Jeff Goodman's Preseason Top 25

[quote="Class of 72" post=351187][quote="Beast of the East" post=351133][quote="Class of 72" post=351088][quote="Beast of the East" post=351086]looks like this will be a tough season for our guys to win more than 6 or 7 games in conference, but some of you may know better.[/quote]

Maybe the next 2019 player addition will change that. IMO the only significant loss was Shamorie Ponds and to some extent Justin. The season is a long way off.[/quote]

And Clark, and Keita, the only big man who got minutes. Actually we are down (ponds, keita, clark, simon, and Trimble) 5 of our 7 rotation players.[/quote]

That Keita and Trimble were rotation players was part of the problem and their leaving is now part of the solution. Had Mullin stayed on as coach my guess is we could have lost all 3 freshmen AND Keita, Ponds and Clark. Heron showed no growth whatsoever under the tutelage of Mitch Richmond.
I think we can be as good a team as last year if we add one more piece. For the first time in 4 years I feel optimistic.[/quote]

IF we do get that Grad Transfer or Juco PG, I think you may be right,’72.
But I admit that’s being optimistic given the Big East is stacking up to be much stronger next season.
But I fully believe we’ll be ‘competitive’ and squeak out a winning record if we do get that PG.
 
Last edited:
Earlier Beast prognostication of 6 or 7 wins in conference is reasonable considering BE returns many talented players. Let us not forget we only won 8 conference games last year. Add a point guard and be competitive seems realistic goal for year one. It is all about changing culture and building a foundation going forward imo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nobody has much faith in Roberts, Ellington, Caraher,or Williams? They looked much improved in latter part of the season. I think Roberts will become a beast, if given an opportunity. Haven’t seen Steere, Wright,etc. in action so would be silly to make a prediction. Coaching will do more than anyone can estimate to prep these guys for BE. And with the chaotic style Anderson’s runs it will hide some weaknesses. Role play will become very important. If you put a guy into top of 1-3-1 who can create havoc , he doesn’t necessarily have to be a great shooter. I’m not convinced that Thornton is a positive here with his weak stats. Wouldn’t be afraid to go with what we already have at the point, although help would be welcome.
 
[quote="Class of 72" post=351187][quote="Beast of the East" post=351133][quote="Class of 72" post=351088][quote="Beast of the East" post=351086]looks like this will be a tough season for our guys to win more than 6 or 7 games in conference, but some of you may know better.[/quote]

Maybe the next 2019 player addition will change that. IMO the only significant loss was Shamorie Ponds and to some extent Justin. The season is a long way off.[/quote]

And Clark, and Keita, the only big man who got minutes. Actually we are down (ponds, keita, clark, simon, and Trimble) 5 of our 7 rotation players.[/quote]

That Keita and Trimble were rotation players was part of the problem and their leaving is now part of the solution. Had Mullin stayed on as coach my guess is we could have lost all 3 freshmen AND Keita, Ponds and Clark. Heron showed no growth whatsoever under the tutelage of Mitch Richmond.
I think we can be as good a team as last year if we add one more piece. For the first time in 4 years I feel optimistic.[/quote]

I think the best realistic hope is that we do fairly well in the OOC season, we finally get a sense of a team that is well coached and with a purpose, and they become a tough out in conference. I think the future is brighter than it has been in a while, especially considering how the Lavin and Mullin tenures ended. think more than 6 wins in conference would be a pleasant surprise, and more than 7 wins a resounding success. I think it's just a fair assessment. We are losing a lot of offense, and every good team has three confide offensive weapons.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Fred Solomon" post=351199]Nobody has much faith in Roberts, Ellington, Caraher,or Williams? They looked much improved in latter part of the season. I think Roberts will become a beast, if given an opportunity. Haven’t seen Steere, Wright,etc. in action so would be silly to make a prediction. Coaching will do more than anyone can estimate to prep these guys for BE. And with the chaotic style Anderson’s runs it will hide some weaknesses. Role play will become very important. If you put a guy into top of 1-3-1 who can create havoc , he doesn’t necessarily have to be a great shooter. I’m not convinced that Thornton is a positive here with his weak stats. Wouldn’t be afraid to go with what we already have at the point, although help would be welcome.[/quote]

