The Streak

ghostzapper

ghostzapper

Well-known member
2023 $upporter
As has been well documented Coach Mike Anderson has never had a losing season as a head coach. He is currently one of four coaches in that category who have had at least fifteen years without a losing season as a head coach.

It is debatable whether or not that streak will continue with St. John's currently at 12-7 and struggling to find wins in the tough Big East conference, He will probably need for the team to win at least four more games this year to keep that streak alive. Personally I think they will get there. The team plays hard all the time and has very little quit in them.

As for the other three coaches Mark Few at Gonzaga and Tom Izzo at Michigan State are mortal locks to keep their steeaks going this season. However the third coach Roy Williams at North Carolina's streak is definitely in jeopardy. After starting the season 5-0 and rising to be ranked to #6 in the country hard times have hit at Chapel Hill. They have lost nine of their last twelve games and are currently in last place in the ACC. They have lost their last four conference games to second divison Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh and Clemson all at home and on the road to Pittsburgh again. With most of the upper teams left on their schedule the Tar Heels may wind up below five hundred. Getting back injured Freshman pont guard Cole Anthony could help but it looks like it will still be a big struggle for William's team this year.

Given their program's arrogance and preferred status from the NCAA I can not say I am sorry to see North Carolina down in the dumps. Hopefully next year there will be only three coaches with that active streak and Mike Anderson will be one of the three.
 
No offense to the OP, but why do we keep bringing up this stupid stat? It means nothing. So if he went 18-17 on year its any different then if he went 17-18?

Out of all the stats people throw around, this mike anderson .500 stat is just awful.
 
I read an article that stated that the fan base around Chapel Hill was claiming that “it’s no fun being a Tar Heel fan this year”.
B-O-O H-O-O

I hope you lose all your conference games this year. Except against the traitors. And Duke.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Duke of Earlington" post=373313]No offense to the OP, but why do we keep bringing up this stupid stat? It means nothing. So if he went 18-17 on year its any different then if he went 17-18?

Out of all the stats people throw around, this mike anderson .500 stat is just awful.[/quote]

I disagree with you. Only a few coaches can say they haven’t had a losing season in 15+ years. It probably does help with recruiting.
 
[quote="stjohnnie75" post=373347][quote="Duke of Earlington" post=373313]No offense to the OP, but why do we keep bringing up this stupid stat? It means nothing. So if he went 18-17 on year its any different then if he went 17-18?

Out of all the stats people throw around, this mike anderson .500 stat is just awful.[/quote]

I disagree with you. Only a few coaches can say they haven’t had a losing season in 15+ years. It probably does help with recruiting.[/quote]
Not to mention it would be a bad look if coach after 17 years of never having a losing season at 3 coaching stops has that streak immediately ended in year one at St. John's.
 
It’s not a huge deal except it speaks to the kind of consistency we used to have decades ago and now hope to reacquire.
 
[quote="redmanwest" post=373401]It’s not a huge deal except it speaks to the kind of consistency we used to have decades ago and now hope to reacquire.[/quote]

+1,000
 
[quote="bamafan" post=373367][quote="stjohnnie75" post=373347][quote="Duke of Earlington" post=373313]No offense to the OP, but why do we keep bringing up this stupid stat? It means nothing. So if he went 18-17 on year its any different then if he went 17-18?

Out of all the stats people throw around, this mike anderson .500 stat is just awful.[/quote]

I disagree with you. Only a few coaches can say they haven’t had a losing season in 15+ years. It probably does help with recruiting.[/quote]
Not to mention it would be a bad look if coach after 17 years of never having a losing season at 3 coaching stops has that streak immediately ended in year one at St. John's.[/quote]

Yeah, but it's not like he was handed a team which was expected to finish the season over .500. If we finish above .500 we should make the NIT. I would consider that a successful season. If we finish below .500, I don't feel it's any kind a dark stain on CMA's coaching record. He's still done a stellar job with these kids.
 
[quote="Monte" post=373464][quote="bamafan" post=373367][quote="stjohnnie75" post=373347][quote="Duke of Earlington" post=373313]No offense to the OP, but why do we keep bringing up this stupid stat? It means nothing. So if he went 18-17 on year its any different then if he went 17-18?

