What could happen...

@Tha Kid I wouldn't put Bobby and Danny in the same category. Bobby still has a lot to prove.

You may be right Dave but Danny also has a lot to prove.  My thing is more is Danny really going to jump to St. John's now when seton hall job is his next year likely if he wants it, which may be after an awesome year at URI which will likely increase the numbers for his contract?

I am all for bobby or Danny.  But I think bobby is likely to be more attainable immediately. And I do like the coach K connection for my own personal bias which Danny doesn't have.

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:48:05 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on March 24, 2015, 09:46:50 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:33:45 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on March 24, 2015, 09:30:06 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:19:06 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:15:52 PM

Bobby Hurley is a 1000% better basketball mind than Steve Lavin. That cannot be argued. His pedigree is outstanding. Is he experienced? No. Have his results so far been impressive? Yes. Would I trust him running my team? Absolutely.

His results prove nothing.  What results, he is 25-11 in a 1 bid conference?  What pedigree?  The one that has led Johnny Dawkins to 7 nondescript years at Stanford.  How about Quinn Snyder?  How about Tommy Amaker?  Cut and ran from SHU and then spent what 6 years at Michigan failing to make 1 NCAA.

Please.

Comparing bobby Hurley to the other former dukies you mentioned is silly.

The other guys you mentioned were all long time assistants under coach K whose FIRST coaching gig was in a big time conference.  None of them worked themselves up the ladder without the help of coach K so it is possible they got better jobs than they deserved solely because of coach Ks success.

Bobby worked under his brother at Wagner and URI and then his first head coaching job was at buffalo.  He rolled up his sleeves.  He's proven himself on his own.

That's the first thing that should give you more confidence that bobby will not be like them.

And for the record amaker seems like a great coach. I think if another big time job came his way that he wanted he would succeed.

First off he used the term pedigree.  That means Duke and Coach K, guy.

Secondly you made my other point.  The idea that 2 years at a 1 bid mid major gives you the warm and fuzzies as opposed to coaching directly at a major, congrats.

He has barely recruited his own players and has not graduated one of his own recruits.

Right he is so much more qualified because he coached 2 years at Buffalo then Dawkins is now at Stanford.  Right.

By the way how do you explain Amaker at Michigan after SHU?

It boggles my mind when seemingly intelligent people who have seen the Amazing job amaker has done at Harvard somehow think Michigan proves he can't hack it.

First, amaker took over a terrible team.  Second, in amakers second year there, Michigan self imposed probation and sanctions due to the Ed Martin scandal. Then the NCAA doubled those penalties so it appeared 2003-04 would be no playoffs either. It was later overturned.  How easy do you think recruiting was during that time?  Even the posters who were the biggest anti norm guys gave him a bit of a break his first few years.  Amaker didn't know he was going to be coaching at a school w all those sanctions and probation.  It happened in year 2.  If anyone deserves a reprieve on their head coaching stint at a major school it's tommy amaker and Michigan. Come on, "guy".

Next, I didn't realize the term pedigree meant coach K.  Wait it doesn't, and in this instance it would be referring to his father, his brother, and coach K. And whatever he meant it, Hurley was never an assistant at Duke like the guys you mentioned.  You know who else wasnt an assistant at Duke before coaching? Current Duke assiatant Jeff Capel who succeeded at VCU and then has an elite 8 run at Oklahoma.  Why'd you leave him out?  He also has the pedigree from his own father and brother. If anyone would be a good Hurley comparison from Duke its him.

Finally I never said bobby Hurley is more qualified than Johnny Dawkins.  If you are looking for a respectable mediocre coach who will get you to a sweet 16/ncaa once every five years Johnny is your guy. Not too dissimilar from coach lavin.

Bobby is all about projecting potential.  Same with Danny.  Guys like lavin and Dawkins have already proven their ceiling isn't annual ncaa appearances and extremely well coaches teams. 

Do you really not get the difference?

Are you serious?  OMG.

Amaker at Harvard where he brings in top 50-75 talent never seen before in the Ivy...

I mean seriously...guy..no I can't anymore.

you are makin my point for me rather than the other way around.  Tommy amaker is recruiting top 50-75 talent to Harvard. Harvard!  And he has WON 2 first round games with Harvard.  Harvard!  In the NCAAs!

That's one more ncaa win than St. John's has in the last 16 seasons. 

But yeah tommy is a joke.

And of course you have no comment on anything else.  When people disagree w you on the board and make solid points rather than concede anything or make intelligent points back, you pick whatever you think is their worst argument and harp on that and then like a teenage girl say "OMG....I can't anymore"

You seem like you know basketball.  You really can't engage in respectful intelligent discussion that disagrees with you?

Have to agree with @Tha Kid a bit here.

Also @fordham96 you guys can agree to disagree.

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:48:05 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on March 24, 2015, 09:46:50 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:33:45 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on March 24, 2015, 09:30:06 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:19:06 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:15:52 PM

Bobby Hurley is a 1000% better basketball mind than Steve Lavin. That cannot be argued. His pedigree is outstanding. Is he experienced? No. Have his results so far been impressive? Yes. Would I trust him running my team? Absolutely.

His results prove nothing.  What results, he is 25-11 in a 1 bid conference?  What pedigree?  The one that has led Johnny Dawkins to 7 nondescript years at Stanford.  How about Quinn Snyder?  How about Tommy Amaker?  Cut and ran from SHU and then spent what 6 years at Michigan failing to make 1 NCAA.

