Next Coach

[mjmaherjr]

Norm did not give Lavin a tourney team.

Revisionist nonsense.

If Mullin leaves and Joe Schmo makes the tourney with Owens and Ellison as his two best players next year I will be sure to give Mullin the credit you think he will deserve.

More nonsense. I know you hate Norm and you don't want to give him credit for anything. But those TEN SENIORS Lavin inherited were Norm's players: he recruited them and coached them for three years. As juniors they won seventeen games. Assuming even a marginal improvement for the TEN SENIORS Lavin inherited - almost all of whom went on to play professional basketball, even Dele Coker - that's 20 wins. I'm not arguing that Norm was a better tactician than Mike Dunlap, but you cannot convince me that any of the learned CYO coaches who post here who know so much about basketball would not have coached that team to the tournament by simply rolling out the balls. Which as anyone who watched that chowderhead Lavin coach for even a short period of time knows, that's what he did.

Lavin won his first year because he inherited a bunch of upperclassmen - none of whom were highly recruited. The next year he had a bunch of underclassmen that were highly recruited and they got their heads kicked in. The next year they were mediocre. He only made the tournament again when they were seniors. The lesson to be taken from that is not that Norm was an awful coach. We learned that a long time ago - just as we have learned that even lousy coaches (like Brian Mahoney and Mike Jarvis) win every once in a while. The lesson is that except in extraordinary circumstances upperclassmen have an advantage over underclassmen. Which is why the taking to the divan with smelling salts over Mullin six games into what is essentially his first recruiting class is so very very very silly.

I thought I remembered someone putting the stats up years ago but what was the Strength of Schedule Norms last year and then Lavins 1st year because if my memory serves me correct ( and maybe it doesn't in this case ) but I thought someone had put up that the strength in schedules were a lot different with Lavins being much harder

I remember Norm's last year we beat a bunch of cupcakes before big east play but went 6-12 in conference play in both his last 2 seasons so basically showed zero growth. No way was he going to go 12-6 like Lavin in conference play and Lavin actually started the season with some losses like Fordham. I don't even see how Norm might have gotten to 8 and 8 in conference play. And if he did get to 8 and 8 then we probably wouldn't have gotten into the tournament if we indeed had a weak SOS ( again I don't remember what the sos difference was between Norms last year and Lavins first but tend to think Lavins had to be much higher since we all went out to UCLA for that road game ) There is simply no reason to believe it since he didnt show any growth when conference play started regardless of anyones feelings for Norm. His conference play record speaks itself

 

[fun]

I thought I remembered ... if my memory serves me .... I thought ... I remember ... I don't even see ... we probably wouldn't ... if we indeed had ... I don't remember ... I tend to think

I just said you can't convince me that Norm wouldn't have coached that team into the tournament. Now maybe you could, if you made a compelling case, but this ^^^^^ - a bunch of half remembered conjecture about strength of schedule - that isn't it. What might convince me is if you brought to the table some evidence of Lavin being a superior coach who rountinely raised the level of play wherever he went - like say Billy Martin or Bill Parcells. But you can't, because there's no evidence of that. What there is evidence of is the opposite: that Lavin is a complete buffoon who ran two of the premiere college basketball programs in history into the ground in the space of ten short years.

I know you like Lavin. De gustibus est disputandum est. But here's a thought: maybe if Lavin was such a wonderful guy he wouldn't have to visit his players in prison, because they wouldn't be there. What you're doing is calling a murderer a great guy because he sent flowers to his victim's funeral.

In any event, the statement I termed nonsense was "Norm did not give Lavin a tourney team," which is not the thread you decided to pull. I don't care to argue about the peripheral point I made in disagreeing with that assertion. So, question: if Norm didn't leave Lavin a tournament team, how did they make the tournament? Was it the important contribution made by Dwayne Polee? Was it Lavin's genius as an X and O guru? Does the fact that Dunlap told Lavin to play Hardy 10 minutes more a game and Boothe ten minutes left change the entire dynamic of the situation so acutely that nothing that happened in the three years prior has any meaning at all? Cause that's a tough sell. The fact is that those kids won because they were all seniors: they were bigger and faster and smarter and stronger and more skilled than the other players and they'd spent three years getting their teeth kicked in and were sick of it. You want to give Lavin all the credit for all of that go ahead, but it's utter nonsense.

