Mike Anderson - Recruiting, Coaching, Etc.

[quote="QueensBall" post=396047]If I point out that a guy (Drissa) is just a hair beneath some arbitrary rating # and the reaction is, "There's always an excuse for why someone isn't a 4 star" then you're completely missing the point. I'm not saying that Drissa should be a 4 star recruit, I'm acknowledging that he ISN'T a 4 star but saying that I really don't care. I don't care that he has a 79 instead of 80 rating because it has absolutely zero bearing on how he will perform at the college level. You guys also have no idea but you're saying that because he doesn't have that slightly higher rating he's another example of Mike Anderson being unable to recruit. That's completely incoherent thinking to me.

I'm also not saying that stars or rankings aren't helpful. When I haven't heard of a recruit I always check to see their ranking/stars to give me an idea of how they're viewed but if that's the only way you're capable of evaluating if you're excited by a recruit then there isn't really a discussion to be had. You're like one of these network executives in television who have no actual opinions of their own. They can only decide how they feel about a project by "Who else is interested in it?" You would have passed on Stranger Things because HBO and Showtime passed on it and the creators didn't have the best resume. The most anticipated stuff isn't always the best stuff. If that was the case our favorite movies every year would just be what script sold for the most money. Our favorite places to hang out would just be whatever club had the longest line outside the door. Have some taste of your own. Watch the guy play and have an opinion. Everyone agrees that the best guys are the best guys. Not everyone views an incoming recruit as disappointing just because they fall below an extremely arbitrary ranking line in the sand.

And why act like the board is ganging up on you? The reason this same discussion keeps happening is because every time a recruit is being discussed or pursued that isn't a Top 100 type guy the same few people respond with, "Another unranked guy. Great. Right in Mike Anderson's wheelhouse..." or something similar. Every 9th or 10th time some of us feel compelled to defend a staff that's working really hard and hasn't been anything close to a flop yet. Enough of the doom and gloom. Nobody wants the team to suck. Nobody wants to stick with a coach that isn't working. Others of us have certain recruiting concerns also but don't just view things in extremes. Not everything is a 1 or a 10.[/quote]

QB, I don't think the board is ganging up on me, Zaun or Boo, "I neva said dat!" (Zaun reference). I just said that I have a track record of being right about these things, so at least give me the respect of not dismissing me pointing out the clear warning signs of impending trouble.

Regarding your rankings point, I use the rankings literally the same way you do. I watch these kids play A LOT. In fact if you look back in my posts, I was completely on board and excited about the prospect of landing Jordan Riley, who is a 3 star recruit on most services. And I also stated on this thread that I would rather land Applewhite, a 3 star, over Kyle Cuffe Jr, a 4 star, after watching him play.

I watched Drissa play, and honestly I think he can be coached up and developed, but this isn't the kind of kid who should be one of the main prospects you land on a Big East caliber recruiting class. If you want to bring him on board as a complementary piece when you already have a few nice prospects on board I'm completely fine with that. I don't think he is even close to being the caliber of a 4 star recruit talent wise. If you look at the schools that were also in the hunt for him that tells you a lot. It isn't like this kid isn't getting a ton of exposure playing on a top HS program that produces top talent on the regular.

Another posted asked would I be happy if we just landed 2-3 star and recruits and high end JUCOs all the time and made the tournament every year and won a lot? Sure! I would be totally on board with that. But as I've said ad nauseam this isn't a sustainable method for success. If CMA proves me wrong I'd love that, but I already know that is not likely because literally no one else uses this method at a high major and has sustained success.
 
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=396031]Maybe I'm biased but I just think Boo Harvey is dead on here. No one is calling for CMA's head...obviously not that would be silly this early. But we are seeing a pretty big concern early on here and that's recruiting. He moderately exceeded expectations in terms of total wins but our Big East performance was still pretty bad as expected. Those WVU/Zona wins were awesome but let's see if it was a flash in a can or a real pattern of playing those types of teams tough and winning our share. There is zero doubt that recruiting is a concern early on and the only way you can deny this is if you're biased in the opposite direction: rose colored. Bias goes 2 ways...it can be too negative or too positive. But I think Harvey and I are being totally rational with recruiting concern.

You can blame him getting here recently, his style of play, not much PT to offer, etc. The point is, we are absolute rock bottom recruiting in the conference. Rock bottom by a clear margin. The reason doesn't matter. Teams figure out ways to recruit well like DePaul even when they stink. No one said it's easy, but if you can't get good recruits here consistently e.g. top 100 level guys on the reg, you will almost certainly not succeed here which is what I said early on. Who cares who we are involved with if they don't come? I can go to the Ferrari dealership but I won't be able to get one. Enough with the top 10's top 5's, etc. You either get the top kids or you don't. He may be able to find some diamonds in the rough, but if that's your entire recruiting philosophy, you're in trouble.[/quote]

Take the coach out of the equation...
If you were a 5* recruit from the tri-state area, why would you pick St Johns?
 