Please.

Comparing bobby Hurley to the other former dukies you mentioned is silly.

The other guys you mentioned were all long time assistants under coach K whose FIRST coaching gig was in a big time conference.  None of them worked themselves up the ladder without the help of coach K so it is possible they got better jobs than they deserved solely because of coach Ks success.

Bobby worked under his brother at Wagner and URI and then his first head coaching job was at buffalo.  He rolled up his sleeves.  He's proven himself on his own.

That's the first thing that should give you more confidence that bobby will not be like them.

And for the record amaker seems like a great coach. I think if another big time job came his way that he wanted he would succeed.

First off he used the term pedigree.  That means Duke and Coach K, guy.

Secondly you made my other point.  The idea that 2 years at a 1 bid mid major gives you the warm and fuzzies as opposed to coaching directly at a major, congrats.

He has barely recruited his own players and has not graduated one of his own recruits.

Right he is so much more qualified because he coached 2 years at Buffalo then Dawkins is now at Stanford.  Right.

By the way how do you explain Amaker at Michigan after SHU?

It boggles my mind when seemingly intelligent people who have seen the Amazing job amaker has done at Harvard somehow think Michigan proves he can't hack it.

First, amaker took over a terrible team.  Second, in amakers second year there, Michigan self imposed probation and sanctions due to the Ed Martin scandal. Then the NCAA doubled those penalties so it appeared 2003-04 would be no playoffs either. It was later overturned.  How easy do you think recruiting was during that time?  Even the posters who were the biggest anti norm guys gave him a bit of a break his first few years.  Amaker didn't know he was going to be coaching at a school w all those sanctions and probation.  It happened in year 2.  If anyone deserves a reprieve on their head coaching stint at a major school it's tommy amaker and Michigan. Come on, "guy".

Next, I didn't realize the term pedigree meant coach K.  Wait it doesn't, and in this instance it would be referring to his father, his brother, and coach K. And whatever he meant it, Hurley was never an assistant at Duke like the guys you mentioned.  You know who else wasnt an assistant at Duke before coaching? Current Duke assiatant Jeff Capel who succeeded at VCU and then has an elite 8 run at Oklahoma.  Why'd you leave him out?  He also has the pedigree from his own father and brother. If anyone would be a good Hurley comparison from Duke its him.

Finally I never said bobby Hurley is more qualified than Johnny Dawkins.  If you are looking for a respectable mediocre coach who will get you to a sweet 16/ncaa once every five years Johnny is your guy. Not too dissimilar from coach lavin.

Bobby is all about projecting potential.  Same with Danny.  Guys like lavin and Dawkins have already proven their ceiling isn't annual ncaa appearances and extremely well coaches teams. 

Do you really not get the difference?

Are you serious?  OMG.

Amaker at Harvard where he brings in top 50-75 talent never seen before in the Ivy...

I mean seriously...guy..no I can't anymore.

you are makin my point for me rather than the other way around.  Tommy amaker is recruiting top 50-75 talent to Harvard. Harvard!  And he has WON 2 first round games with Harvard.  Harvard!  In the NCAAs!

That's one more ncaa win than St. John's has in the last 16 seasons. 

But yeah tommy is a joke.

And of course you have no comment on anything else.  When people disagree w you on the board and make solid points rather than concede anything or make intelligent points back, you pick whatever you think is their worst argument and harp on that and then like a teenage girl say "OMG....I can't anymore"

You seem like you know basketball.  You really can't engage in respectful intelligent discussion that disagrees with you?

What. So he needs to a last second collapse to beat Yale for the IVY league title with superior talent and never could win at Michigan and left after a major disappointment at SHU and that is evidence that he is a terrific coach and is also evidence that Coach K players make good coaches.

OK.

Back to the thread..Mike Lonergan?

Yea or nay?

Quote from: Dave on March 24, 2015, 09:52:59 PM

@Tha Kid I wouldn't put Bobby and Danny in the same category. Bobby still has a lot to prove.

You may be right Dave but Danny also has a lot to prove.  My thing is more is Danny really going to jump to St. John's now when seton hall job is his next year likely if he wants it, which may be after an awesome year at URI which will likely increase the numbers for his contract?

I am all for bobby or Danny.  But I think bobby is likely to be more attainable immediately. And I do like the coach K connection for my own personal bias which Danny doesn't have.

SJU >>>> Seton Hall. Better alumni, better pay, better facilities, better campus, better location. It's really not close.

I think its all a moot point anyways because I think Lavin is coming back.

Quote from: Tha Kid on March 24, 2015, 09:53:03 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:48:05 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on March 24, 2015, 09:46:50 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:33:45 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on March 24, 2015, 09:30:06 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:19:06 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:15:52 PM

Bobby Hurley is a 1000% better basketball mind than Steve Lavin. That cannot be argued. His pedigree is outstanding. Is he experienced? No. Have his results so far been impressive? Yes. Would I trust him running my team? Absolutely.

His results prove nothing.  What results, he is 25-11 in a 1 bid conference?  What pedigree?  The one that has led Johnny Dawkins to 7 nondescript years at Stanford.  How about Quinn Snyder?  How about Tommy Amaker?  Cut and ran from SHU and then spent what 6 years at Michigan failing to make 1 NCAA.

Please.

Comparing bobby Hurley to the other former dukies you mentioned is silly.

