What could happen...

Quote from: goredmen on March 24, 2015, 09:18:00 PM

and 5 sweet 16s since 2008. I would kill for that type of success here. I don't care who beats me in the regular season, 5 sweet 16s in 7 years is great success

Is 4 sweet sixteens and 1 elite 8 in 6 years also great success?

depends on the fan base. 

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on March 25, 2015, 12:12:12 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 24, 2015, 08:08:52 PM

Hurley might not be great, but he certainly can be, where Lavin has proven he can't and won't be great

Head coaching record
Season    Team    Overall    Conference    Standing    Postseason
UCLA Bruins (Pacific-10 Conference) (1996–2003)
1996–97    UCLA    24–8    15–3    1st    NCAA Elite Eight
1997–98    UCLA    24–9    12–6    3rd    NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1998–99    UCLA    22–9    12–6    3rd    NCAA First Round
1999–00    UCLA    21–12    10–8    T–4th    NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2000–01    UCLA    23–9    14–4    3rd    NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2001–02    UCLA    21–12    11–7    6th    NCAA Sweet Sixteen

Lavin's success at UCLA is about as exciting as Randy Johnson's was in Arizona.

I wasn't trying to excite you.  If I was I would have posted this:

Quote from: Poison on March 25, 2015, 10:30:06 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on March 25, 2015, 12:12:12 AM

Quote from: goredmen on March 24, 2015, 08:08:52 PM

Hurley might not be great, but he certainly can be, where Lavin has proven he can't and won't be great

Head coaching record
Season    Team    Overall    Conference    Standing    Postseason
UCLA Bruins (Pacific-10 Conference) (1996–2003)
1996–97    UCLA    24–8    15–3    1st    NCAA Elite Eight
1997–98    UCLA    24–9    12–6    3rd    NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1998–99    UCLA    22–9    12–6    3rd    NCAA First Round
1999–00    UCLA    21–12    10–8    T–4th    NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2000–01    UCLA    23–9    14–4    3rd    NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2001–02    UCLA    21–12    11–7    6th    NCAA Sweet Sixteen

Lavin's success at UCLA is about as exciting as Randy Johnson's was in Arizona.

Portugal was 4-2 in wars in the 16th century.

The guy wrote "where Lavin has proven he can't and won't be great".  So, I merely pointed out that in his first head coaching gig Lavin was in fact great.  In his second coaching gig, he has not yet been great but has brought the Johnnies to 2 Ncaa tournaments in 5 years following a 7 year tournament drought for the program.

Same difference as when a guy implies that Phil Greene was only good this season for 3 minutes in December and I point out that he led the conference in 3 point shooting in league games that all took place after December.

If people didn't type out their a$$es so much,  I wouldn't have to disprove the excrement with fact.

The guy wrote "where Lavin has proven he can't and won't be great".  So, I merely pointed out that in his first head coaching gig Lavin was in fact great.  In his second coaching gig, he has not yet been great but has brought the Johnnies to 2 Ncaa tournaments in 5 years following a 7 year tournament drought for the program.

Same difference as when a guy implies that Phil Greene was only good this season for 3 minutes in December and I point out that he led the conference in 3 point shooting in league games that all took place after December.

If people didn't type out their a$$es so much,  I wouldn't have to disprove the excrement with fact.

I think that one could easily argue against your point, based on the fact that Lavin, during his tenure with UCLA had two #1 recruiting classes, and perpetually had a top 5 or top 10 class.  If you have the best college kids in the country at your disposal, and you can't get past a top 16 ranking, then you are not "great".  Now would most schools like to get to the sweet sixteen every year, of course, but great coaches don't fail to meet expectations for 6 years, and get to be considered great.  College's don't dismiss their HC when he is great, unless he continues to embarrass the university.   Lavin, "great recruiter", probably when motivated.  Great coach ... not so much.

I'm sure your opinion will vary.

Quote from: goredmen on March 24, 2015, 09:18:00 PM

and 5 sweet 16s since 2008. I would kill for that type of success here. I don't care who beats me in the regular season, 5 sweet 16s in 7 years is great success

Is 4 sweet sixteens and 1 elite 8 in 6 years also great success?

Not at UCLA

Now it would be.

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on March 26, 2015, 12:37:12 AM

The guy wrote "where Lavin has proven he can't and won't be great".  So, I merely pointed out that in his first head coaching gig Lavin was in fact great.  In his second coaching gig, he has not yet been great but has brought the Johnnies to 2 Ncaa tournaments in 5 years following a 7 year tournament drought for the program.