Mike:
I understand your point re; "The funny thing is, guys like us who have been the most critical of coaches e.g. Lavin, Mullin....have been 100% correct both times". I was there as a critic as well on all 3(Jarvis added). But applying that track record, in this limited a time period for Anderson, may be more reflective of an ingrained negativity from perpetual disappointments, than a sign of presumed wisdom about the next judgement..
I'm sure there is another group of us who also were correctly severely critical of Jarvis, Lavin, and Mullin, and been correct; but, we aren't remotely nearing the jury room to assess the status of Anderson's recruiting skills yet.
True, one can cite indications and argue the pluses and minuses. but it is far too early ( by a couple of years) to declare his and staff's competence in recruiting as "suspect". If anything, I see the problem more a function that SJU itself is "suspect". It's last 25 or so years I won't cite in detail but no coach (acceptable to the school's ethics) is going to offset negatives in that history in just 3 years, let alone less than 2 years with one season.
On the contrary, while Coach is not from the area, he is making positive impressions within metro-area NY...with high schools, media, and obviously some decent recruits.. From what I see, there is very little reason to attribute our current recruiting distance from other Big East schools as a coaching culpability.
This "case" should be thrown out of court for a lack of evidence and the prosecution needs to gather evidence if it wishes for a future action. At this point, we could be preparing a coronation in four years as easily as a hanging.
 
Last edited:
[quote="SJUFAN2" post=396057][quote="Mike Zaun" post=396031]Maybe I'm biased but I just think Boo Harvey is dead on here. No one is calling for CMA's head...obviously not that would be silly this early. But we are seeing a pretty big concern early on here and that's recruiting. He moderately exceeded expectations in terms of total wins but our Big East performance was still pretty bad as expected. Those WVU/Zona wins were awesome but let's see if it was a flash in a can or a real pattern of playing those types of teams tough and winning our share. There is zero doubt that recruiting is a concern early on and the only way you can deny this is if you're biased in the opposite direction: rose colored. Bias goes 2 ways...it can be too negative or too positive. But I think Harvey and I are being totally rational with recruiting concern.

You can blame him getting here recently, his style of play, not much PT to offer, etc. The point is, we are absolute rock bottom recruiting in the conference. Rock bottom by a clear margin. The reason doesn't matter. Teams figure out ways to recruit well like DePaul even when they stink. No one said it's easy, but if you can't get good recruits here consistently e.g. top 100 level guys on the reg, you will almost certainly not succeed here which is what I said early on. Who cares who we are involved with if they don't come? I can go to the Ferrari dealership but I won't be able to get one. Enough with the top 10's top 5's, etc. You either get the top kids or you don't. He may be able to find some diamonds in the rough, but if that's your entire recruiting philosophy, you're in trouble.[/quote]

Take the coach out of the equation...
If you were a 5* recruit from the tri-state area, why would you pick St Johns?[/quote]

If the school ponied up the cash to get Bobby Hurley, you don't think he would be able to land these types of players here? I do.
 
[quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=396053][quote="QueensBall" post=396047]If I point out that a guy (Drissa) is just a hair beneath some arbitrary rating # and the reaction is, "There's always an excuse for why someone isn't a 4 star" then you're completely missing the point. I'm not saying that Drissa should be a 4 star recruit, I'm acknowledging that he ISN'T a 4 star but saying that I really don't care. I don't care that he has a 79 instead of 80 rating because it has absolutely zero bearing on how he will perform at the college level. You guys also have no idea but you're saying that because he doesn't have that slightly higher rating he's another example of Mike Anderson being unable to recruit. That's completely incoherent thinking to me.

I'm also not saying that stars or rankings aren't helpful. When I haven't heard of a recruit I always check to see their ranking/stars to give me an idea of how they're viewed but if that's the only way you're capable of evaluating if you're excited by a recruit then there isn't really a discussion to be had. You're like one of these network executives in television who have no actual opinions of their own. They can only decide how they feel about a project by "Who else is interested in it?" You would have passed on Stranger Things because HBO and Showtime passed on it and the creators didn't have the best resume. The most anticipated stuff isn't always the best stuff. If that was the case our favorite movies every year would just be what script sold for the most money. Our favorite places to hang out would just be whatever club had the longest line outside the door. Have some taste of your own. Watch the guy play and have an opinion. Everyone agrees that the best guys are the best guys. Not everyone views an incoming recruit as disappointing just because they fall below an extremely arbitrary ranking line in the sand.

And why act like the board is ganging up on you? The reason this same discussion keeps happening is because every time a recruit is being discussed or pursued that isn't a Top 100 type guy the same few people respond with, "Another unranked guy. Great. Right in Mike Anderson's wheelhouse..." or something similar. Every 9th or 10th time some of us feel compelled to defend a staff that's working really hard and hasn't been anything close to a flop yet. Enough of the doom and gloom. Nobody wants the team to suck. Nobody wants to stick with a coach that isn't working. Others of us have certain recruiting concerns also but don't just view things in extremes. Not everything is a 1 or a 10.[/quote]

QB, I don't think the board is ganging up on me, Zaun or Boo, "I neva said dat!" (Zaun reference). I just said that I have a track record of being right about these things, so at least give me the respect of not dismissing me pointing out the clear warning signs of impending trouble.

Regarding your rankings point, I use the rankings literally the same way you do. I watch these kids play A LOT. In fact if you look back in my posts, I was completely on board and excited about the prospect of landing Jordan Riley, who is a 3 star recruit on most services. And I also stated on this thread that I would rather land Applewhite, a 3 star, over Kyle Cuffe Jr, a 4 star, after watching him play.