The other guys you mentioned were all long time assistants under coach K whose FIRST coaching gig was in a big time conference.  None of them worked themselves up the ladder without the help of coach K so it is possible they got better jobs than they deserved solely because of coach Ks success.

Bobby worked under his brother at Wagner and URI and then his first head coaching job was at buffalo.  He rolled up his sleeves.  He's proven himself on his own.

That's the first thing that should give you more confidence that bobby will not be like them.

And for the record amaker seems like a great coach. I think if another big time job came his way that he wanted he would succeed.

First off he used the term pedigree.  That means Duke and Coach K, guy.

Secondly you made my other point.  The idea that 2 years at a 1 bid mid major gives you the warm and fuzzies as opposed to coaching directly at a major, congrats.

He has barely recruited his own players and has not graduated one of his own recruits.

Right he is so much more qualified because he coached 2 years at Buffalo then Dawkins is now at Stanford.  Right.

By the way how do you explain Amaker at Michigan after SHU?

It boggles my mind when seemingly intelligent people who have seen the Amazing job amaker has done at Harvard somehow think Michigan proves he can't hack it.

First, amaker took over a terrible team.  Second, in amakers second year there, Michigan self imposed probation and sanctions due to the Ed Martin scandal. Then the NCAA doubled those penalties so it appeared 2003-04 would be no playoffs either. It was later overturned.  How easy do you think recruiting was during that time?  Even the posters who were the biggest anti norm guys gave him a bit of a break his first few years.  Amaker didn't know he was going to be coaching at a school w all those sanctions and probation.  It happened in year 2.  If anyone deserves a reprieve on their head coaching stint at a major school it's tommy amaker and Michigan. Come on, "guy".

Next, I didn't realize the term pedigree meant coach K.  Wait it doesn't, and in this instance it would be referring to his father, his brother, and coach K. And whatever he meant it, Hurley was never an assistant at Duke like the guys you mentioned.  You know who else wasnt an assistant at Duke before coaching? Current Duke assiatant Jeff Capel who succeeded at VCU and then has an elite 8 run at Oklahoma.  Why'd you leave him out?  He also has the pedigree from his own father and brother. If anyone would be a good Hurley comparison from Duke its him.

Finally I never said bobby Hurley is more qualified than Johnny Dawkins.  If you are looking for a respectable mediocre coach who will get you to a sweet 16/ncaa once every five years Johnny is your guy. Not too dissimilar from coach lavin.

Bobby is all about projecting potential.  Same with Danny.  Guys like lavin and Dawkins have already proven their ceiling isn't annual ncaa appearances and extremely well coaches teams. 

Do you really not get the difference?

Are you serious?  OMG.

Amaker at Harvard where he brings in top 50-75 talent never seen before in the Ivy...

I mean seriously...guy..no I can't anymore.

you are makin my point for me rather than the other way around.  Tommy amaker is recruiting top 50-75 talent to Harvard. Harvard!  And he has WON 2 first round games with Harvard.  Harvard!  In the NCAAs!

That's one more ncaa win than St. John's has in the last 16 seasons. 

But yeah tommy is a joke.

And of course you have no comment on anything else.  When people disagree w you on the board and make solid points rather than concede anything or make intelligent points back, you pick whatever you think is their worst argument and harp on that and then like a teenage girl say "OMG....I can't anymore"

You seem like you know basketball.  You really can't engage in respectful intelligent discussion that disagrees with you?

What. So he needs to a last second collapse to beat Yale for the IVY league title with superior talent and never could win at Michigan and left after a major disappointment at SHU and that is evidence that he is a terrific coach and is also evidence that Coach K players make good coaches.

OK.

Didn't I just call Dawkins mediocre and someone who could get you to an ncaa or maybe sweet 16 once every five years?  When have I ever said coach K makes good coaches?

People who learn under coach K are learning from the best which potentially gives them a leg up.  but it doesn't make them a good coach. Just gives them more ammo. They still need to learn how to shoot.

BTW-I am surprised no one has brought up Mike Lonergan (if they did I missed it).

I don't love him but his turnaround at GW is at least on par with Hurley at URI.  Back to back 20 win seasons and NCAA and NIT last 2 years.

The expectation will be that Hurley will recruit NY because of his family ties, and that he'll also recruit nationally because of his family ties, and because of the name he made for himself. This is a player who was very talented, but he is also a player who has spent his entire life under the wing of great coaching.

I think that is a guy you can take a chance on after two strong years at a school that's accomplished nothing before he arrived.

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:45:09 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:37:16 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:15:52 PM

Bobby Hurley is a 1000% better basketball mind than Steve Lavin. That cannot be argued. His pedigree is outstanding. Is he experienced? No. Have his results so far been impressive? Yes. Would I trust him running my team? Absolutely.

BTW-I have the post saved where after Robert Morris nearly beat Villanova (remember Nova got a questionable call) in a 2/15 game in 2010 you and others were high on him.  SJU job was open during the 2010 Tourney.  You and others were certainly enamored with Rice and how good he had done at RMU.

Tell me what was his record after 3 years at RU?  Tell me again how did his time at RU end?  What were the circumstances?

But he did take RMU to the brink of a 1st round upset over Jay Wright.

And at the time I thought that was a great hire for Rutgers. To say it wasn't is crazy. Obviously it doesn't always work. There is always risk involved. Unless you are hiring a handful of coaches (Izzo, Billy D, Pitino etc.)