Same difference as when a guy implies that Phil Greene was only good this season for 3 minutes in December and I point out that he led the conference in 3 point shooting in league games that all took place after December.

If people didn't type out their a$$es so much,  I wouldn't have to disprove the excrement with fact.

I think that one could easily argue against your point, based on the fact that Lavin, during his tenure with UCLA had two #1 recruiting classes, and perpetually had a top 5 or top 10 class.  If you have the best college kids in the country at your disposal, and you can't get past a top 16 ranking, then you are not "great".  Now would most schools like to get to the sweet sixteen every year, of course, but great coaches don't fail to meet expectations for 6 years, and get to be considered great.  College's don't dismiss their HC when he is great, unless he continues to embarrass the university.   Lavin, "great recruiter", probably when motivated.  Great coach ... not so much.

I'm sure your opinion will vary.

I'm certainly no Crgreen so bear with me.  I don't recall Hollywood's Bruin teams ever being Georgetown,  Unlv or this years Kentucky team.  And to me Trevor Ariza, Jason Kapona and Baron Davis were never Bill Walton, Bill Bradley and Bill Cunningham.  Who are the sure fire can't lose studs he had that I don't remember?

Recruiting strength is subjectively judge.  The incredible post-season success he had in his first gig can not be denied no matter how much he's hated.

 

Quote from: dR3w on March 26, 2015, 09:44:50 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on March 26, 2015, 12:37:12 AM

The guy wrote "where Lavin has proven he can't and won't be great".  So, I merely pointed out that in his first head coaching gig Lavin was in fact great.  In his second coaching gig, he has not yet been great but has brought the Johnnies to 2 Ncaa tournaments in 5 years following a 7 year tournament drought for the program.

Same difference as when a guy implies that Phil Greene was only good this season for 3 minutes in December and I point out that he led the conference in 3 point shooting in league games that all took place after December.

If people didn't type out their a$$es so much,  I wouldn't have to disprove the excrement with fact.

I think that one could easily argue against your point, based on the fact that Lavin, during his tenure with UCLA had two #1 recruiting classes, and perpetually had a top 5 or top 10 class.  If you have the best college kids in the country at your disposal, and you can't get past a top 16 ranking, then you are not "great".  Now would most schools like to get to the sweet sixteen every year, of course, but great coaches don't fail to meet expectations for 6 years, and get to be considered great.  College's don't dismiss their HC when he is great, unless he continues to embarrass the university.   Lavin, "great recruiter", probably when motivated.  Great coach ... not so much.

I'm sure your opinion will vary.

I'm certainly no Crgreen so bear with me.  I don't recall Hollywood's Bruin teams ever being Georgetown,  Unlv or this years Kentucky team.  And to me Trevor Ariza, Jason Kapona and Baron Davis were never Bill Walton, Bill Bradley and Bill Cunningham.  Who are the sure fire can't lose studs he had that I don't remember?

Recruiting strength is subjectively judge.  The incredible post-season success he had in his first gig can not be denied no matter how much he's hated.

With those stacked line ups, the least amount of games ever lost was 8. That puts the tourney showings into fair balance for me.  You'd think one of those squads over 6 years would have gone 28-4, 29-3, instead of losing 8, 9, 10, 11... But I know cr would rightfully defend Lavs by stating something along the lines of "Lavs teams were notoriously slow starters due to his constant tinkering with the lineup over the first 5-10 games. That accounted for some of those weird upsets early in the season" (Bless cr's basketball soul - I cannot explain it nearly as good, but I recall a discussion like that a few times.)


and another of my thoughts - there had to be 50 head coaches across the US who must have said at least once, "Man, I wish I could have gotten my hands on his team. I could have run the table."  Had to be.

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on March 27, 2015, 01:05:28 AM

Quote from: dR3w on March 26, 2015, 09:44:50 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on March 26, 2015, 12:37:12 AM

The guy wrote "where Lavin has proven he can't and won't be great".  So, I merely pointed out that in his first head coaching gig Lavin was in fact great.  In his second coaching gig, he has not yet been great but has brought the Johnnies to 2 Ncaa tournaments in 5 years following a 7 year tournament drought for the program.

Same difference as when a guy implies that Phil Greene was only good this season for 3 minutes in December and I point out that he led the conference in 3 point shooting in league games that all took place after December.

If people didn't type out their a$$es so much,  I wouldn't have to disprove the excrement with fact.