Not at all into predictions but especially in the situation SJU is in for next year. Completely new system, one which would appear to be favorable to Williams and Roberts. Figueroa and Heron give us experienced scorers and defense wins. If we can turn the press into some cheap scores we could surprise. As I have posted before, hard, hustling defense and ball sharing can take a team a long way and they are the two constants of Anderson's teams through the years.
 
Last edited:
I think the conference record is generally much easier to predict within 2 wins or so. Even IF we are a good team, are we good enough to have a winning record or even .500 record against the upper eschelon BE teams - probably not. And if we are good, are we got enough to mop up , especially away, against the bottom 4 teams - again probably not. So, sub .500 in conference a strong likelihood. If optimistic I'd say 6-7 wins, if pessimistic, 5-6 wins - I guess an over under of 6.

The most important thing is we play an inspired type of basketball, and put a team on the floor that doesn't make the type of mistakes late that we have been accustomed to seeing for the longest time. Beyond wins, seeing a disciplined well coached team, which we haven't seen since the Jarvis years (which for my tastes put the harnesses on players a bit too much), would really give our fans a lot of confidence for the future in the Anderson era.
 
Defense will need to drive next years team. Outside of Figueroa and Heron and I just don’t see where we get enough offense. SJU needs to become the annoying team to play. Sounds like that is Coach MA’s long term goal. Just not sure we have the skill or bodies yet to be that consistently enough in Year 1.
 
This is a good thread. Not too OT and well-said / well-thought-out posts that've captured most prevailing variables i think.
It'll be a challenging year with much scoring power lost from last year, a revamped / strengthened BEC, and a new coach with a late start, implementing a new system.
It'll be all about establishing a new culture of 40 MOH, featuring sharing the ball and intense Defense.
Heron and Figueroa as well as Wright and Williams should thrive in it and Steere and Sears should give us some muscle and Roberts some athleticism up front.
It'll be a 'foundational' year.
Looking forward to it despite the challenges and the uncertainties.
Go Redmen.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Chicago Days" post=351211]This is a good thread. Not too OT and well-said / well-thought-out posts that've captured most prevailing variables i think.
It'll be a challenging year with much scoring power lost from last year, a revamped / strengthened BEC, and a new coach with a late start, implementing a new system.
It'll be all about establishing a new culture of 40 MOH, featuring sharing the ball and intense Defense.
Heron and Figueroa as well as Wright and Williams should thrive in it and Steere and Sears should give us some muscle and Roberts some athleticism up front.
It'll be a 'foundational' year.
Looking forward to it despite the challenges and the uncertainties.
Go Redmen.[/quote]

Very good post. I'm no sold on 40 MOH just yet till I see it. Mullin promised the "fittest team in the country" and instead we got the most worn out group of key players. You need a bench where this isn't much of a fall off, or you change strategy when certain players are inserted to maximize their strengths and exploit opponents weaknesses. IF 40 MOH materializes I suspect it will be when we have a roster filled with specific type recruited by CMA for that purpose, with appropriate depth, length, and speed, and most of all intensity.
 
Again, no way anyone can predict a win total as of now without seeing these guys under these coaches and or possibly adding another piece or 2. Could it be low because of Big East improvement? maybe Could it be low because we have some new pieces and lost some key guys? maybe. But maybe these guys thrive in new system. We all do not know anything just yet. With certainty we possibly underachieved last year for whatever the reasons were so to compare to last seasons team doesn't make sense to me. On paper we should have been better for sure.
So how many conference wins this year? 2? 5? 8? This year is a complete unknown at this point. To predict a win total doesn't make sense at this point. Now if you go off anderson's track record then .500 or better we will be overall but of course time will tell about that record he hopes to continue
 
Last edited:
[quote="Beast of the East" post=351203]I think the conference record is generally much easier to predict within 2 wins or so. Even IF we are a good team, are we good enough to have a winning record or even .500 record against the upper eschelon BE teams - probably not. And if we are good, are we got enough to mop up , especially away, against the bottom 4 teams - again probably not. So, sub .500 in conference a strong likelihood. If optimistic I'd say 6-7 wins, if pessimistic, 5-6 wins - I guess an over under of 6.