No crazy is what he is and was.  And you made my point.  You think anyone with a decent low-mid major record is worthwhile.

The point is you have not learned your lesson.  He was replacing a joke of a coach, Fred Hill.  Whose record was worse than Norm's and Norm took over a disaster.  And now you prescribe these coaches for someone who actually has done something at SJU.

That is my point.

But that is the pool. You are looking for a coach that has success at the mid-major level and trying to project. SJU is a good fit for either Hurley. I think Bobby has a bigger appeal to casual basketball fans. What established winning high major coach is coming here?  And to be honest, I wouldn't be thrilled with a lot of the other choices like Masiello or Cluess. But either could have a chance to be successful.

But my original point is I rather trust Bobby Hurley running my team than Steve Lavin. It's really not even close.

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:56:35 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on March 24, 2015, 09:53:03 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:48:05 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on March 24, 2015, 09:46:50 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:33:45 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on March 24, 2015, 09:30:06 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:19:06 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:15:52 PM

Bobby Hurley is a 1000% better basketball mind than Steve Lavin. That cannot be argued. His pedigree is outstanding. Is he experienced? No. Have his results so far been impressive? Yes. Would I trust him running my team? Absolutely.

His results prove nothing.  What results, he is 25-11 in a 1 bid conference?  What pedigree?  The one that has led Johnny Dawkins to 7 nondescript years at Stanford.  How about Quinn Snyder?  How about Tommy Amaker?  Cut and ran from SHU and then spent what 6 years at Michigan failing to make 1 NCAA.

Please.

Comparing bobby Hurley to the other former dukies you mentioned is silly.

The other guys you mentioned were all long time assistants under coach K whose FIRST coaching gig was in a big time conference.  None of them worked themselves up the ladder without the help of coach K so it is possible they got better jobs than they deserved solely because of coach Ks success.

Bobby worked under his brother at Wagner and URI and then his first head coaching job was at buffalo.  He rolled up his sleeves.  He's proven himself on his own.

That's the first thing that should give you more confidence that bobby will not be like them.

And for the record amaker seems like a great coach. I think if another big time job came his way that he wanted he would succeed.

First off he used the term pedigree.  That means Duke and Coach K, guy.

Secondly you made my other point.  The idea that 2 years at a 1 bid mid major gives you the warm and fuzzies as opposed to coaching directly at a major, congrats.

He has barely recruited his own players and has not graduated one of his own recruits.

Right he is so much more qualified because he coached 2 years at Buffalo then Dawkins is now at Stanford.  Right.

By the way how do you explain Amaker at Michigan after SHU?

It boggles my mind when seemingly intelligent people who have seen the Amazing job amaker has done at Harvard somehow think Michigan proves he can't hack it.

First, amaker took over a terrible team.  Second, in amakers second year there, Michigan self imposed probation and sanctions due to the Ed Martin scandal. Then the NCAA doubled those penalties so it appeared 2003-04 would be no playoffs either. It was later overturned.  How easy do you think recruiting was during that time?  Even the posters who were the biggest anti norm guys gave him a bit of a break his first few years.  Amaker didn't know he was going to be coaching at a school w all those sanctions and probation.  It happened in year 2.  If anyone deserves a reprieve on their head coaching stint at a major school it's tommy amaker and Michigan. Come on, "guy".

Next, I didn't realize the term pedigree meant coach K.  Wait it doesn't, and in this instance it would be referring to his father, his brother, and coach K. And whatever he meant it, Hurley was never an assistant at Duke like the guys you mentioned.  You know who else wasnt an assistant at Duke before coaching? Current Duke assiatant Jeff Capel who succeeded at VCU and then has an elite 8 run at Oklahoma.  Why'd you leave him out?  He also has the pedigree from his own father and brother. If anyone would be a good Hurley comparison from Duke its him.

Finally I never said bobby Hurley is more qualified than Johnny Dawkins.  If you are looking for a respectable mediocre coach who will get you to a sweet 16/ncaa once every five years Johnny is your guy. Not too dissimilar from coach lavin.

Bobby is all about projecting potential.  Same with Danny.  Guys like lavin and Dawkins have already proven their ceiling isn't annual ncaa appearances and extremely well coaches teams. 

Do you really not get the difference?

Are you serious?  OMG.

Amaker at Harvard where he brings in top 50-75 talent never seen before in the Ivy...

I mean seriously...guy..no I can't anymore.

you are makin my point for me rather than the other way around.  Tommy amaker is recruiting top 50-75 talent to Harvard. Harvard!  And he has WON 2 first round games with Harvard.  Harvard!  In the NCAAs!

That's one more ncaa win than St. John's has in the last 16 seasons. 

But yeah tommy is a joke.

And of course you have no comment on anything else.  When people disagree w you on the board and make solid points rather than concede anything or make intelligent points back, you pick whatever you think is their worst argument and harp on that and then like a teenage girl say "OMG....I can't anymore"

You seem like you know basketball.  You really can't engage in respectful intelligent discussion that disagrees with you?

What. So he needs to a last second collapse to beat Yale for the IVY league title with superior talent and never could win at Michigan and left after a major disappointment at SHU and that is evidence that he is a terrific coach and is also evidence that Coach K players make good coaches.

OK.

Didn't I just call Dawkins mediocre and someone who could get you to an ncaa or maybe sweet 16 once every five years?  When have I ever said coach K makes good coaches?