I think that one could easily argue against your point, based on the fact that Lavin, during his tenure with UCLA had two #1 recruiting classes, and perpetually had a top 5 or top 10 class.  If you have the best college kids in the country at your disposal, and you can't get past a top 16 ranking, then you are not "great".  Now would most schools like to get to the sweet sixteen every year, of course, but great coaches don't fail to meet expectations for 6 years, and get to be considered great.  College's don't dismiss their HC when he is great, unless he continues to embarrass the university.   Lavin, "great recruiter", probably when motivated.  Great coach ... not so much.

I'm sure your opinion will vary.

I'm certainly no Crgreen so bear with me.  I don't recall Hollywood's Bruin teams ever being Georgetown,  Unlv or this years Kentucky team.  And to me Trevor Ariza, Jason Kapona and Baron Davis were never Bill Walton, Bill Bradley and Bill Cunningham.  Who are the sure fire can't lose studs he had that I don't remember?

Recruiting strength is subjectively judge.  The incredible post-season success he had in his first gig can not be denied no matter how much he's hated.

With those stacked line ups, the least amount of games ever lost was 8. That puts the tourney showings into fair balance for me.  You'd think one of those squads over 6 years would have gone 28-4, 29-3, instead of losing 8, 9, 10, 11... But I know cr would rightfully defend Lavs by stating something along the lines of "Lavs teams were notoriously slow starters due to his constant tinkering with the lineup over the first 5-10 games. That accounted for some of those weird upsets early in the season" (Bless cr's basketball soul - I cannot explain it nearly as good, but I recall a discussion like that a few times.)


and another of my thoughts - there had to be 50 head coaches across the US who must have said at least once, "Man, I wish I could have gotten my hands on his team. I could have run the table."  Had to be.

Regular season don't mean sh*t. It's all about the March madness.  Everybody knows that.

If anybody points out the "Great" basketball players he had at Ucla that automatically should have brought him to even deeper Ncaa tournament runs...I'll concede the point.

Quote from: bball purist on March 27, 2015, 01:18:28 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on March 27, 2015, 01:05:28 AM

Quote from: dR3w on March 26, 2015, 09:44:50 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on March 26, 2015, 12:37:12 AM

The guy wrote "where Lavin has proven he can't and won't be great".  So, I merely pointed out that in his first head coaching gig Lavin was in fact great.  In his second coaching gig, he has not yet been great but has brought the Johnnies to 2 Ncaa tournaments in 5 years following a 7 year tournament drought for the program.

Same difference as when a guy implies that Phil Greene was only good this season for 3 minutes in December and I point out that he led the conference in 3 point shooting in league games that all took place after December.

If people didn't type out their a$$es so much,  I wouldn't have to disprove the excrement with fact.

I think that one could easily argue against your point, based on the fact that Lavin, during his tenure with UCLA had two #1 recruiting classes, and perpetually had a top 5 or top 10 class.  If you have the best college kids in the country at your disposal, and you can't get past a top 16 ranking, then you are not "great".  Now would most schools like to get to the sweet sixteen every year, of course, but great coaches don't fail to meet expectations for 6 years, and get to be considered great.  College's don't dismiss their HC when he is great, unless he continues to embarrass the university.   Lavin, "great recruiter", probably when motivated.  Great coach ... not so much.

I'm sure your opinion will vary.

I'm certainly no Crgreen so bear with me.  I don't recall Hollywood's Bruin teams ever being Georgetown,  Unlv or this years Kentucky team.  And to me Trevor Ariza, Jason Kapona and Baron Davis were never Bill Walton, Bill Bradley and Bill Cunningham.  Who are the sure fire can't lose studs he had that I don't remember?

Recruiting strength is subjectively judge.  The incredible post-season success he had in his first gig can not be denied no matter how much he's hated.

With those stacked line ups, the least amount of games ever lost was 8. That puts the tourney showings into fair balance for me.  You'd think one of those squads over 6 years would have gone 28-4, 29-3, instead of losing 8, 9, 10, 11... But I know cr would rightfully defend Lavs by stating something along the lines of "Lavs teams were notoriously slow starters due to his constant tinkering with the lineup over the first 5-10 games. That accounted for some of those weird upsets early in the season" (Bless cr's basketball soul - I cannot explain it nearly as good, but I recall a discussion like that a few times.)


and another of my thoughts - there had to be 50 head coaches across the US who must have said at least once, "Man, I wish I could have gotten my hands on his team. I could have run the table."  Had to be.