I watched Drissa play, and honestly I think he can be coached up and developed, but this isn't the kind of kid who should be one of the main prospects you land on a Big East caliber recruiting class. If you want to bring him on board as a complementary piece when you already have a few nice prospects on board I'm completely fine with that. I don't think he is even close to being the caliber of a 4 star recruit talent wise. If you look at the schools that were also in the hunt for him that tells you a lot. It isn't like this kid isn't getting a ton of exposure playing on a top HS program that produces top talent on the regular.

Another posted asked would I be happy if we just landed 2-3 star and recruits and high end JUCOs all the time and made the tournament every year and won a lot? Sure! I would be totally on board with that. But as I've said ad nauseam this isn't a sustainable method for success. If CMA proves me wrong I'd love that, but I already know that is not likely because literally no one else uses this method at a high major and has sustained success.[/quote]

I want to win.
I don't care if the kids have 5 STARS attached to their resume's or ZERO STARS.
If CMA can be a perennial 18+ game winner (and he is), if he can get us in the big dance 3 out of every 5 years, and if he recruits quality, hardworking kids, then I'm all-in.
For me, that is INFINITELY better than anything we've had in the last 20 years, and its a foundation to build on when pursuing those higher rated players.

If you want 5 star guys now then pony up the $$$. We don't have sneaker companies tossing bags of cash at those kids to steer them our way and they aren't going to start out doing that tomorrow out of the kindness of their hearts or to give our favorite team a boost.
 
If it works and we're making tourneys then of course I'd be happy and have a change of heart. But it's like hitting the same number twice in roulette vs. red or black. The red and black bets are much better odds (4 star kids) vs. having to hit numbers (3 star kids). One is more sustainable than the other. The odds are simply better which is why your pre-season ranking will be as good as your players are. It's not me feeling a certain way, it's just the model that is proven to succeed vs. the model that mostly does not succeed save for exceptions. I prefer the one that is proven to succeed which is a good coach (CMA) plus good recruiting (not proven yet).
 
[quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=396062][quote="SJUFAN2" post=396057][quote="Mike Zaun" post=396031]Maybe I'm biased but I just think Boo Harvey is dead on here. No one is calling for CMA's head...obviously not that would be silly this early. But we are seeing a pretty big concern early on here and that's recruiting. He moderately exceeded expectations in terms of total wins but our Big East performance was still pretty bad as expected. Those WVU/Zona wins were awesome but let's see if it was a flash in a can or a real pattern of playing those types of teams tough and winning our share. There is zero doubt that recruiting is a concern early on and the only way you can deny this is if you're biased in the opposite direction: rose colored. Bias goes 2 ways...it can be too negative or too positive. But I think Harvey and I are being totally rational with recruiting concern.

You can blame him getting here recently, his style of play, not much PT to offer, etc. The point is, we are absolute rock bottom recruiting in the conference. Rock bottom by a clear margin. The reason doesn't matter. Teams figure out ways to recruit well like DePaul even when they stink. No one said it's easy, but if you can't get good recruits here consistently e.g. top 100 level guys on the reg, you will almost certainly not succeed here which is what I said early on. Who cares who we are involved with if they don't come? I can go to the Ferrari dealership but I won't be able to get one. Enough with the top 10's top 5's, etc. You either get the top kids or you don't. He may be able to find some diamonds in the rough, but if that's your entire recruiting philosophy, you're in trouble.[/quote]

Take the coach out of the equation...
If you were a 5* recruit from the tri-state area, why would you pick St Johns?[/quote]

If the school ponied up the cash to get Bobby Hurley, you don't think he would be able to land these types of players here? I do.[/quote]

Who cares? It didn't happen. Its not happening today, tomorrow, or in 5 years.
Now feel free to answer my original question...
 
Last edited:
[quote="SJUFAN2" post=396063][quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=396053][quote="QueensBall" post=396047]If I point out that a guy (Drissa) is just a hair beneath some arbitrary rating # and the reaction is, "There's always an excuse for why someone isn't a 4 star" then you're completely missing the point. I'm not saying that Drissa should be a 4 star recruit, I'm acknowledging that he ISN'T a 4 star but saying that I really don't care. I don't care that he has a 79 instead of 80 rating because it has absolutely zero bearing on how he will perform at the college level. You guys also have no idea but you're saying that because he doesn't have that slightly higher rating he's another example of Mike Anderson being unable to recruit. That's completely incoherent thinking to me.

I'm also not saying that stars or rankings aren't helpful. When I haven't heard of a recruit I always check to see their ranking/stars to give me an idea of how they're viewed but if that's the only way you're capable of evaluating if you're excited by a recruit then there isn't really a discussion to be had. You're like one of these network executives in television who have no actual opinions of their own. They can only decide how they feel about a project by "Who else is interested in it?" You would have passed on Stranger Things because HBO and Showtime passed on it and the creators didn't have the best resume. The most anticipated stuff isn't always the best stuff. If that was the case our favorite movies every year would just be what script sold for the most money. Our favorite places to hang out would just be whatever club had the longest line outside the door. Have some taste of your own. Watch the guy play and have an opinion. Everyone agrees that the best guys are the best guys. Not everyone views an incoming recruit as disappointing just because they fall below an extremely arbitrary ranking line in the sand.