People who learn under coach K are learning from the best which potentially gives them a leg up.  but it doesn't make them a good coach. Just gives them more ammo. They still need to learn how to shoot.

This my last post, anybody who thinks Amaker is a good coach is not a serious person.

Quote from: Tha Kid on March 24, 2015, 09:56:25 PM

Quote from: Dave on March 24, 2015, 09:52:59 PM

@Tha Kid I wouldn't put Bobby and Danny in the same category. Bobby still has a lot to prove.

You may be right Dave but Danny also has a lot to prove.  My thing is more is Danny really going to jump to St. John's now when seton hall job is his next year likely if he wants it, which may be after an awesome year at URI which will likely increase the numbers for his contract?

I am all for bobby or Danny.  But I think bobby is likely to be more attainable immediately. And I do like the coach K connection for my own personal bias which Danny doesn't have.

SJU >>>> Seton Hall. Better alumni, better pay, better facilities, better campus, better location. It's really not close.

I think its all a moot point anyways because I think Lavin is coming back.

Makes sense.

To be honest I am actually fine with Lavin coming back too.  I think if nothing else this exercise will make lavin realize he can't just rest on his laurels and perhaps that lights a fire under his ass. 

I just want a definitive decision made this week. This cannot drag out.  That is what is worst for the program. A decision one way or the other quickly is what I'm hoping for.  Would prefer bring in a Hurley but if it's lavin lets extend him low buy out and let him try to secure some recruits.

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:50:35 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:45:09 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:37:16 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:15:52 PM

Bobby Hurley is a 1000% better basketball mind than Steve Lavin. That cannot be argued. His pedigree is outstanding. Is he experienced? No. Have his results so far been impressive? Yes. Would I trust him running my team? Absolutely.

BTW-I have the post saved where after Robert Morris nearly beat Villanova (remember Nova got a questionable call) in a 2/15 game in 2010 you and others were high on him.  SJU job was open during the 2010 Tourney.  You and others were certainly enamored with Rice and how good he had done at RMU.

Tell me what was his record after 3 years at RU?  Tell me again how did his time at RU end?  What were the circumstances?

But he did take RMU to the brink of a 1st round upset over Jay Wright.

And at the time I thought that was a great hire for Rutgers. To say it wasn't is crazy. Obviously it doesn't always work. There is always risk involved. Unless you are hiring a handful of coaches (Izzo, Billy D, Pitino etc.)

No crazy is what he is and was.  And you made my point.  You think anyone with a decent low-mid major record is worthwhile.

The point is you have not learned your lesson.  He was replacing a joke of a coach, Fred Hill.  Whose record was worse than Norm's and Norm took over a disaster.  And now you prescribe these coaches for someone who actually has done something at SJU.

That is my point.

But that is the pool. You are looking for a coach that has success at the mid-major level and trying to project. SJU is a good fit for either Hurley. I think Bobby has a bigger appeal to casual basketball fans. What established winning high major coach is coming here?  And to be honest, I wouldn't be thrilled with a lot of the other choices like Masiello or Cluess. But either could have a chance to be successful.

But my original point is I rather trust Bobby Hurley running my team than Steve Lavin. It's really not even close.

What makes you trust Bobby Hurley?

How many Buffalo games you watch this year?

Quote from: Tha Kid on March 24, 2015, 09:59:20 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:56:35 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on March 24, 2015, 09:53:03 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:48:05 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on March 24, 2015, 09:46:50 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:33:45 PM

Quote from: Tha Kid on March 24, 2015, 09:30:06 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:19:06 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:15:52 PM

Bobby Hurley is a 1000% better basketball mind than Steve Lavin. That cannot be argued. His pedigree is outstanding. Is he experienced? No. Have his results so far been impressive? Yes. Would I trust him running my team? Absolutely.

His results prove nothing.  What results, he is 25-11 in a 1 bid conference?  What pedigree?  The one that has led Johnny Dawkins to 7 nondescript years at Stanford.  How about Quinn Snyder?  How about Tommy Amaker?  Cut and ran from SHU and then spent what 6 years at Michigan failing to make 1 NCAA.

Please.

Comparing bobby Hurley to the other former dukies you mentioned is silly.

The other guys you mentioned were all long time assistants under coach K whose FIRST coaching gig was in a big time conference.  None of them worked themselves up the ladder without the help of coach K so it is possible they got better jobs than they deserved solely because of coach Ks success.

Bobby worked under his brother at Wagner and URI and then his first head coaching job was at buffalo.  He rolled up his sleeves.  He's proven himself on his own.

That's the first thing that should give you more confidence that bobby will not be like them.

And for the record amaker seems like a great coach. I think if another big time job came his way that he wanted he would succeed.

First off he used the term pedigree.  That means Duke and Coach K, guy.

Secondly you made my other point.  The idea that 2 years at a 1 bid mid major gives you the warm and fuzzies as opposed to coaching directly at a major, congrats.

He has barely recruited his own players and has not graduated one of his own recruits.

Right he is so much more qualified because he coached 2 years at Buffalo then Dawkins is now at Stanford.  Right.

By the way how do you explain Amaker at Michigan after SHU?

It boggles my mind when seemingly intelligent people who have seen the Amazing job amaker has done at Harvard somehow think Michigan proves he can't hack it.