Out of all the stats people throw around, this mike anderson .500 stat is just awful.[/quote]

I disagree with you. Only a few coaches can say they haven’t had a losing season in 15+ years. It probably does help with recruiting.[/quote]
Not to mention it would be a bad look if coach after 17 years of never having a losing season at 3 coaching stops has that streak immediately ended in year one at St. John's.[/quote]

Yeah, but it's not like he was handed a team which was expected to finish the season over .500. If we finish above .500 we should make the NIT. I would consider that a successful season. If we finish below .500, I don't feel it's any kind a dark stain on CMA's coaching record. He's still done a stellar job with these kids.[/quote]

But you know the rivals would be having a good time at our expense.
Could predict the jokes: "If you don't want a losing season, don't go to sju. Just look at cma perfect record going down the drain in year one." That to me would be brutal.
 
[quote="CMA TIME" post=373468][quote="Monte" post=373464][quote="bamafan" post=373367][quote="stjohnnie75" post=373347][quote="Duke of Earlington" post=373313]No offense to the OP, but why do we keep bringing up this stupid stat? It means nothing. So if he went 18-17 on year its any different then if he went 17-18?

Out of all the stats people throw around, this mike anderson .500 stat is just awful.[/quote]

I disagree with you. Only a few coaches can say they haven’t had a losing season in 15+ years. It probably does help with recruiting.[/quote]
Not to mention it would be a bad look if coach after 17 years of never having a losing season at 3 coaching stops has that streak immediately ended in year one at St. John's.[/quote]

Yeah, but it's not like he was handed a team which was expected to finish the season over .500. If we finish above .500 we should make the NIT. I would consider that a successful season. If we finish below .500, I don't feel it's any kind a dark stain on CMA's coaching record. He's still done a stellar job with these kids.[/quote]

But you know the rivals would be having a good time at our expense.
Could predict the jokes: "If you don't want a losing season, don't go to sju. Just look at cma perfect record going down the drain in year one." That to me would be brutal.[/quote]

You always know how to put a happy spin on things.
 
[quote="Knight" post=373473][quote="CMA TIME" post=373468][quote="Monte" post=373464][quote="bamafan" post=373367][quote="stjohnnie75" post=373347][quote="Duke of Earlington" post=373313]No offense to the OP, but why do we keep bringing up this stupid stat? It means nothing. So if he went 18-17 on year its any different then if he went 17-18?

Out of all the stats people throw around, this mike anderson .500 stat is just awful.[/quote]

I disagree with you. Only a few coaches can say they haven’t had a losing season in 15+ years. It probably does help with recruiting.[/quote]
Not to mention it would be a bad look if coach after 17 years of never having a losing season at 3 coaching stops has that streak immediately ended in year one at St. John's.[/quote]

Yeah, but it's not like he was handed a team which was expected to finish the season over .500. If we finish above .500 we should make the NIT. I would consider that a successful season. If we finish below .500, I don't feel it's any kind a dark stain on CMA's coaching record. He's still done a stellar job with these kids.[/quote]

But you know the rivals would be having a good time at our expense.
Could predict the jokes: "If you don't want a losing season, don't go to sju. Just look at cma perfect record going down the drain in year one." That to me would be brutal.[/quote]

You always know how to put a happy spin on things.[/quote]

Just being real. After 17 years of never having a losing record, it won't be ok for sju to give him his first.

And you know he loves never having a losing record, he even said it's recruiting pitch.
just get 4 wins. Is 4-8 doable?
 
Ties apparently count as a win towards Mike's no losing season record.

Mike went 16-16 at Missouri in the 2007-08 season. Went 16-16 at Arkansas in the 2015-16 season. **Wikipedia

I doubt Mike stays up nights worrying about his no losing seasons record. It's a useful recruiting tool for however long it lasts.

btw, after that bad 2007-08 season at Missouri? The 2008-09 team went 31-7 and reached the Elite Eight. Best team he's ever coached. (so far). Time has gone by so quickly. That was ten years ago. Mike's teams never advanced past the opening rounds (to the Sweet 16) since then. But, his teams have been invited to the Big Dance many times. That counts for a lot when parity is the norm in college basketball.
 
Last edited:
[quote="James Ray Lamb" post=373480]Ties apparently count as a win towards Mike's no losing season record.