And why act like the board is ganging up on you? The reason this same discussion keeps happening is because every time a recruit is being discussed or pursued that isn't a Top 100 type guy the same few people respond with, "Another unranked guy. Great. Right in Mike Anderson's wheelhouse..." or something similar. Every 9th or 10th time some of us feel compelled to defend a staff that's working really hard and hasn't been anything close to a flop yet. Enough of the doom and gloom. Nobody wants the team to suck. Nobody wants to stick with a coach that isn't working. Others of us have certain recruiting concerns also but don't just view things in extremes. Not everything is a 1 or a 10.[/quote]

QB, I don't think the board is ganging up on me, Zaun or Boo, "I neva said dat!" (Zaun reference). I just said that I have a track record of being right about these things, so at least give me the respect of not dismissing me pointing out the clear warning signs of impending trouble.

Regarding your rankings point, I use the rankings literally the same way you do. I watch these kids play A LOT. In fact if you look back in my posts, I was completely on board and excited about the prospect of landing Jordan Riley, who is a 3 star recruit on most services. And I also stated on this thread that I would rather land Applewhite, a 3 star, over Kyle Cuffe Jr, a 4 star, after watching him play.

I watched Drissa play, and honestly I think he can be coached up and developed, but this isn't the kind of kid who should be one of the main prospects you land on a Big East caliber recruiting class. If you want to bring him on board as a complementary piece when you already have a few nice prospects on board I'm completely fine with that. I don't think he is even close to being the caliber of a 4 star recruit talent wise. If you look at the schools that were also in the hunt for him that tells you a lot. It isn't like this kid isn't getting a ton of exposure playing on a top HS program that produces top talent on the regular.

Another posted asked would I be happy if we just landed 2-3 star and recruits and high end JUCOs all the time and made the tournament every year and won a lot? Sure! I would be totally on board with that. But as I've said ad nauseam this isn't a sustainable method for success. If CMA proves me wrong I'd love that, but I already know that is not likely because literally no one else uses this method at a high major and has sustained success.[/quote]

I want to win.
I don't care if the kids have 5 STARS attached to their resume's or ZERO STARS.
If CMA can be a perennial 18+ game winner (and he is), if he can get us in the big dance 3 out of every 5 years, and if he recruits quality, hardworking kids, then I'm all-in.
For me, that is INFINITELY better than anything we've had in the last 20 years, and its a foundation to build on when pursuing those higher rated players.

If you want 5 star guys now then pony up the $$$. We don't have sneaker companies tossing bags of cash at those kids to steer them our way and they aren't going to start out doing that tomorrow out of the kindness of their hearts or to give our favorite team a boost.[/quote]

Did you even read anything I wrote there? Literally never said I wanted 5 star recruits (we all do but I never said that). I was opining for 3 star recruits like Applewhite that I really like.

And I also agreed with you if you read anything I wrote. I said I'd love if he could be successful recruiting the way he has so far, but I just doubt that will happen.
 
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=396064]If it works and we're making tourneys then of course I'd be happy and have a change of heart. But it's like hitting the same number twice in roulette vs. red or black. The red and black bets are much better odds (4 star kids) vs. having to hit numbers (3 star kids). One is more sustainable than the other. The odds are simply better which is why your pre-season ranking will be as good as your players are. It's not me feeling a certain way, it's just the model that is proven to succeed vs. the model that mostly does not succeed save for exceptions. I prefer the one that is proven to succeed which is a good coach (CMA) plus good recruiting (not proven yet).[/quote]

Except, you are wrong. Its not like roulette. His way DOES work.
CMA has a .642 winning % in his career.
He's never had a losing record in 18 seasons. Not one. Not even in his first year here.
In 17 seasons before coming here, he'd been to 9 NCAA tournaments and 3 NIT's.

The issue here isn't recruiting. It's impatience. Some of you guys just want results Today. I get it, but you aren't getting them. STJ isn't a premiere destination. Kids today look at us as irrelevant. As a Mom & Pop/bottom feeder program. The top kids aren't going to non elite programs without $$$ on the table. We've got no (recent) history to sell them, no $$ to offer, and shitty facilities (outside of the handful of games we play at MSG).
So I ask again...
Why would a top 80-100 kid want to come here when he's got offers from better schools, more successful programs, and $$$ on the table from boosters and sneaker execs?

You should probably accept that they just aren't coming here until we improve in one of those categories and move on, but you won't. Instead we'll have to hear about what you guys deem as acceptable recruiting ad nauseum, at least until the results on the court either shut you all up, or they force CMA out.

Let the man do his job. He's been fine so far and he knows a lot more about how to win basketball games and build a winning program than any of us do.
 
Last edited:
[quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=396066]

Did you even read anything I wrote there? Literally never said I wanted 5 star recruits (we all do but I never said that). I was opining for 3 star recruits like Applewhite that I really like.