If anybody points out the "Great" basketball players he had at Ucla that automatically should have brought him to even deeper Ncaa tournament runs...I'll concede the point.

Won't do that - nothing is guaranteed. However, most coaches with year after year of immense talent, usually would have at least one  or two monster seasons with more regular season wins. especially in the Pac-10(12)  Lavin would even concede it was his and his staff's inexperience that probably prevented that from happening. Now if a Dunlap was his asst, well...

Now it would be.

Considering they fired a coach that went to 3 straight final 4s (right after Lavin by the way), I'm gonna say no it wouldn't be

Quote from: bball purist on March 27, 2015, 01:18:28 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on March 27, 2015, 01:05:28 AM

Quote from: dR3w on March 26, 2015, 09:44:50 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on March 26, 2015, 12:37:12 AM

The guy wrote "where Lavin has proven he can't and won't be great".  So, I merely pointed out that in his first head coaching gig Lavin was in fact great.  In his second coaching gig, he has not yet been great but has brought the Johnnies to 2 Ncaa tournaments in 5 years following a 7 year tournament drought for the program.

Same difference as when a guy implies that Phil Greene was only good this season for 3 minutes in December and I point out that he led the conference in 3 point shooting in league games that all took place after December.

If people didn't type out their a$$es so much,  I wouldn't have to disprove the excrement with fact.

I think that one could easily argue against your point, based on the fact that Lavin, during his tenure with UCLA had two #1 recruiting classes, and perpetually had a top 5 or top 10 class.  If you have the best college kids in the country at your disposal, and you can't get past a top 16 ranking, then you are not "great".  Now would most schools like to get to the sweet sixteen every year, of course, but great coaches don't fail to meet expectations for 6 years, and get to be considered great.  College's don't dismiss their HC when he is great, unless he continues to embarrass the university.   Lavin, "great recruiter", probably when motivated.  Great coach ... not so much.

I'm sure your opinion will vary.

I'm certainly no Crgreen so bear with me.  I don't recall Hollywood's Bruin teams ever being Georgetown,  Unlv or this years Kentucky team.  And to me Trevor Ariza, Jason Kapona and Baron Davis were never Bill Walton, Bill Bradley and Bill Cunningham.  Who are the sure fire can't lose studs he had that I don't remember?

Recruiting strength is subjectively judge.  The incredible post-season success he had in his first gig can not be denied no matter how much he's hated.

With those stacked line ups, the least amount of games ever lost was 8. That puts the tourney showings into fair balance for me.  You'd think one of those squads over 6 years would have gone 28-4, 29-3, instead of losing 8, 9, 10, 11... But I know cr would rightfully defend Lavs by stating something along the lines of "Lavs teams were notoriously slow starters due to his constant tinkering with the lineup over the first 5-10 games. That accounted for some of those weird upsets early in the season" (Bless cr's basketball soul - I cannot explain it nearly as good, but I recall a discussion like that a few times.)


and another of my thoughts - there had to be 50 head coaches across the US who must have said at least once, "Man, I wish I could have gotten my hands on his team. I could have run the table."  Had to be.

Regular season don't mean sh*t. It's all about the March madness.  Everybody knows that.

If anybody points out the "Great" basketball players he had at Ucla that automatically should have brought him to even deeper Ncaa tournament runs...I'll concede the point.

"Regular season means S!#/..." 

C'Mon now. That would mean this season was a complete failure

So the latest I got is that St. John's is expected to make an announcement today.

In the latest plot twist Lavin out, Mullin in.

So the latest I got is that St. John's is expected to make an announcement today.

In the latest plot twist Lavin out, Mullin in.

 That would be awesome

Quote from: Dave on March 27, 2015, 11:08:58 AM

So the latest I got is that St. John's is expected to make an announcement today.

In the latest plot twist Lavin out, Mullin in.

 That would be awesome

Mullin as next coach would be awesome?

So the latest I got is that St. John's is expected to make an announcement today.

In the latest plot twist Lavin out, Mullin in.

major major risk. if true, i have a feeling repole is all over this decision.

Yes.

Quote from: Dave on March 27, 2015, 11:08:58 AM

So the latest I got is that St. John's is expected to make an announcement today.

In the latest plot twist Lavin out, Mullin in.

major major risk. if true, i have a feeling repole is all over this decision.

Look at first post in thread.

This is bad. How am I going to mock Chris Mullin.

This is bad. How am I going to mock Chris Mullin.

He is a recovering alcoholic, start there.