Mike went 16-16 at Missouri in the 2007-08 season. Went 16-16 at Arkansas in the 2015-16 season. **Wikipedia

I doubt Mike stays up nights worrying about his no losing seasons record. It's a useful recruiting tool for however long it lasts.

btw, after that bad 2007-08 season at Missouri? The 2008-09 team went 31-7 and reached the Elite Eight. Best team he's ever coached. (so far). Time has gone by so quickly. That was ten years ago. Mike's teams never advanced past the opening rounds (to the Sweet 16) since then. But, his teams have been invited to the Big Dance many times. That counts for a lot when parity is the norm in college basketball.[/quote]

Correct, about the .500 seasons. It's a streak of non-losing seasons. Tom Izzo (also one of the coaches on the list) went 16-16 in his first year at Michigan State. Roy Williams and Mark Few have had winning records every year (Jim Boeheim would also be on this list, but the vacated wins means that the NCAA doesn't recognize him).
 
Last edited:
CMA wants to win every single game. I’m sure he’s taking this one game at a time and, unlike us, not thinking about streaks. Besides, if he was so worried about his streak, he would have never taken on this re-build project.
 
I;ve argued from the beginning that in an era of very weak OOC schedules, all this stat means is that in 15 seasons his roster was balanced just enough to avoid an empty cupboard and suffer through a losing record overall. Obviously, a 6-12 in conference isn't offset by 16-16 overall, so I think the whole thing only says, his team had just enough talent to avoid a distasteful losing record. Today it just takes one or two unanticipated early departures or transfers to crush season prospects which is why only a handful of coaches avoided a losing season in 15 years.

All his coaching acumen and experience may not enable CMA to squeeze out a winning season this year. It would be a nice building block to win 16 or 17 games this year but the failure to do so will not be a blemish on CMA's record.
 
For what is worth I think it is impressive to have a streak like this. For thirty years, from the 1963-64 season through the 1992-93 season, SJU never had a record below five hundred. That consistency of succes was a trademark of SJU basketball and was a main reason why SJU basketball was a nationally recognized program. Since then,, in twenty-six seasons, SJU has had thirteen below five hundred seasons. It has become known more for instability and inability to rerach its former glory than for anything positive.

I would like for Coach's streak to continue and for us to return to being known more for success than futility.
 
That 62-63 team coached by Joe Lapchick featured Donnie Burk at point guard. Coach could not make them win but he would not tolerate their being disrespected.
 
[quote="Duke of Earlington" post=373313]No offense to the OP, but why do we keep bringing up this stupid stat? It means nothing. So if he went 18-17 on year its any different then if he went 17-18?

Out of all the stats people throw around, this mike anderson .500 stat is just awful.[/quote]

Awful ? Jeez lighten up a bit. It shows consistency, the ability to fight through injury, academics, and middle of the season transfers. Have a little fun with it .
 
[quote="kred" post=373494][quote="Duke of Earlington" post=373313]No offense to the OP, but why do we keep bringing up this stupid stat? It means nothing. So if he went 18-17 on year its any different then if he went 17-18?

Out of all the stats people throw around, this mike anderson .500 stat is just awful.[/quote]

Awful ? Jeez lighten up a bit. It shows consistency, the ability to fight through injury, academics, and middle of the season transfers. Have a little fun with it .[/quote]

So if we go 16-16 this year we can all rejoice knowing the "amazing" streak is still alive. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

It is a terrible stat and shouldnt be brought up again.
 
[quote="ghostzapper" post=373491]For what is worth I think it is impressive to have a streak like this. For thirty years, from the 1963-64 season through the 1992-93 season, SJU never had a record below five hundred. That consistency of succes was a trademark of SJU basketball and was a main reason why SJU basketball was a nationally recognized program. Since then,, in twenty-six seasons, SJU has had thirteen below five hundred seasons. It has become known more for instability and inability to rerach its former glory than for anything positive.

I would like for Coach's streak to continue and for us to return to being known more for success than futility.[/quote]

Totally different era, when there was just 3 major networks and maybe 1 televised games nationally. Fans never got to see stars like Bill Russell, Jerry West, or Wilt Chamberlain play on TV. UCLA got lots of TV run in their hey day, which would have meant that fans got to see them maybe 3 or 4 times a year.

It was a huge recruiting advantage for St. John's to be in NY. A mid major without conferences would have a hard time getting enough exposure to even be considered for a major tournament. So we got a much bigger share of local talent, even after Frank McGuire carpet bagged to the ACC and raided NYC talent.

Also consider that in an era without conference play, we had overall a softer schedule. 18 games in conference out of 31 is brutal, especially when you throw in 4 or 5 competitive OOC games. It's what greatly narrows the number of consecutive winning seasons coaches have over extended periods of time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top