And I also agreed with you if you read anything I wrote. I said I'd love if he could be successful recruiting the way he has so far, but I just doubt that will happen.[/quote]

My apologies. My response wasn't really directed at you as a critique. It was intended as a reply to the entire conversation. I can see why it seemed otherwise since I quoted you.
 
Last edited:
My two cents... rankings and stars mean very little outside the top say 75 kids on any given year. Anyone on this board can look at a top 75 kid and know that he is a player. After that you, me, Jeff Goodman, Corey Evans Etc.. could not tell if a kid who is ranked 150 or unranked will turn out better than a kid who is ranked 76. These guys evaluate a couple of tournaments where a kid can get insanely hot ( which is how we wound up with McGriff btw) and boom the kid has an inflated ranking. The real skill is the evaluators who track a kids progress and can spot the little things about a kid that will make him a successful college player. Mike Anderson and staff do possess that skill which is a great thing. If the deck was re shuffled what do you think Champagnie would be ranked based off of his performance last year? Would we love to get more top 50 players? Sure.. but let's not act as if historically we always have . :)
 
[quote="Happy" post=396070] These guys evaluate a couple of tournaments where a kid can get insanely hot ( which is how we wound up with McGriff btw) and boom the kid has an inflated ranking. The real skill is the evaluators who track a kids progress and can spot the little things about a kid that will make him a successful college player. Mike Anderson and staff do possess that skill which is a great thing. [/quote]

Based on your post, sounds like they may not have exercised that skill with McGriff. :silly:
 
[quote="Boo Harvey" post=396071][quote="Happy" post=396070] These guys evaluate a couple of tournaments where a kid can get insanely hot ( which is how we wound up with McGriff btw) and boom the kid has an inflated ranking. The real skill is the evaluators who track a kids progress and can spot the little things about a kid that will make him a successful college player. Mike Anderson and staff do possess that skill which is a great thing. [/quote]

Based on your post, sounds like they may not have exercised that skill with McGriff. :silly:[/quote]

they saw something they liked when they watched him in a tournament and based off of that and circumstance ( filling out a roster ) they nabbed him. I haven't seen him play yet but fingers crossed he is the real deal and at the very least I like the attitude he displays on social media. He has a real underdog mentality which I happen to love :)
 
[quote="SJUFAN2" post=396067][quote="Mike Zaun" post=396064]If it works and we're making tourneys then of course I'd be happy and have a change of heart. But it's like hitting the same number twice in roulette vs. red or black. The red and black bets are much better odds (4 star kids) vs. having to hit numbers (3 star kids). One is more sustainable than the other. The odds are simply better which is why your pre-season ranking will be as good as your players are. It's not me feeling a certain way, it's just the model that is proven to succeed vs. the model that mostly does not succeed save for exceptions. I prefer the one that is proven to succeed which is a good coach (CMA) plus good recruiting (not proven yet).[/quote]

Except, you are wrong. Its not like roulette. His way DOES work.
CMA has a .642 winning % in his career.
He's never had a losing record in 18 seasons. Not one. Not even in his first year here.
In 17 seasons before coming here, he'd been to 9 NCAA tournaments and 3 NIT's.

The issue here isn't recruiting. It's impatience. Some of you guys just want results Today. I get it, but you aren't getting them. STJ isn't a premiere destination. Kids today look at us as irrelevant. As a Mom & Pop/bottom feeder program. The top kids aren't going to non elite programs without $$$. We've got no history to sell them, not $$ to offer and shitty facilities (outside of the handful of games we play at MSG).
So I ask again...
Why would a top 80-100 kid want to come here when he's got offers from better schools, more successful programs, and $$$ on the table from boosters and sneaker execs?

You should probably accept that they just aren't coming here until we improve in one of those categories and move on, but you won't. Instead we'll have to hear about what you guys deem as acceptable recruiting ad nauseum, at least until the results on the court either shut you all up, or they force CMA out.

Let the man do his job. He's been fine so far and he knows a lot more about how to win basketball games and build a winning program than any of us do.[/quote]

He's the ring leader amongst a very small group (two others have joined him via this thread) who seems to always be up in arms or irked about something.
 
[quote="MJDinkins" post=396074][quote="SJUFAN2" post=396067][quote="Mike Zaun" post=396064]If it works and we're making tourneys then of course I'd be happy and have a change of heart. But it's like hitting the same number twice in roulette vs. red or black. The red and black bets are much better odds (4 star kids) vs. having to hit numbers (3 star kids). One is more sustainable than the other. The odds are simply better which is why your pre-season ranking will be as good as your players are. It's not me feeling a certain way, it's just the model that is proven to succeed vs. the model that mostly does not succeed save for exceptions. I prefer the one that is proven to succeed which is a good coach (CMA) plus good recruiting (not proven yet).[/quote]

Except, you are wrong. Its not like roulette. His way DOES work.
CMA has a .642 winning % in his career.
He's never had a losing record in 18 seasons. Not one. Not even in his first year here.
In 17 seasons before coming here, he'd been to 9 NCAA tournaments and 3 NIT's.

