Oral Bob at Missouri State

[FeartheQ]

I'd like to have a couple of years of recruiting under our new coach before we get written off into the abyss. This should be a conversation taking place 3-4 years after a hire, not a little over one.

That's nice in theory. Yes giving a coach a full 4 years to develop his guys is "ideal." But it doesn't work that way in modern college basketball. If we are even a quarter of as bad as we have shown in the first 1.25 years of Lusk in the next 2.75 years then we will be a shell of a program. We won't have fans, our boosters will be pocketing the money or giving it to Drury (this actually could happen), and crowds of 2,000 will be at JQH. At that point we won't have the resources to hire anyone of substance. We can't have that. Lusk needs to be on notice starting now actually last Saturday.

Most pegged Mo State as a PIG team. Nothing is changing that. We knew we had to lean on youngsters early and often. I'm really not worried moving forward. Freshman are making mistakes, shocker. We get out rebounded because we don't have a true big, shocker.

Use this year as an evaluation on the freshman and move on.

[DoubleJayAlum]

I'd like to have a couple of years of recruiting under our new coach before we get written off into the abyss. This should be a conversation taking place 3-4 years after a hire, not a little over one.

That's nice in theory. Yes giving a coach a full 4 years to develop his guys is "ideal." But it doesn't work that way in modern college basketball. If we are even a quarter of as bad as we have shown in the first 1.25 years of Lusk in the next 2.75 years then we will be a shell of a program. We won't have fans, our boosters will be pocketing the money or giving it to Drury (this actually could happen), and crowds of 2,000 will be at JQH. At that point we won't have the resources to hire anyone of substance. We can't have that. Lusk needs to be on notice starting now actually last Saturday.

I don't believe you need four years to evaluate a coach. Creighton fired Rick Johnson (the guy before Altman) after only three years when it was obvious that he wasn't going to work. Keeping a guy one extra year only damages your program further. Casey's right - for financially strapped schools, the extra year can really hit hard with substantially reduced ticket sales, donations, sponsorships, etc.

Ironically, the one known cheap guy with a history of winning was already fired by MSU.

[BEARZ77]

I prefer to look at these matters rather simply.

AD Schaus did a fine job in selecting the two head coaches for men's basketball at WSU.

How do we know? Look at the track records.

All of the other peripheral issues and nuances discussed gets rolled into two categories as follows:
Who was hired
What are the results

That's it.

Exactly. Which is why it is silly to argue that WSU's strategy of hiring head coaches from mid-majors is a vastly superior tactic, when:

A) Cuonzo had some significant measurable success in his short stint at MSU,
B) Its far to early to evaluate Paul Lusk, and
C) There are countless examples of successful hired assistant coaches.

I have no idea how well Lusk will eventually do; but in all the chest thumping done by Aargh about the vastly superior approach by WSU , I didn't see much attention given to the fact that WSU was a playin team GM's 1st two seasons and that he took 5 seasons to get to an NCAA Tourney, much longer than assistants like Lansing and Jacobson took. Good coaches are good coaches, doesn't much matter what their pedigre is . Jury is out on whether Lusk will be one, but it isn't because he only was an assistant before. I can name countless experienced head coaches who fail miserably in their next gig after success somewhere else, just as there are a ton of assistants who succeed.

[BEARZ77]

MSU is 0 for 2 on their hires since they fired Barry. (3 years of riding Weems, and then bailing for more money isn't a hiring success).

Either winning a regular season crown is a big deal or it isn't. Make up your mind Shocker fan.

I am having a hard time getting my head around how abysmally bad MSU is right now. Wow...

Winning a regular season crown is a big deal. If Martin were still at MSU and MSU were still in the upper half of the league, I'd consider his hire to be a successful hire.

Martin won a regular season crown in large part because of Weems and Creekmore. I don't believe he was involved in recruiting either. Now we're getting to see what Lusk can do with the leftovers of Martin's recruiting. Not much.

Martin won a regular season crown with Barry's recruits, and then bailed after 3 years and left MSU with a pretty bare cupboard. That's not what I'd consider to be a successful hire.

By your own definition then Turgeon was not a successful hire. You all have said repeatedly he left the program bare for GM.So Turgeon made one NCAA appearance in 8 years, then fell off badly the following year, bolted, and it took GM 5 years to get back to an NCAA. Again I have no idea whether Lusk is any good or not; I like some of his recruits, but not his style of play.I just think you tend to try to play both ends of the argument alot.

[Ricardo del Rio]

I prefer to look at these matters rather simply.