First, amaker took over a terrible team.  Second, in amakers second year there, Michigan self imposed probation and sanctions due to the Ed Martin scandal. Then the NCAA doubled those penalties so it appeared 2003-04 would be no playoffs either. It was later overturned.  How easy do you think recruiting was during that time?  Even the posters who were the biggest anti norm guys gave him a bit of a break his first few years.  Amaker didn't know he was going to be coaching at a school w all those sanctions and probation.  It happened in year 2.  If anyone deserves a reprieve on their head coaching stint at a major school it's tommy amaker and Michigan. Come on, "guy".

Next, I didn't realize the term pedigree meant coach K.  Wait it doesn't, and in this instance it would be referring to his father, his brother, and coach K. And whatever he meant it, Hurley was never an assistant at Duke like the guys you mentioned.  You know who else wasnt an assistant at Duke before coaching? Current Duke assiatant Jeff Capel who succeeded at VCU and then has an elite 8 run at Oklahoma.  Why'd you leave him out?  He also has the pedigree from his own father and brother. If anyone would be a good Hurley comparison from Duke its him.

Finally I never said bobby Hurley is more qualified than Johnny Dawkins.  If you are looking for a respectable mediocre coach who will get you to a sweet 16/ncaa once every five years Johnny is your guy. Not too dissimilar from coach lavin.

Bobby is all about projecting potential.  Same with Danny.  Guys like lavin and Dawkins have already proven their ceiling isn't annual ncaa appearances and extremely well coaches teams. 

Do you really not get the difference?

Are you serious?  OMG.

Amaker at Harvard where he brings in top 50-75 talent never seen before in the Ivy...

I mean seriously...guy..no I can't anymore.

you are makin my point for me rather than the other way around.  Tommy amaker is recruiting top 50-75 talent to Harvard. Harvard!  And he has WON 2 first round games with Harvard.  Harvard!  In the NCAAs!

That's one more ncaa win than St. John's has in the last 16 seasons. 

But yeah tommy is a joke.

And of course you have no comment on anything else.  When people disagree w you on the board and make solid points rather than concede anything or make intelligent points back, you pick whatever you think is their worst argument and harp on that and then like a teenage girl say "OMG....I can't anymore"

You seem like you know basketball.  You really can't engage in respectful intelligent discussion that disagrees with you?

What. So he needs to a last second collapse to beat Yale for the IVY league title with superior talent and never could win at Michigan and left after a major disappointment at SHU and that is evidence that he is a terrific coach and is also evidence that Coach K players make good coaches.

OK.

Didn't I just call Dawkins mediocre and someone who could get you to an ncaa or maybe sweet 16 once every five years?  When have I ever said coach K makes good coaches?

People who learn under coach K are learning from the best which potentially gives them a leg up.  but it doesn't make them a good coach. Just gives them more ammo. They still need to learn how to shoot.

This my last post, anybody who thinks Amaker is a good coach is not a serious person.

"Tommy amaker - four ncaas in four years including two first round upsets with a school that doesn't give athletic scholarships, is not regularly or ever on TV, and was generally terrible at basketball beforehand - is not a good basketball coach" - Fordham

But steve lavin is?

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:50:35 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:45:09 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:37:16 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:15:52 PM

Bobby Hurley is a 1000% better basketball mind than Steve Lavin. That cannot be argued. His pedigree is outstanding. Is he experienced? No. Have his results so far been impressive? Yes. Would I trust him running my team? Absolutely.

BTW-I have the post saved where after Robert Morris nearly beat Villanova (remember Nova got a questionable call) in a 2/15 game in 2010 you and others were high on him.  SJU job was open during the 2010 Tourney.  You and others were certainly enamored with Rice and how good he had done at RMU.

Tell me what was his record after 3 years at RU?  Tell me again how did his time at RU end?  What were the circumstances?

But he did take RMU to the brink of a 1st round upset over Jay Wright.

And at the time I thought that was a great hire for Rutgers. To say it wasn't is crazy. Obviously it doesn't always work. There is always risk involved. Unless you are hiring a handful of coaches (Izzo, Billy D, Pitino etc.)

No crazy is what he is and was.  And you made my point.  You think anyone with a decent low-mid major record is worthwhile.

The point is you have not learned your lesson.  He was replacing a joke of a coach, Fred Hill.  Whose record was worse than Norm's and Norm took over a disaster.  And now you prescribe these coaches for someone who actually has done something at SJU.

That is my point.

But that is the pool. You are looking for a coach that has success at the mid-major level and trying to project. SJU is a good fit for either Hurley. I think Bobby has a bigger appeal to casual basketball fans. What established winning high major coach is coming here?  And to be honest, I wouldn't be thrilled with a lot of the other choices like Masiello or Cluess. But either could have a chance to be successful.

But my original point is I rather trust Bobby Hurley running my team than Steve Lavin. It's really not even close.

My point is that is an opinion based on NOTHING but your disappointment in Lavin.  Anyone can say that when there are no consequences to what you say or do as evidenced by your Mike Rice proclamation.

My opinion is that I think Mike Krzyzewski is overrated. So what.

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 10:01:11 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:50:35 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:45:09 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:37:16 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:15:52 PM

Bobby Hurley is a 1000% better basketball mind than Steve Lavin. That cannot be argued. His pedigree is outstanding. Is he experienced? No. Have his results so far been impressive? Yes. Would I trust him running my team? Absolutely.

BTW-I have the post saved where after Robert Morris nearly beat Villanova (remember Nova got a questionable call) in a 2/15 game in 2010 you and others were high on him.  SJU job was open during the 2010 Tourney.  You and others were certainly enamored with Rice and how good he had done at RMU.