The issue here isn't recruiting. It's impatience. Some of you guys just want results Today. I get it, but you aren't getting them. STJ isn't a premiere destination. Kids today look at us as irrelevant. As a Mom & Pop/bottom feeder program. The top kids aren't going to non elite programs without $$$. We've got no history to sell them, not $$ to offer and shitty facilities (outside of the handful of games we play at MSG).
So I ask again...
Why would a top 80-100 kid want to come here when he's got offers from better schools, more successful programs, and $$$ on the table from boosters and sneaker execs?

You should probably accept that they just aren't coming here until we improve in one of those categories and move on, but you won't. Instead we'll have to hear about what you guys deem as acceptable recruiting ad nauseum, at least until the results on the court either shut you all up, or they force CMA out.

Let the man do his job. He's been fine so far and he knows a lot more about how to win basketball games and build a winning program than any of us do.[/quote]

He's the ring leader amongst a very small group (two others have joined him via this thread) who seems to always be up in arms or irked about something.[/quote]

MJD - thanks for post
sounds like each of us have certain (perhaps fixed) personalities, styles, approaches - and what you see is what you will (forever?) get :)

Consider the talented
LLoyd Price
"PERSONALITY" 1959 R&B song
reached the top on some charts
(like basketball ranking #s =vary on different charts)

Over and over
I tried to prove my love to you
Over and over
What more can I do

Cause you'e got personality
Walk with personality
Talk with personality
Smile with personality

Charm, personality
Love, personality
And plus you've got
A great big heart

Over and over
My friends say I am a fool
But over and over
I'll be a fool for you

PS
post with personality
recruit with personality
rebound with personality etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote="PharmDJohnnie11" post=396062]
If the school ponied up the cash to get Bobby Hurley, you don't think he would be able to land these types of players here? I do.[/quote]

You should do a little more investigative work into the whole Bobby Hurley situation.
 
[quote="MJDinkins" post=396074][quote="SJUFAN2" post=396067][quote="Mike Zaun" post=396064]If it works and we're making tourneys then of course I'd be happy and have a change of heart. But it's like hitting the same number twice in roulette vs. red or black. The red and black bets are much better odds (4 star kids) vs. having to hit numbers (3 star kids). One is more sustainable than the other. The odds are simply better which is why your pre-season ranking will be as good as your players are. It's not me feeling a certain way, it's just the model that is proven to succeed vs. the model that mostly does not succeed save for exceptions. I prefer the one that is proven to succeed which is a good coach (CMA) plus good recruiting (not proven yet).[/quote]

Except, you are wrong. Its not like roulette. His way DOES work.
CMA has a .642 winning % in his career.
He's never had a losing record in 18 seasons. Not one. Not even in his first year here.
In 17 seasons before coming here, he'd been to 9 NCAA tournaments and 3 NIT's.

The issue here isn't recruiting. It's impatience. Some of you guys just want results Today. I get it, but you aren't getting them. STJ isn't a premiere destination. Kids today look at us as irrelevant. As a Mom & Pop/bottom feeder program. The top kids aren't going to non elite programs without $$$. We've got no history to sell them, not $$ to offer and shitty facilities (outside of the handful of games we play at MSG).
So I ask again...
Why would a top 80-100 kid want to come here when he's got offers from better schools, more successful programs, and $$$ on the table from boosters and sneaker execs?

You should probably accept that they just aren't coming here until we improve in one of those categories and move on, but you won't. Instead we'll have to hear about what you guys deem as acceptable recruiting ad nauseum, at least until the results on the court either shut you all up, or they force CMA out.

Let the man do his job. He's been fine so far and he knows a lot more about how to win basketball games and build a winning program than any of us do.[/quote]

He's the ring leader amongst a very small group (two others have joined him via this thread) who seems to always be up in arms or irked about something.[/quote]

I hate the refrain: "let the man do his job." What does that mean exactly? At what point do we have permission to be critical? Once again, nobody is suggesting CMA be fired. We are merely expressing concern with the recruiting to date.

I equally dislike the refrain, shut up bc the coach "knows a lot more about how to win basketball games and build a winning program than any of us do." If memory serves me correctly, Dink, that was your line with Lav when a number of us started to see the writing on the wall and voiced our concern. By that logic, most of us could never criticize a coach.

I appreciate that CMA has been a winner with a proven track record. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't sound the alarm bells when we recognize a problem. As you rightly point out, SJU is a tough gig. It's much easier to draw top talent at Arkansas than it is here. UAB is not comparable bc the competition is far weaker. Even Missouri was a far easier gig. As I've repeatedly said, the jury is out as to whether CMA -- who has no ties to the East Coast -- will be able to recruit effectively enough to win. There is no question that the man can coach, but that doesn't really set him apart in our league.

Finally, we face a real "chicken or the egg" conundrum. You say wee need to win before we can get top talent, but we need top talent to win. As far as the program has fallen and as much of a disaster as the previous regime was, Mullin (mostly through Matt) successfully recruited his share of four and even five star kids . See, e.g., Keita, Steere, Ponds, Simon, Figueroa, LoVett, Heron, Yakwe, and Owens. And if you want to really compare apples to apples, Mullin's second year team included the following recruits: Ponds, LoVett, Sima (solid three star recruit who folks were ecstatic about when we signed him), Yakwe, Simon, Clark, Mussini, Owens, Freudenberg, Ahmed (JUCO All American) and Elison (solid three star recruit with a top pedigree).