The most important thing is we play an inspired type of basketball, and put a team on the floor that doesn't make the type of mistakes late that we have been accustomed to seeing for the longest time. Beyond wins, seeing a disciplined well coached team, which we haven't seen since the Jarvis years (which for my tastes put the harnesses on players a bit too much), would really give our fans a lot of confidence for the future in the Anderson era.[/quote]

Although i dont think we can put a possible win total on us for next year yet, I too am looking forward to seeing a well coached disciplined team and what this coaching staff can do. Been a long time.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Eric" post=351215]Again, no way anyone can predict a win total as of now without seeing these guys under these coaches and or possibly adding another piece or 2. Could it be low because of Big East improvement? maybe Could it be low because we have some new pieces and lost some key guys? maybe. But maybe these guys thrive in new system. We all do not know anything just yet. With certainty we possibly underachieved last year for whatever the reasons were so to compare to last seasons team doesn't make sense to me. On paper we should have been better for sure.
So how many conference wins this year? 2? 5? 8? This year is a complete unknown at this point. To predict a win total doesn't make sense at this point. Now if you go off anderson's track record then .500 or better we will be overall but of course time will tell about that record he hopes to continue
[/quote]

Now you just tiptoed around a very important piece of information. We are all impressed by 15 straight years of overall winning records, but in conference his record is less glamorous. At Missouri, he had 2 winning conference seasons, 2 losing conference seasons, and one .500 season, overall winning % .538. At Arkansas, it's slightly better at .549, with only one second place and one third place finish in 8 seasons.

Compare that to Lavin's .635 conference record at UCLA, and his .571 at St. John's, and Anderson's record pales. He's not quite Ed Cooley (71-73 at Providence) but Cooley also single handedly elevated the program. When you remove Cooley's 4-14 first season, it becomes .531 (67-59).

Now, for giggles, compare that to Tim Cluess' only real D1 body of work which is 124-46 in conference, which is .729.

While Otis is correct to conclude that yes, we do have a coach, and his name is Mike Anderson, I think anyone who believes Anderson will build a program that will reside at the top of the Big East would have to conclude that by far, his best career's work would have to be ahead of him. That being said, I believe we do have a competent D1 coach at the helm.
 
Last edited:
I hear ya beast. My .500 reference isn’t to the conference. It’s overall

As for the coaching comparisons. I’m not about to get into a debate over who would have been better clues vs Anderson. But I’m thrilled with the hire and can’t wait to watch his and the rest of the staffs hard work change the culture around sju. And I was a big mullin supporter.
 
[quote="Beast of the East" post=351221][quote="Eric" post=351215]Again, no way anyone can predict a win total as of now without seeing these guys under these coaches and or possibly adding another piece or 2. Could it be low because of Big East improvement? maybe Could it be low because we have some new pieces and lost some key guys? maybe. But maybe these guys thrive in new system. We all do not know anything just yet. With certainty we possibly underachieved last year for whatever the reasons were so to compare to last seasons team doesn't make sense to me. On paper we should have been better for sure.
So how many conference wins this year? 2? 5? 8? This year is a complete unknown at this point. To predict a win total doesn't make sense at this point. Now if you go off anderson's track record then .500 or better we will be overall but of course time will tell about that record he hopes to continue
[/quote]

Now you just tiptoed around a very important piece of information. We are all impressed by 15 straight years of overall winning records, but in conference his record is less glamorous. At Missouri, he had 2 winning conference seasons, 2 losing conference seasons, and one .500 season, overall winning % .538. At Arkansas, it's slightly better at .549, with only one second place and one third place finish in 8 seasons.

