if we played either Dayton or Iowa we would beat them more then we would lose. Are either better? Both of these guys are more comparable then significantly better
We just lost to freakin DePaul and had Marquette give us a scare at home and you're telling me we would beat Dayton and Iowa more than we would lose? We might split with Dayton in a 10 game series, we lose to Iowa 8 out of 10 times. I don't know what world people live in sometimes. I really don't
We beat Syracuse. Iowa lost to them. We beat Minnesota by 9 they won by 2. Only same opponents. Sorry you lost your argument. Maybe Fran is a better coach but its not a slam dunk. What world do you live in? By the way Dayton is only playing 5/6 guys coach must be an idiot.
Iowa also beat UNC at the Dean Dome and swept Ohio State this season. Give Lavin an NBA team and he wouldn't do that.
Archie took Dayton to an elite 8. Let me repeat. Archie Miller took Dayton to an elite 8. And unlike Lavin, Archie knows how to coach a team that is down to 5-6 guys and is beating the teams they are supposed to beat.
Fran would not succeed here. He found the perfect job for him and his style.
Archie is a good coach but not sure he would bring in the same talent that Lavin has brought here.
Lavin has brought in talent like we haven't seen in a long time. It hasn't translated to tournament appearances, but the wins are there. The lack of depth this season is on him. But what does Lavin do best....he recruits. I say give him more time.
Also, I think this has been his best season as far as in game coaching.
Again, who cares what kind of talent comes here if we are not making the tournament? What good is a 21 win season is you go 2-9 against actual good teams? Come on give me a break.
Last year we are getting smoked by Robert Morris in the NIT and Archie Miller is taking Dayton to the elite 8 for crying out loud but somehow Lavin is equal to or better than Archie. Archie is a rising superstar in the college coaching landscape. The only thing Lavin has proved is that no matter how much talent he has his team will always underachieve. That goes back to his days at UCLA. At this point in Norm's tenure everybody was hating him but Lavin is given a longer leash despite similar results.
We haven't had better success in the Lavin era outside of year 1 (Norm's guys) but somehow Lavin has the trust of a large portion of this fanbase. Yes, Lavin gives us something to be excited about when he reels in a 4 or 5 star recruit every once in a while. None of those guys had led to any real success here. Harrison is a top 10 player in school history and there's a strong chance he won't make the tournament once in his 4 years here. How insane is that
Lots of us care about what talent a coach can bring. Being a great XO guys is one thing, but you need talent to execute those XO's.
Sure, lack of tournament appearances sucks. But to say Lavin can't win with the talent isn't true. He won with Norms players...which Norm couldn't do. The team was one win away from making the tournament last year. And this years team is not out of the mix.
We had a guy for 6 years before Lavin, who recruited 3 and 4 star four year players. I don't think Lunardi ever mentioned their name once in 6 years. Now were ready to try that again, because Archie Miller had a good two weeks last March?