Now you will undoubtedly respond that a number of these recruits didn't pan out. That's not my point. There is no question Mullin's first two classes were more highly regarded than the current regime's -- I'll concede that , through no fault of his own, CMA got a very late start recruiting his first class. Also, I have little doubt that Bobby Hurley would have recruited far better had he chosen to come.

I get it that you're tired of hearing the negativity, particularly when CMA has coached only one year and overachieved in that year. All of us want to dream that CMA will some how turn it around with a host of lightly recruited "good kids" with chips on their shoulders. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely, heck no!

I'm not so young any more and am running out of patience. Enough with the five year plans!
 
[quote="Boo Harvey" post=396085][quote="MJDinkins" post=396074][quote="SJUFAN2" post=396067][quote="Mike Zaun" post=396064]If it works and we're making tourneys then of course I'd be happy and have a change of heart. But it's like hitting the same number twice in roulette vs. red or black. The red and black bets are much better odds (4 star kids) vs. having to hit numbers (3 star kids). One is more sustainable than the other. The odds are simply better which is why your pre-season ranking will be as good as your players are. It's not me feeling a certain way, it's just the model that is proven to succeed vs. the model that mostly does not succeed save for exceptions. I prefer the one that is proven to succeed which is a good coach (CMA) plus good recruiting (not proven yet).[/quote]

Except, you are wrong. Its not like roulette. His way DOES work.
CMA has a .642 winning % in his career.
He's never had a losing record in 18 seasons. Not one. Not even in his first year here.
In 17 seasons before coming here, he'd been to 9 NCAA tournaments and 3 NIT's.

The issue here isn't recruiting. It's impatience. Some of you guys just want results Today. I get it, but you aren't getting them. STJ isn't a premiere destination. Kids today look at us as irrelevant. As a Mom & Pop/bottom feeder program. The top kids aren't going to non elite programs without $$$. We've got no history to sell them, not $$ to offer and shitty facilities (outside of the handful of games we play at MSG).
So I ask again...
Why would a top 80-100 kid want to come here when he's got offers from better schools, more successful programs, and $$$ on the table from boosters and sneaker execs?

You should probably accept that they just aren't coming here until we improve in one of those categories and move on, but you won't. Instead we'll have to hear about what you guys deem as acceptable recruiting ad nauseum, at least until the results on the court either shut you all up, or they force CMA out.

Let the man do his job. He's been fine so far and he knows a lot more about how to win basketball games and build a winning program than any of us do.[/quote]

He's the ring leader amongst a very small group (two others have joined him via this thread) who seems to always be up in arms or irked about something.[/quote]

I hate the refrain: "let the man do his job." What does that mean exactly? At what point do we have permission to be critical? Once again, nobody is suggesting CMA be fired. We are merely expressing concern with the recruiting to date.

I equally dislike the refrain, shut up bc the coach "knows a lot more about how to win basketball games and build a winning program than any of us do." If memory serves me correctly, Dink, that was your line with Lav when a number of us started to see the writing on the wall and voiced our concern. By that logic, most of us could never criticize a coach.

I appreciate that CMA has been a winner with a proven track record. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't sound the alarm bells when we recognize a problem. As you rightly point out, SJU is a tough gig. It's much easier to draw top talent at Arkansas than it is here. UAB is not comparable bc the competition is far weaker. Even Missouri was a far easier gig. As I've repeatedly said, the jury is out as to whether CMA -- who has no ties to the East Coast -- will be able to recruit effectively enough to win. There is no question that the man can coach, but that doesn't really set him apart in our league.

Finally, we face a real "chicken or the egg" conundrum. You say wee need to win before we can get top talent, but we need top talent to win. As far as the program has fallen and as much of a disaster as the previous regime was, Mullin (mostly through Matt) successfully recruited his share of four and even five star kids . See, e.g., Keita, Steere, Ponds, Simon, Figueroa, LoVett, Heron, Yakwe, and Owens. And if you want to really compare apples to apples, Mullin's second year team included the following recruits: Ponds, LoVett, Sima (solid three star recruit who folks were ecstatic about when we signed him), Yakwe, Simon, Clark, Mussini, Owens, Freudenberg, Ahmed (JUCO All American) and Elison (solid three star recruit with a top pedigree).

Now you will undoubtedly respond that a number of these recruits didn't pan out. That's not my point. There is no question Mullin's first two classes were more highly regarded than the current regime's -- I'll concede that , through no fault of his own, CMA got a very late start recruiting his first class. Also, I have little doubt that Bobby Hurley would have recruited far better had he chosen to come.

I get it that you're tired of hearing the negativity, particularly when CMA has coached only one year and overachieved in that year. All of us want to dream that CMA will some how turn it around with a host of lightly recruited "good kids" with chips on their shoulders. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely, heck no!

I'm not so young any more and am running out of patience. Enough with the five year plans![/quote]

I sort of get the concern (only slightly), but it's far, far too early to consistently harp on it and bitch about it at every turn which is what a few of y'all are doing. Maybe, not as much as the "ring leader," but you get the picture.

I'm not young either, and the patience can be tested at times. But I'm still willing to give any coach at least 3 years unless they have shown they're completely incompetent early on.