Compare that to Lavin's .635 conference record at UCLA, and his .571 at St. John's, and Anderson's record pales. He's not quite Ed Cooley (71-73 at Providence) but Cooley also single handedly elevated the program. When you remove Cooley's 4-14 first season, it becomes .531 (67-59).

Now, for giggles, compare that to Tim Cluess' only real D1 body of work which is 124-46 in conference, which is .729.

While Otis is correct to conclude that yes, we do have a coach, and his name is Mike Anderson, I think anyone who believes Anderson will build a program that will reside at the top of the Big East would have to conclude that by far, his best career's work would have to be ahead of him. That being said, I believe we do have a competent D1 coach at the helm.[/quote]

At Arkansas, it's slightly better at .549, with only one second place and one third place finish in 8 seasons.

A .549 conference record (at Arkansas these past 8 years) is pretty damn good. Not sure why you're portraying that to be a negative.

.549 translates to 10-8. If CMA averages 10-8 in the Big East that'd be incredible. If Mullin achieved 10-8 (or even 9-9) during just one of his 4 years he'd likely still be here.

As for Lavin, that stat is misleading since he wasn't here during the first rebuilding year. Also, he vastly under-performed during OOC (with the sole exception of his last year where he went 11-2) and the tournaments. His regular season conference performance wasn't the issue.

All your stats are just selling me even more on how successful CMA has been. I can agree that we shouldn't expect him to be Jay Wright (don't think many people are), but still the data you're presenting tells me he was a very good coach at Arkansas.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Adam" post=351226][quote="Beast of the East" post=351221][quote="Eric" post=351215]Again, no way anyone can predict a win total as of now without seeing these guys under these coaches and or possibly adding another piece or 2. Could it be low because of Big East improvement? maybe Could it be low because we have some new pieces and lost some key guys? maybe. But maybe these guys thrive in new system. We all do not know anything just yet. With certainty we possibly underachieved last year for whatever the reasons were so to compare to last seasons team doesn't make sense to me. On paper we should have been better for sure.
So how many conference wins this year? 2? 5? 8? This year is a complete unknown at this point. To predict a win total doesn't make sense at this point. Now if you go off anderson's track record then .500 or better we will be overall but of course time will tell about that record he hopes to continue
[/quote]

Now you just tiptoed around a very important piece of information. We are all impressed by 15 straight years of overall winning records, but in conference his record is less glamorous. At Missouri, he had 2 winning conference seasons, 2 losing conference seasons, and one .500 season, overall winning % .538. At Arkansas, it's slightly better at .549, with only one second place and one third place finish in 8 seasons.

Compare that to Lavin's .635 conference record at UCLA, and his .571 at St. John's, and Anderson's record pales. He's not quite Ed Cooley (71-73 at Providence) but Cooley also single handedly elevated the program. When you remove Cooley's 4-14 first season, it becomes .531 (67-59).

Now, for giggles, compare that to Tim Cluess' only real D1 body of work which is 124-46 in conference, which is .729.

While Otis is correct to conclude that yes, we do have a coach, and his name is Mike Anderson, I think anyone who believes Anderson will build a program that will reside at the top of the Big East would have to conclude that by far, his best career's work would have to be ahead of him. That being said, I believe we do have a competent D1 coach at the helm.[/quote]

At Arkansas, it's slightly better at .549, with only one second place and one third place finish in 8 seasons.

A .549 conference record (at Arkansas these past 8 years) is pretty damn good. Not sure why you're portraying that to be a negative.

.549 translates to 10-8. If CMA averages 10-8 in the Big East that'd be incredible. If Mullin achieved 10-8 (or even 9-9) during just one of his 4 years he'd likely still be here.

As for Lavin, that stat is misleading since he wasn't here during the first rebuilding year. Also, he vastly under-performed during OOC (with the sole exception of his last year where he went 11-2) and the tournaments. His regular season conference performance wasn't the issue.