 

[beast of the east]

I know from some very reliable sources that local coaches had total disrespect for NRs ability for in game coaching. The general book was that he was clueless and always was clueless. He may have recruited enough talent for someone else to take them to the NCAAs but just remember he was giving Sean Evans the nod over Brownlee, and had Hardy as a bench player. He made Anthony Mason Jr, perhaps in deference to his relationship with his HS teammate Anthony Mason Sr the focal point of the offense along with DJ Kennedy. He liked small guards with little talent (Stith and Boothe) perhaps to prove that NR too should have been a D1 player. Justin Burrell actually regressed under NR's coaching.

The mere fact that it was Hardy and Brownlee who led the charge to the NCAAs, with Evans relegated to the bench, Stith glued to the bench, and Kennedy in a tertiary role are things NR showed zero ability to assess.

Crazy conversation. We may as well continue the narrative that Ponds are Lovett are our best backcourt ever before they prove a thing.

 

[mjmaherjr]

I thought I remembered ... if my memory serves me .... I thought ... I remember ... I don't even see ... we probably wouldn't ... if we indeed had ... I don't remember ... I tend to think

I just said you can't convince me that Norm wouldn't have coached that team into the tournament. Now maybe you could, if you made a compelling case, but this ^^^^^ - a bunch of half remembered conjecture about strength of schedule - that isn't it. What might convince me is if you brought to the table some evidence of Lavin being a superior coach who rountinely raised the level of play wherever he went - like say Billy Martin or Bill Parcells. But you can't, because there's no evidence of that. What there is evidence of is the opposite: that Lavin is a complete buffoon who ran two of the premiere college basketball programs in history into the ground in the space of ten short years.

I know you like Lavin. De gustibus est disputandum est. But here's a thought: maybe if Lavin was such a wonderful guy he wouldn't have to visit his players in prison, because they wouldn't be there. What you're doing is calling a murderer a great guy because he sent flowers to his victim's funeral.

In any event, the statement I termed nonsense was "Norm did not give Lavin a tourney team," which is not the thread you decided to pull. I don't care to argue about the peripheral point I made in disagreeing with that assertion. So, question: if Norm didn't leave Lavin a tournament team, how did they make the tournament? Was it the important contribution made by Dwayne Polee? Was it Lavin's genius as an X and O guru? Does the fact that Dunlap told Lavin to play Hardy 10 minutes more a game and Boothe ten minutes left change the entire dynamic of the situation so acutely that nothing that happened in the three years prior has any meaning at all? Cause that's a tough sell. The fact is that those kids won because they were all seniors: they were bigger and faster and smarter and stronger and more skilled than the other players and they'd spent three years getting their teeth kicked in and were sick of it. You want to give Lavin all the credit for all of that go ahead, but it's utter nonsense.

I think they were a tournament team because Lavin came and also had Dunlap with him. Lavin gets credit as a coach for hiring Dunlap because that's what coaches do. They hire people to help them and ideally improve on their weaknesses or at least strengthen what they already know. If you want to give Dunlap all the credit it really doesn't bother me because just like a company a good ceo hires the right people to help make that company succeed and if it doesn't then then that reflects on the ceo

But the FACT is those kids had never won when the schedule got harder in conference play so just because you think magically they were going to win because they were seniors doesn't mean it's so

BTW CBS had us ranked at 21 SOS Lavin's year and 72 Norm's last year.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/sos/2009-10

 

[Chris7]

I know from some very reliable sources that local coaches had total disrespect for NRs ability for in game coaching. The general book was that he was clueless and always was clueless. He may have recruited enough talent for someone else to take them to the NCAAs but just remember he was giving Sean Evans the nod over Brownlee, and had Hardy as a bench player. He made Anthony Mason Jr, perhaps in deference to his relationship with his HS teammate Anthony Mason Sr the focal point of the offense along with DJ Kennedy. He liked small guards with little talent (Stith and Boothe) perhaps to prove that NR too should have been a D1 player. Justin Burrell actually regressed under NR's coaching.

The mere fact that it was Hardy and Brownlee who led the charge to the NCAAs, with Evans relegated to the bench, Stith glued to the bench, and Kennedy in a tertiary role are things NR showed zero ability to assess.