Tell me what was his record after 3 years at RU?  Tell me again how did his time at RU end?  What were the circumstances?

But he did take RMU to the brink of a 1st round upset over Jay Wright.

And at the time I thought that was a great hire for Rutgers. To say it wasn't is crazy. Obviously it doesn't always work. There is always risk involved. Unless you are hiring a handful of coaches (Izzo, Billy D, Pitino etc.)

No crazy is what he is and was.  And you made my point.  You think anyone with a decent low-mid major record is worthwhile.

The point is you have not learned your lesson.  He was replacing a joke of a coach, Fred Hill.  Whose record was worse than Norm's and Norm took over a disaster.  And now you prescribe these coaches for someone who actually has done something at SJU.

That is my point.

But that is the pool. You are looking for a coach that has success at the mid-major level and trying to project. SJU is a good fit for either Hurley. I think Bobby has a bigger appeal to casual basketball fans. What established winning high major coach is coming here?  And to be honest, I wouldn't be thrilled with a lot of the other choices like Masiello or Cluess. But either could have a chance to be successful.

But my original point is I rather trust Bobby Hurley running my team than Steve Lavin. It's really not even close.

What makes you trust Bobby Hurley?

How many Buffalo games you watch this year?

Bingo, I would bet NONE.  How many MAC games did you watch?

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 10:01:11 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:50:35 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:45:09 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:37:16 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:15:52 PM

Bobby Hurley is a 1000% better basketball mind than Steve Lavin. That cannot be argued. His pedigree is outstanding. Is he experienced? No. Have his results so far been impressive? Yes. Would I trust him running my team? Absolutely.

BTW-I have the post saved where after Robert Morris nearly beat Villanova (remember Nova got a questionable call) in a 2/15 game in 2010 you and others were high on him.  SJU job was open during the 2010 Tourney.  You and others were certainly enamored with Rice and how good he had done at RMU.

Tell me what was his record after 3 years at RU?  Tell me again how did his time at RU end?  What were the circumstances?

But he did take RMU to the brink of a 1st round upset over Jay Wright.

And at the time I thought that was a great hire for Rutgers. To say it wasn't is crazy. Obviously it doesn't always work. There is always risk involved. Unless you are hiring a handful of coaches (Izzo, Billy D, Pitino etc.)

No crazy is what he is and was.  And you made my point.  You think anyone with a decent low-mid major record is worthwhile.

The point is you have not learned your lesson.  He was replacing a joke of a coach, Fred Hill.  Whose record was worse than Norm's and Norm took over a disaster.  And now you prescribe these coaches for someone who actually has done something at SJU.

That is my point.

But that is the pool. You are looking for a coach that has success at the mid-major level and trying to project. SJU is a good fit for either Hurley. I think Bobby has a bigger appeal to casual basketball fans. What established winning high major coach is coming here?  And to be honest, I wouldn't be thrilled with a lot of the other choices like Masiello or Cluess. But either could have a chance to be successful.

But my original point is I rather trust Bobby Hurley running my team than Steve Lavin. It's really not even close.

What makes you trust Bobby Hurley?

How many Buffalo games you watch this year?

Not many. Did see the KY game. They hung tough. BTW, Buffalo was picked pre-season very low in the MAC. So it wasn't like they brought back a full team. Hurley lost his best player Jevon McRae who avg. about 18 a game as a senior. So you lose your best player, and still make the NCAA picked very low pre-season in your conference. That isn't bad coaching.

Why do I trust Hurley? I think you can infer.

Established mid major rising stars like Archie and Marshall will have their sights set higher than SJU. Danny Hurley might even be close to that point. Projecting the next Archie Miller is never a sure thing but someone like Bobby Hurley fits the profile. Perhaps the Danny Manning Tulsa/wake scenario is a good analogy.

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:53:52 PM

BTW-I am surprised no one has brought up Mike Lonergan (if they did I missed it).

I don't love him but his turnaround at GW is at least on par with Hurley at URI.  Back to back 20 win seasons and NCAA and NIT last 2 years.

The expectation will be that Hurley will recruit NY because of his family ties, and that he'll also recruit nationally because of his family ties, and because of the name he made for himself. This is a player who was very talented, but he is also a player who has spent his entire life under the wing of great coaching.

I think that is a guy you can take a chance on after two strong years at a school that's accomplished nothing before he arrived.

Accomplished nothing?  Jim Baron's last 5 years at URI included 4 20 win seasons and 3 NIT appearances.  The last year was a 7 win year that got him fired.

And you guys all love Mike Vaccaro, Vac graduated from St. Bonaventure and knew Baron.  Go read some of his articles the last 2 years of the Norm regime.  Guy was promoting Baron for SJU as a New York guy.

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 10:01:11 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:50:35 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:45:09 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:37:16 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:15:52 PM

Bobby Hurley is a 1000% better basketball mind than Steve Lavin. That cannot be argued. His pedigree is outstanding. Is he experienced? No. Have his results so far been impressive? Yes. Would I trust him running my team? Absolutely.

BTW-I have the post saved where after Robert Morris nearly beat Villanova (remember Nova got a questionable call) in a 2/15 game in 2010 you and others were high on him.  SJU job was open during the 2010 Tourney.  You and others were certainly enamored with Rice and how good he had done at RMU.