All your stats are just selling me even more on how successful CMA has been. I can agree that we shouldn't expect him to be Jay Wright (don't think many people are), but still the data you're presenting tells me he was a very good coach at Arkansas.[/quote]

Lots of ways to interpret numbers, and obviously, just as St. John's fired Lavin with a .571 in conference record, Arkansas fired CMA based on his overall success, which indicates just 2 very good conference years out of 8. Do you realize that we fired Jarvis after an NIT title, Lavin after his 2nd NCAA bid in 4 seasons that he coached, and Mullin after his first NCAA bid. Roberts got fired after his only NIT bid. It's all perspective really, and while I don't disagree with any of our dismissals, I'm sure Arkansas fans were not screaming bloody murder. That being said, this is likely the most competent bench coach we've had since Jarvis, and he has put together a nice staff.
 
[quote="Beast of the East" post=351227][quote="Adam" post=351226][quote="Beast of the East" post=351221][quote="Eric" post=351215]Again, no way anyone can predict a win total as of now without seeing these guys under these coaches and or possibly adding another piece or 2. Could it be low because of Big East improvement? maybe Could it be low because we have some new pieces and lost some key guys? maybe. But maybe these guys thrive in new system. We all do not know anything just yet. With certainty we possibly underachieved last year for whatever the reasons were so to compare to last seasons team doesn't make sense to me. On paper we should have been better for sure.
So how many conference wins this year? 2? 5? 8? This year is a complete unknown at this point. To predict a win total doesn't make sense at this point. Now if you go off anderson's track record then .500 or better we will be overall but of course time will tell about that record he hopes to continue
[/quote]

Now you just tiptoed around a very important piece of information. We are all impressed by 15 straight years of overall winning records, but in conference his record is less glamorous. At Missouri, he had 2 winning conference seasons, 2 losing conference seasons, and one .500 season, overall winning % .538. At Arkansas, it's slightly better at .549, with only one second place and one third place finish in 8 seasons.

Compare that to Lavin's .635 conference record at UCLA, and his .571 at St. John's, and Anderson's record pales. He's not quite Ed Cooley (71-73 at Providence) but Cooley also single handedly elevated the program. When you remove Cooley's 4-14 first season, it becomes .531 (67-59).

Now, for giggles, compare that to Tim Cluess' only real D1 body of work which is 124-46 in conference, which is .729.

While Otis is correct to conclude that yes, we do have a coach, and his name is Mike Anderson, I think anyone who believes Anderson will build a program that will reside at the top of the Big East would have to conclude that by far, his best career's work would have to be ahead of him. That being said, I believe we do have a competent D1 coach at the helm.[/quote]

At Arkansas, it's slightly better at .549, with only one second place and one third place finish in 8 seasons.

A .549 conference record (at Arkansas these past 8 years) is pretty damn good. Not sure why you're portraying that to be a negative.

.549 translates to 10-8. If CMA averages 10-8 in the Big East that'd be incredible. If Mullin achieved 10-8 (or even 9-9) during just one of his 4 years he'd likely still be here.

As for Lavin, that stat is misleading since he wasn't here during the first rebuilding year. Also, he vastly under-performed during OOC (with the sole exception of his last year where he went 11-2) and the tournaments. His regular season conference performance wasn't the issue.

All your stats are just selling me even more on how successful CMA has been. I can agree that we shouldn't expect him to be Jay Wright (don't think many people are), but still the data you're presenting tells me he was a very good coach at Arkansas.[/quote]

Lots of ways to interpret numbers, and obviously, just as St. John's fired Lavin with a .571 in conference record, Arkansas fired CMA based on his overall success, which indicates just 2 very good conference years out of 8. Do you realize that we fired Jarvis after an NIT title, Lavin after his 2nd NCAA bid in 4 seasons that he coached, and Mullin after his first NCAA bid. Roberts got fired after his only NIT bid. It's all perspective really, and while I don't disagree with any of our dismissals, I'm sure Arkansas fans were not screaming bloody murder. That being said, this is likely the most competent bench coach we've had since Jarvis, and he has put together a nice staff.[/quote]

Eh I still feel you're reaching for numbers to fit your narrative. Why limit it to just regular season conference play rather than the overall year? CMA had a .624 record (Arkansas) while SL was .604 (SJU- and I'm not including the rebuilding year which would lower his %). Conference tournaments? CMA easily (they made it to the SEC finals several times). NCAA/NIT performance? CMA easily (he won some games).