Crazy conversation. We may as well continue the narrative that Ponds are Lovett are our best backcourt ever before they prove a thing.

Crazy conversation is right. The idea that a head D-1 coach recruited players in an effort to prove that he himself should have been a D-1 player is ludicrous.

 

[otis]

Amazing that some posters are years later still obsessing over Coach Robert's.

 

[22057]

What would Steve Lavin's record be today with the talent on this team ?

 

[mjmaherjr]

What would Steve Lavin's record be today with the talent on this team ?

not sure but I don't think he would have lost as much weight as it seems he did now

 

[TobinGrad]

What would Steve Lavin's record be today with the talent on this team ?

With Mike Dunlap, 5-2
Without Dunlap, 2-5

 

[monte]

Amazing that some posters are years later still obsessing over Coach Robert's.

Its most often the posters who are obsessed with Lav that are the ones who bring up NR. Many of the same ones who are seizing on the opportunity to bash CM. As though somehow bashing NR and CM makes Lav anything more than the failure that he was here and at UCLA.

 

[Chris7]

Amazing that some posters are years later still obsessing over Coach Robert's.

Its most often the posters who are obsessed with Lav that are the ones who bring up NR. Many of the same ones who are seizing on the opportunity to bash CM. As though somehow bashing NR and CM makes Lav anything more than the failure that he was here and at UCLA.

Yup, 3 out of 5 top 5 finishes in the BE with 2 tournament appearances. Quite the failure... Regardless, I liked Lavin and wish he stayed, but, I have also supported CM. Im not calling for him to resign or be fired, I am calling for him to hire someone who knows what they're doing when it comes to in-game college coaching. He has to bite the bullet and tell his buddies and his buddy's son goodbye if he's serious about winning. Can't be half in it to win it. He tried, he gave them a chance, it's not working. Need a new face who can teach fundamentals and emphasize a system, and importantly, who can strategically adapt to the game is it goes on.

 

[Knight]

Norm was the necessary remedy to disinfect the Jarvis virus.

 

[fun]

But the FACT is those kids had never won when the schedule got harder in conference play so just because you think magically they were going to win because they were seniors doesn't mean it's so

Here's a FACT: if you write the word fact in capital letters it doesn't make what you said truer.

I don't believe in magic. I believe in incremental progress, because I've seen it over and over. Sure, sometimes there's magic, like when David Cain as a senior is amazing despite having barely played before. Mostly though what happens is that a player or a team put it all together because suddenly they're all grown up. Like what happened to Dom Pointer - a senior. Or Donald Emanuel - a senior. Or like how Lavin made the tournament twice, both times with a bunch of seniors. Louie made the hall of fame playing seniors - because except in rare instances they were bigger and smarter and more mature than their younger team mates. I would think that self-evident: that four years in a course of university study engenders improvement in the student. It seems self evident to me that senior math majors are better at math than freshmen. That senior art majors are better painters than freshmen. That seems to be the entire basis of pedagogy.

You're free to believe that because Lavin once nodded to you in the hallway or whatever he's a great coach who praise god laid hands upon DJ Kennedy and a miracle occurred. The evidence though is that he's a charlatan and that the divine relic you're worshiping is a fugazi.

 

[SI1996]

You think we could get Norm back again? Now that guy can build a tourney team.

 

[ras]

But the FACT is those kids had never won when the schedule got harder in conference play so just because you think magically they were going to win because they were seniors doesn't mean it's so

Here's a FACT: if you write the word fact in capital letters it doesn't make what you said truer.

I don't believe in magic. I believe in incremental progress, because I've seen it over and over. Sure, sometimes there's magic, like when David Cain as a senior is amazing despite having barely played before. Mostly though what happens is that a player or a team put it all together because suddenly they're all grown up. Like what happened to Dom Pointer - a senior. Or Donald Emanuel - a senior. Or like how Lavin made the tournament twice, both times with a bunch of seniors. Louie made the hall of fame playing seniors - because except in rare instances they were bigger and smarter and more mature than their younger team mates. I would think that self-evident: that four years in a course of university study engenders improvement in the student. It seems self evident to me that senior math majors are better at math than freshmen. That senior art majors are better painters than freshmen. That seems to be the entire basis of pedagogy.