Tell me what was his record after 3 years at RU?  Tell me again how did his time at RU end?  What were the circumstances?

But he did take RMU to the brink of a 1st round upset over Jay Wright.

And at the time I thought that was a great hire for Rutgers. To say it wasn't is crazy. Obviously it doesn't always work. There is always risk involved. Unless you are hiring a handful of coaches (Izzo, Billy D, Pitino etc.)

No crazy is what he is and was.  And you made my point.  You think anyone with a decent low-mid major record is worthwhile.

The point is you have not learned your lesson.  He was replacing a joke of a coach, Fred Hill.  Whose record was worse than Norm's and Norm took over a disaster.  And now you prescribe these coaches for someone who actually has done something at SJU.

That is my point.

But that is the pool. You are looking for a coach that has success at the mid-major level and trying to project. SJU is a good fit for either Hurley. I think Bobby has a bigger appeal to casual basketball fans. What established winning high major coach is coming here?  And to be honest, I wouldn't be thrilled with a lot of the other choices like Masiello or Cluess. But either could have a chance to be successful.

But my original point is I rather trust Bobby Hurley running my team than Steve Lavin. It's really not even close.

My point is that is an opinion based on NOTHING but your disappointment in Lavin.  Anyone can say that when there are no consequences to what you say or do as evidenced by your Mike Rice proclamation.

My opinion is that I think Mike Krzyzewski is overrated. So what.

Did you really just say the following two things in the last five minutes;

"Anyone who thinks tommy amaker is a good basketball coach cannot be a serious person" and

"Coach K is overrated"

can you 1) tell me who are your top 5 coaches in college basketball - which of course is not going to include the only living person with 4 ncaa titles and 2) tell me what about steve lavin makes you think he is a good coach?

I am compiling the Fordham greatest hits right now and would love additional quotes while you are still on tequila and Ambien.

Quote from: Poison on March 24, 2015, 09:59:32 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:53:52 PM

BTW-I am surprised no one has brought up Mike Lonergan (if they did I missed it).

I don't love him but his turnaround at GW is at least on par with Hurley at URI.  Back to back 20 win seasons and NCAA and NIT last 2 years.

The expectation will be that Hurley will recruit NY because of his family ties, and that he'll also recruit nationally because of his family ties, and because of the name he made for himself. This is a player who was very talented, but he is also a player who has spent his entire life under the wing of great coaching.

I think that is a guy you can take a chance on after two strong years at a school that's accomplished nothing before he arrived.

Accomplished nothing?  Jim Baron's last 5 years at URI included 4 20 win seasons and 3 NIT appearances.  The last year was a 7 win year that got him fired.

And you guys all love Mike Vaccaro, Vac graduated from St. Bonaventure and knew Baron.  Go read some of his articles the last 2 years of the Norm regime.  Guy was promoting Baron for SJU as a New York guy.

Bobby

Quote from: Dave on March 24, 2015, 10:02:22 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 10:01:11 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:50:35 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:45:09 PM

Quote from: fordham96 on March 24, 2015, 09:37:16 PM

Quote from: SJUhoopNUT on March 24, 2015, 09:15:52 PM

Bobby Hurley is a 1000% better basketball mind than Steve Lavin. That cannot be argued. His pedigree is outstanding. Is he experienced? No. Have his results so far been impressive? Yes. Would I trust him running my team? Absolutely.

BTW-I have the post saved where after Robert Morris nearly beat Villanova (remember Nova got a questionable call) in a 2/15 game in 2010 you and others were high on him.  SJU job was open during the 2010 Tourney.  You and others were certainly enamored with Rice and how good he had done at RMU.

Tell me what was his record after 3 years at RU?  Tell me again how did his time at RU end?  What were the circumstances?

But he did take RMU to the brink of a 1st round upset over Jay Wright.

And at the time I thought that was a great hire for Rutgers. To say it wasn't is crazy. Obviously it doesn't always work. There is always risk involved. Unless you are hiring a handful of coaches (Izzo, Billy D, Pitino etc.)

No crazy is what he is and was.  And you made my point.  You think anyone with a decent low-mid major record is worthwhile.

The point is you have not learned your lesson.  He was replacing a joke of a coach, Fred Hill.  Whose record was worse than Norm's and Norm took over a disaster.  And now you prescribe these coaches for someone who actually has done something at SJU.

That is my point.

But that is the pool. You are looking for a coach that has success at the mid-major level and trying to project. SJU is a good fit for either Hurley. I think Bobby has a bigger appeal to casual basketball fans. What established winning high major coach is coming here?  And to be honest, I wouldn't be thrilled with a lot of the other choices like Masiello or Cluess. But either could have a chance to be successful.

But my original point is I rather trust Bobby Hurley running my team than Steve Lavin. It's really not even close.

What makes you trust Bobby Hurley?

How many Buffalo games you watch this year?

Not many. Did see the KY game. They hung tough. BTW, Buffalo was picked pre-season very low in the MAC. So it wasn't like they brought back a full team. Hurley lost his best player Jevon McRae who avg. about 18 a game as a senior. So you lose your best player, and still make the NCAA picked very low pre-season in your conference. That isn't bad coaching.

Why do I trust Hurley? I think you can infer.

That was in December.  If they played Kentucky now they would lose by 50 and it wouldn't prove anything more than the close game back in December.  By the way Kentucky trailed for most of the game in December against Yale, you want Yale's HC at SJU?  Yes or no?