Don't think there's any way you can compare CMA's time at Arkansas and SL's time at St. John's and come to the conclusion that SL did a better (or similar) job. Not putting words in your mouth, but I don't think the two had similar success.

We can agree at least on the end of your post. This is all about perspective, and Arkansas fans were pretty split on his firing (see the poll here: [URL]https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/mar/26/arkansas-fires-mike-anderson-basketball-coach/[/URL])

I also agree that he is our most competent bench coach in a while and has put together a nice staff.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Paultzman" post=351224]Re Tim Cluess :)
[/quote]

I'm still not getting all the Tim Cluess love here. My friend Beast compared their records but in reality it is like comparing apples and oranges. Tim has never coached at a high D1 program. His Iona teams the past six years have had 11 or more losses. His record is skewed by easy in conference wins. His post season is a textbook 1 and done scenario.
Coach Anderson coached in the Big 12 and SEC. In the past 6 seasons his teams went to 5 post season tournaments and made it to the 2nd round 4 of the five. While Cluess was coaching and recruiting against powerhouses like Manhattan, St. Peter's, and Marist, CMA was going against the financially wealthy like Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
I rest my case.
 
[quote="Class of 72" post=351231][quote="Paultzman" post=351224]Re Tim Cluess :)
[/quote]

I'm still not getting all the Tim Cluess love here. My friend Beast compared their records but in reality it is like comparing apples and oranges. Tim has never coached at a high D1 program. His Iona teams the past six years have had 11 or more losses. His record is skewed by easy in conference wins. His post season is a textbook 1 and done scenario.
Coach Anderson coached in the Big 12 and SEC. In the past 6 seasons his teams went to 5 post season tournaments and made it to the 2nd round 4 of the five. While Cluess was coaching and recruiting against powerhouses like Manhattan, St. Peter's, and Marist, CMA was going against the financially wealthy like Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
I rest my case.[/quote] personally I agree with you but I get the Cluess thing with some guys. Some of them known him personally ( I. Don’t ) he’s won every where he has been. I have a friend who played for him a year a long time ago and loves the guy. He’s a winner I’ll give him that. I’m all on board with Iron Mike though because same winning type pedigree just at bigger schools
 
[quote="Class of 72" post=351231][quote="Paultzman" post=351224]Re Tim Cluess :)
[/quote]

I'm still not getting all the Tim Cluess love here. My friend Beast compared their records but in reality it is like comparing apples and oranges. Tim has never coached at a high D1 program. His Iona teams the past six years have had 11 or more losses. His record is skewed by easy in conference wins. His post season is a textbook 1 and done scenario.
Coach Anderson coached in the Big 12 and SEC. In the past 6 seasons his teams went to 5 post season tournaments and made it to the 2nd round 4 of the five. While Cluess was coaching and recruiting against powerhouses like Manhattan, St. Peter's, and Marist, CMA was going against the financially wealthy like Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
I rest my case.[/quote]

I was one of those people who wanted Tim Cluess, but in hindsight CMA was probably the better choice anyways. As you mentioned, Cluess still would need to prove himself at a high level while CMA doesn't. CMA also offset his lack of NYC experience with several experienced NYC ACs. When CMA was dismissed, it was very easy to not even notice until looking at his resume. Also need to consider the massive $$$ some of these SEC schools have been throwing around. Not going to fault CMA for refusing to stoop to the levels of Pearl/Calipari/Wade. He did a damn good job in a very competitive conference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top