No coach is above criticism, but a lot of the criticism is unwarranted at this point in time. And, to pound home the same point often becomes tiring.

Give it 3 years and if we're not winning, along with not consistently garnering commitments from top 100 recruits, then "pound" away.
 
[quote="Boo Harvey" post=396085][quote="MJDinkins" post=396074][quote="SJUFAN2" post=396067][quote="Mike Zaun" post=396064]If it works and we're making tourneys then of course I'd be happy and have a change of heart. But it's like hitting the same number twice in roulette vs. red or black. The red and black bets are much better odds (4 star kids) vs. having to hit numbers (3 star kids). One is more sustainable than the other. The odds are simply better which is why your pre-season ranking will be as good as your players are. It's not me feeling a certain way, it's just the model that is proven to succeed vs. the model that mostly does not succeed save for exceptions. I prefer the one that is proven to succeed which is a good coach (CMA) plus good recruiting (not proven yet).[/quote]

Except, you are wrong. Its not like roulette. His way DOES work.
CMA has a .642 winning % in his career.
He's never had a losing record in 18 seasons. Not one. Not even in his first year here.
In 17 seasons before coming here, he'd been to 9 NCAA tournaments and 3 NIT's.

The issue here isn't recruiting. It's impatience. Some of you guys just want results Today. I get it, but you aren't getting them. STJ isn't a premiere destination. Kids today look at us as irrelevant. As a Mom & Pop/bottom feeder program. The top kids aren't going to non elite programs without $$$. We've got no history to sell them, not $$ to offer and shitty facilities (outside of the handful of games we play at MSG).
So I ask again...
Why would a top 80-100 kid want to come here when he's got offers from better schools, more successful programs, and $$$ on the table from boosters and sneaker execs?

You should probably accept that they just aren't coming here until we improve in one of those categories and move on, but you won't. Instead we'll have to hear about what you guys deem as acceptable recruiting ad nauseum, at least until the results on the court either shut you all up, or they force CMA out.

Let the man do his job. He's been fine so far and he knows a lot more about how to win basketball games and build a winning program than any of us do.[/quote]

He's the ring leader amongst a very small group (two others have joined him via this thread) who seems to always be up in arms or irked about something.[/quote]

I hate the refrain: "let the man do his job." What does that mean exactly? At what point do we have permission to be critical? Once again, nobody is suggesting CMA be fired. We are merely expressing concern with the recruiting to date.

I equally dislike the refrain, shut up bc the coach "knows a lot more about how to win basketball games and build a winning program than any of us do." If memory serves me correctly, Dink, that was your line with Lav when a number of us started to see the writing on the wall and voiced our concern. By that logic, most of us could never criticize a coach.

I appreciate that CMA has been a winner with a proven track record. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't sound the alarm bells when we recognize a problem. As you rightly point out, SJU is a tough gig. It's much easier to draw top talent at Arkansas than it is here. UAB is not comparable bc the competition is far weaker. Even Missouri was a far easier gig. As I've repeatedly said, the jury is out as to whether CMA -- who has no ties to the East Coast -- will be able to recruit effectively enough to win. There is no question that the man can coach, but that doesn't really set him apart in our league.

Finally, we face a real "chicken or the egg" conundrum. You say wee need to win before we can get top talent, but we need top talent to win. As far as the program has fallen and as much of a disaster as the previous regime was, Mullin (mostly through Matt) successfully recruited his share of four and even five star kids . See, e.g., Keita, Steere, Ponds, Simon, Figueroa, LoVett, Heron, Yakwe, and Owens. And if you want to really compare apples to apples, Mullin's second year team included the following recruits: Ponds, LoVett, Sima (solid three star recruit who folks were ecstatic about when we signed him), Yakwe, Simon, Clark, Mussini, Owens, Freudenberg, Ahmed (JUCO All American) and Elison (solid three star recruit with a top pedigree).

Now you will undoubtedly respond that a number of these recruits didn't pan out. That's not my point. There is no question Mullin's first two classes were more highly regarded than the current regime's -- I'll concede that , through no fault of his own, CMA got a very late start recruiting his first class. Also, I have little doubt that Bobby Hurley would have recruited far better had he chosen to come.

I get it that you're tired of hearing the negativity, particularly when CMA has coached only one year and overachieved in that year. All of us want to dream that CMA will some how turn it around with a host of lightly recruited "good kids" with chips on their shoulders. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely, heck no!

I'm not so young any more and am running out of patience. Enough with the five year plans![/quote]

So 20-ish wins a year and 3 NCAA appearances over the next 5-6 seasons wouldn't good be enough for you. Got it.

And thanks for proving my point that this isn't about recruiting, its about patience. The fact that you are "tired of 5 year plans" and are "running out of patience" just proves my point. This isn't about CMA and the kids he lands. Its about you wanting what you want, right now. That's fine. You are entitled to feel that way. But again, pony up the $$$$ it takes for the facilities we need to compete and 'extra' benefits the top kids get, or you all should probably stop publicly whining about the timeline required to take to bring Lazarus back from the grave.
 
Last edited:
What do the last several pages have to do with the topic of Alden Applewhite? Nothing ! Sure hope Applewhite or anybody close to him has not been following this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top