Jim Baron

I had the pleasure of being Jim Baron students mgr at St Francis. He is so Damn intense he could make u piss in your pants as a grown man. If we don't bring back Norm next year. I say if we cant get Jackson or Mullin. There is no question he is the man for the jib. NO QUESTION.

I'd take Baron over two guys with zero experience.
Look at how much we've lost by taking a chance on Roberts

Is this Jim's son, the guy who started this thread on Redmen or just a fan?

Just checking. 

My parents and brother went to St. Bona.  I watched Baron bring that school to the NCAA tourney as an at large bid with far less talent than SJU has right now.  I think Baron would be a great choice.  Unfortunately, he wouldn't be able to bring his son, who was a sure shot from three for URI, with him to play at SJU.  Incidentally, he was great at getting his son, and other sharp shooters, open looks from three.  Wouldn't a couple effective offensive sets be nice right about now.

Not many expected URI to contend for an NCAA bid this year, but they are clearly in it, and I think Baron has got to be given credit for turning two struggling programs into a contender.

We could use his help bog time.

I'd take Baron over two guys with zero experience.
Look at how much we've lost by taking a chance on Roberts

I agree, Poison....  I think some posters do not know the position the Johnnies are in at the moment.  St. John's is in a very, critical position and we cannot take a chance on zero experience guys like Mark Jackson and Chris Mullin.

Yes, those guys were St. John's legends and ended up having HOF-like NBA careers.  But, that doesn't mean they can coach.

Quite frankly, many of the kids today (as, many of the kids aren't historians of the game) do not know about or know much about Jackson nor Mullin.  Their parents probably know about those two, but it still is a risk considering the position St. John's is in at the moment.

St. John's is like a hospital patient in very, critical condition.  Another shoddy hire (or, maintaining Norm for another season) and we go from life support-to-basically D-O-N-E!

I'll take my chances on the Jim Baron's, Brian Gregory's, Steve Donahue's, Brad Steven's, Fran McCaffery's and Ben Jacobson's of the world.

Let's allow Jackson and Mullin to maintain their current positions or bring them in, if they are gonna be an AD. 

Again....  I'm all for a Jim Baron-type.   

My parents and brother went to St. Bona.  I watched Baron bring that school to the NCAA tourney as an at large bid with far less talent than SJU has right now.  I think Baron would be a great choice.  Unfortunately, he wouldn't be able to bring his son, who was a sure shot from three for URI, with him to play at SJU.  Incidentally, he was great at getting his son, and other sharp shooters, open looks from three.  Wouldn't a couple effective offensive sets be nice right about now.

There is no question that Jim Baron - with his .500 career winning percentage in the NEC and A10 and an impressive one tournament appearances in a mere 20 years of head coaching - might be just the guy to lead us back to NIT glory. He's a youthful 57 years of age, so there's lots of meat left on the bone there, and probably he can out recruit hall of famers like Pitino and Boeheim due to his deep roots in the NY, where he lived a short 30 years ago. Plus, as a Baron he outranks Jim Calhoun, who's only a major in the marine reserves. No Lots of upside.

Quote from: Poison on January 26, 2010, 02:41:03 PM

I'd take Baron over two guys with zero experience.
Look at how much we've lost by taking a chance on Roberts

I agree, Poison....  I think some posters do not know the position the Johnnies are in at the moment.  St. John's is in a very, critical position and we cannot take a chance on zero experience guys like Mark Jackson and Chris Mullin.

Jaime Dixon has no experience as a head coach. How'd that work out for Pitt?

He mentioned "no experience" coaches in that comment.  Jamie Dixon had experience as an assistant coach.  Of course, so did Norm. 

Mark Jackson and Chris don't have experience in the college game; Mark hasn't been a coach on the college or pro level, and Chris has not either, though he was GM for Golden State. 

He mentioned "no experience" coaches in that comment.  Jamie Dixon had experience as an assistant coach.  Of course, so did Norm. 

Mark Jackson and Chris don't have experience in the college game; Mark hasn't been a coach on the college or pro level, and Chris has not either, though he was GM for Golden State.

Norm had previous experience as a head coach. Jaime Dixon - and Jim Boeheim for that matter - did not. Therefore, previous head coaching experience is not necessarily indicative of future coaching success.

The idea that either Mullin or Jackson don't know enough about basketball to be competent head coaches is absurd. They'd be bouncing a ball, not removing your spleen. That is not to say they would be. But having a choice between a HOF er like Mullin and a proven mediocrity like Jim Baron - I don't think that's even barely the choice - and making Mullin's lack of experience in one facet of the game the deciding factor is patently ridiculous.

I don't think it's impossible that Mullin or Jackson could be good head coaches on the college level, but I don't think it's at all ridiculous to think that experience in the college game is not a factor.  The examples of Clyde Drexler, and perhaps Isiah come to mind.  Are they the rule? I don't know.  Both were excellent longtime NBA players. Clyde wasn't a good ball coach, Isiah isn't winning a lot of games.