You're free to believe that because Lavin once nodded to you in the hallway or whatever he's a great coach who praise god laid hands upon DJ Kennedy and a miracle occurred. The evidence though is that he's a charlatan and that the divine relic you're worshiping is a fugazi.

What you say has merit. The concern is that Yakwe,Ellison and Sima don't look any better than they did last year despite the fact that they did add muscle over the summer and are a year older.. But it is still early in the season. Even Lavins first year team did not look that good in the beginning of the season. I also credit a lot of that teams success to Dunlap. Maybe last game was a wake up call and they come out tonight focused.

 

[mjmaherjr]

Amazing that some posters are years later still obsessing over Coach Robert's.

Its most often the posters who are obsessed with Lav that are the ones who bring up NR. Many of the same ones who are seizing on the opportunity to bash CM. As though somehow bashing NR and CM makes Lav anything more than the failure that he was here and at UCLA.

In fairness to Otis I think he began to hate Lavin and was one of his biggest critics

 

[mjmaherjr]

But the FACT is those kids had never won when the schedule got harder in conference play so just because you think magically they were going to win because they were seniors doesn't mean it's so

Here's a FACT: if you write the word fact in capital letters it doesn't make what you said truer.

I don't believe in magic. I believe in incremental progress, because I've seen it over and over. Sure, sometimes there's magic, like when David Cain as a senior is amazing despite having barely played before. Mostly though what happens is that a player or a team put it all together because suddenly they're all grown up. Like what happened to Dom Pointer - a senior. Or Donald Emanuel - a senior. Or like how Lavin made the tournament twice, both times with a bunch of seniors. Louie made the hall of fame playing seniors - because except in rare instances they were bigger and smarter and more mature than their younger team mates. I would think that self-evident: that four years in a course of university study engenders improvement in the student. It seems self evident to me that senior math majors are better at math than freshmen. That senior art majors are better painters than freshmen. That seems to be the entire basis of pedagogy.

You're free to believe that because Lavin once nodded to you in the hallway or whatever he's a great coach who praise god laid hands upon DJ Kennedy and a miracle occurred. The evidence though is that he's a charlatan and that the divine relic you're worshiping is a fugazi.

I dont believe Lavin was a great coach and I killed him plenty his final year and also at games which tons of posters can verify because I sit with them, I just don't believe he was as bad as some say and I don't think he is nearly as bad a person as some say

I believe in incremental progress like you also BUT this is FACT

Norms last 3 teams went 5-13 6-12 and 6-12 in conference play where competition increases outside of cupcakes

Fact there was no incremental progress between the 2nd and 3rd year for those kids. They went 6-12 each year. That is an indisputable fact.

What is also fact is cbssportsline rated Norm;s last season strength of schedule a 72 and Lavins a 21. So they are saying Lavins first year SOS ranking was over 200% higher ranked actually almost 250% higher than the year before and Lavin with the same players got 100% better conference results turning 6-12 to 12-6. This isn't me speculating. This is FACT

 

[stjohnnie75]

What would Steve Lavin's record be today with the talent on this team ?

With Mike Dunlap, 5-2
Without Dunlap, 2-5

How long do we continue to praise Dunlap as a great coach? I think his record at Loyola is 24-42. He did have a great record at the D-2 level.

 

[monte]

Amazing that some posters are years later still obsessing over Coach Robert's.

Its most often the posters who are obsessed with Lav that are the ones who bring up NR. Many of the same ones who are seizing on the opportunity to bash CM. As though somehow bashing NR and CM makes Lav anything more than the failure that he was here and at UCLA.

In fairness to Otis I think he began to hate Lavin and was one of his biggest critics

You mean to tell me that Otis doesn't like Lavin? I had no idea

 

[mjmaherjr]

Amazing that some posters are years later still obsessing over Coach Robert's.

Its most often the posters who are obsessed with Lav that are the ones who bring up NR. Many of the same ones who are seizing on the opportunity to bash CM. As though somehow bashing NR and CM makes Lav anything more than the failure that he was here and at UCLA.

In fairness to Otis I think he began to hate Lavin and was one of his biggest critics

You mean to tell me that Otis doesn't like Lavin? I had no idea

Haa ok I might have misinterpreted your post. I'm in food coma right now from eating lunch at one of Emeril's restaurants