AD Schaus did a fine job in selecting the two head coaches for men's basketball at WSU.

How do we know? Look at the track records.

All of the other peripheral issues and nuances discussed gets rolled into two categories as follows:
Who was hired
What are the results

That's it.

Not to put too fine of point on my comments, AD Schaus made another significant hire.

After AD Schaus moved to Ohio University, he hired Coach John Groce as the men's basketball coach.

Previously Coach Groce was an assistant basketball coach at Ohio State University.

Coach Groce coached at Ohio University from 2008-2012. His record was 85-56. In four years, his teams went to the Big Dance on two occasions. In 2010 the Bobcats lost in the second round. In 2012 the Bobcats went to the Sweet 16.

Today Coach Groce is the head coach at the University Illinois. The team record is 10-0 overall and 7-0 against D-1 opponents.

The purpose of this fine point it to demonstrate that assistant coaches are successful too.

[MoValley John]

At some point, weren't most head coaches assistants at one time? That said, if I were an AD, I most certainly would prefer a candidate with successful HC experience over an up and coming asst. There is a pecking order that is often followed. There is a reason for that. Sometimes there is the old head coach in waiting moniker, and that sometimes works, too.

At the end of the day, the more money a school has to throw around, the bigger and better pool of candidates available, up and coming asst or a man with hc experience.

[shockem]

Turgeon was a good hire at the time because he resurrected a program that was in the abyss. In hindsight, he wasn't a great recruiter on his own accord and the stable was weakened when his main assistant, Tad Boyle, moved on. Marshall inherited a weakened program but one of recent success. His recruiting abilities are light years ahead of Turgeon's at WSU. IMO, the big difference is the ability to consistently recruit high level athletes and win 20+ games every year. Making the NCAA tourney should not be the main criteria to judge success. Any coach can fluke into 1 good season, sustaining it is much more difficult.

[DoubleJayAlum]

Turgeon was a good hire at the time because he resurrected a program that was in the abyss. In hindsight, he wasn't a great recruiter on his own accord and the stable was weakened when his main assistant, Tad Boyle, moved on. Marshall inherited a weakened program but one of recent success. His recruiting abilities are light years ahead of Turgeon's at WSU. IMO, the big difference is the ability to consistently recruit high level athletes and win 20+ games every year. Making the NCAA tourney should not be the main criteria to judge success. Any coach can fluke into 1 good season, sustaining it is much more difficult.

I know what you are saying, but 20 wins isn't as impressive as it once was either. With the increased number of games a school plays now, combined with the ability to craft a weak noncon if a coach desires (see Jankovich), getting to 20 wins is not all that remarkable.

I think tourney appearances is the ultimate test as it is the one goal shared by every one of the 347 D1 teams at the start of the season and the mere appearance in the tourney brings national attention to your school. You can't fake your way into the NCAA tournament. You have to win your way in --- either through a tremendous regular season or by winning three or more games on consecutive days in your conference tourney.

[Ali]

I think tourney appearances is the ultimate test as it is the one goal shared by every one of the 347 D1 teams at the start of the season and the mere appearance in the tourney brings national attention to your school. You can't fake your way into the NCAA tournament. You have to win your way in --- either through a tremendous regular season or by winning three or more games game son consecutive days in your conference tourney.

Agree 100%. Consistently making the NCAA as a mid major is a sign of a great program. I'd take multiple consecutive NCAA trips over a single trip which ended in a Sweet 16 any day.

[Ricardo del Rio]

Turgeon was a good hire at the time because he resurrected a program that was in the abyss. In hindsight, he wasn't a great recruiter on his own accord and the stable was weakened when his main assistant, Tad Boyle, moved on. Marshall inherited a weakened program but one of recent success. His recruiting abilities are light years ahead of Turgeon's at WSU. IMO, the big difference is the ability to consistently recruit high level athletes and win 20+ games every year. Making the NCAA tourney should not be the main criteria to judge success. Any coach can fluke into 1 good season, sustaining it is much more difficult.

I know what you are saying, but 20 wins isn't as impressive as it once was either. With the increased number of games a school plays now, combined with the ability to craft a weak noncon if a coach desires (see Jankovich), getting to 20 wins is not all that remarkable.

I think tourney appearances is the ultimate test as it is the one goal shared by every one of the 347 D1 teams at the start of the season and the mere appearance in the tourney brings national attention to your school. You can't fake your way into the NCAA tournament. You have to win your way in --- either through a tremendous regular season or by winning three or more games on consecutive days in your conference tourney.

+1