To say that simply being a HOF player means that that player can translate their skill into player development, game preparation, offensive and defensive scheme, and in-game adjustments on the college level is a stretch.  They're NOT bouncing a ball.  They're teaching kids how to bounce the ball.  The list of coaches in the Big East reads like a who's who of players you would have forgotten if they were not coaches.  I don't know if any of them were pros for very long, and their Hall of Fame mentions come from coaching only.

Maybe Jackson and Mullin could be good coaches.  But their lack of experience on the colleg level does stand out.

And Jim Baron's pretty mediocre.  Who are these Baron backers?  Are they paid by Jim?

yo this topic came out of nowhere

I don't think it's impossible that Mullin or Jackson could be good head coaches on the college level, but I don't think it's at all ridiculous to think that experience in the college game is not a factor.  The examples of Clyde Drexler, and perhaps Isiah come to mind.  Are they the rule? I don't know.  Both were excellent longtime NBA players. Clyde wasn't a good ball coach, Isiah isn't winning a lot of games.

To say that simply being a HOF player means that that player can translate their skill into player development, game preparation, offensive and defensive scheme, and in-game adjustments on the college level is a stretch.  They're NOT bouncing a ball.  They're teaching kids how to bounce the ball.  The list of coaches in the Big East reads like a who's who of players you would have forgotten if they were not coaches.  I don't know if any of them were pros for very long, and their Hall of Fame mentions come from coaching only.

Maybe Jackson and Mullin could be good coaches.  But their lack of experience on the colleg level does stand out.

Fair enough. But I'm not arguing that Mullin or Jackson would necessarily be good coaches. (Not that I think either would be interested.) I'm arguing that their inexperience should not in itself be a disqualification. The fact is that there are coaches who succeed without previous experience and coaches who fail with a myriad of experience. There are great players who were bad coaches and bad players who are great coaches and great players who are great coaches and bad players who are bad coaches. It runs the gamut. Because great teaching is a matter of intellect and constitution, not merely teaching experience. If it were there'd be no need for tenure.

Quote from: peter on January 27, 2010, 12:40:03 PM

I don't think it's impossible that Mullin or Jackson could be good head coaches on the college level, but I don't think it's at all ridiculous to think that experience in the college game is not a factor.  The examples of Clyde Drexler, and perhaps Isiah come to mind.  Are they the rule? I don't know.  Both were excellent longtime NBA players. Clyde wasn't a good ball coach, Isiah isn't winning a lot of games.

To say that simply being a HOF player means that that player can translate their skill into player development, game preparation, offensive and defensive scheme, and in-game adjustments on the college level is a stretch.  They're NOT bouncing a ball.  They're teaching kids how to bounce the ball.  The list of coaches in the Big East reads like a who's who of players you would have forgotten if they were not coaches.  I don't know if any of them were pros for very long, and their Hall of Fame mentions come from coaching only.

Maybe Jackson and Mullin could be good coaches.  But their lack of experience on the colleg level does stand out.

Fair enough. But I'm not arguing that Mullin or Jackson would necessarily be good coaches. (Not that I think either would be interested.) I'm arguing that their inexperience should not in itself be a disqualification. The fact is that there are coaches who succeed without previous experience and coaches who fail with a myriad of experience. There are great players who were bad coaches and bad players who are great coaches and great players who are great coaches and bad players who are bad coaches. It runs the gamut. Because great teaching is a matter of intellect and constitution, not merely teaching experience. If it were there'd be no need for tenure.

I think it would be much easier to coach in the Pros w/o any experiance. In college recruiting is just as big a part of the job as X and O's.

I think it would be much easier to coach in the Pros w/o any experiance. In college recruiting is just as big a part of the job as X and O's.

Okay. So hypothetically, who do you think would be a better recruiter, no name mediocrity Jim Baron or NBA HOFer Chris Mullin?

Quote from: we are sju on January 27, 2010, 01:00:34 PM

I think it would be much easier to coach in the Pros w/o any experiance. In college recruiting is just as big a part of the job as X and O's.

Okay. So hypothetically, who do you think would be a better recruiter, no name mediocrity Jim Baron or NBA HOFer Chris Mullin?

Do High School players even know who Chris Mullin is?

Do High School players even know who Chris Mullin is?

It's more likely they know who Mullin is than Jim Baron, no?

Quote from: Marco Baldi on January 27, 2010, 01:58:47 PM

Do High School players even know who Chris Mullin is?

It's more likely they know who Mullin is than Jim Baron, no?

Roger that.

I'd love to see Lawrence Frank or Jeff Van Gundy as our next head coach. I think both would be awesome very quickly. I believe that both have expressed that they have no interest in coaching at the college level but if we made them a very good offer I think they'd have to strongly consider it.

I just thought of this if we stole ESPN's NBA broadcast booth of Van Gundy and Mark Jackson. That would be pretty funny.