change'? Change just for 'changes' sake? Be specific in exactly what you want to change. If you want to advocate for some assistant changes, then that's fine, people can argue away on that. I do not have a strong opinion on that.
5. Attendance. Mulling brings buzz and packs 'em in. That's worth a lot.
6. Switching coaches every four years is a fool's games. That is how you guarantee mediocrity. We are not a power 5 school with a power 5 budget or facilities. This program was in such piss-poor shape, that Mullin has to be given six years to turn this around.[/quote]
LOL!!!!
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=327638]
... This has been the rumor for some time now. And before you ask if they officially announced it yet from the very lips of Cragg, no and that would never happen [/quote]
A potential coaching change, by the AD, as 'rumor', has not been circulated by any respectable insiders on this board. And when I mean 'insider', I mean those that have proven themselves to have key, correct information.
You are just making up wild stuff, trying to pass it along as a 'rumor'. Don't do that.
... This has been the rumor for some time now. And before you ask if they officially announced it yet from the very lips of Cragg, no and that would never happen [/quote]
A potential coaching change, by the AD, as 'rumor', has not been circulated by any respectable insiders on this board. And when I mean 'insider', I mean those that have proven themselves to have key, correct information.
You are just making up wild stuff, trying to pass it along as a 'rumor'. Don't do that.
Ray Morgan
Well-known member
My belief is that Mullin should be held to the same standard as anyone else. You have to be judged on your performance, and not your name. College coaching is not a seasonal position. The summertime is work time for head coaches. All of it. If the stories that posters put out there regarding Mullin and Richmond heading west for the summer are true, that's a problem. If Lavin was replaced by Willie Brown, or Joe Easterling, would this be tolerated? Would not showing up for a much needed grad transfer with skill and size be acceptable? I would think not. if fans and posters would not accept it from others, they should especially not accept it from Chris.