2021 Coaching Candidate Thread (this time for reals)

[claver2010]

I think that BC Basketball should zig when everyone else zags. If the world is moving towards the 3-point shot, focus on rebounding and baskets in the lane. If the world is moving to fastbreaks, slow it down. If the world is focused on offense, be the master of defense. On a level playing field, BC will have the results we've had over the past decade. I think some of Skinner's elite success was due to the tedious nature of the Flex (which highlighted skills not valued by other programs). I do not want to watch the Flex or Princeton offense. However, I prefer to win boring than lose with an "exciting" up-and-down-the-court, free-flowing, 3-point-shooting, "modern", nonsensical offense that Christian was supposedly running. If we ultimately go in the "system" direction, I probably prefer Grant over similarly situated candidates (Cooley, Rhoads, Coen, JT3).

While the selective JT3 story is being pushed by media folks, here is a reminder of what GTown folks were saying in 2017. Interestingly, it seems that part of JT3's downfall was trying to up his recruiting profile such that he was chasing stars instead of those who fit his system. https://www.espn.com/mens-college-baske ... pson-looms

sounds like porter moser

[BCEagles25]

That analysis of the Princeton Offense's efficacy is more outdated than nospace's analysis of the use of the 3 pointer.

This isn't a defense of JT3, the Princeton offense or the article. However, there are some things that the blog touched upon that rings true to me.

Second, the offense is used by teams facing a team with better athletes because the offense is slow developing. Think Tony Bennett at Virginia and the Pack Line Defense level of pace (Bennet also uses a modified form of Princeton). The idea is that by slowing the game down there are less scoring opportunities for the better athletic team.

The genius of implementing Princeton is that it takes BC’s biggest weakness, trouble recruiting star players, and turns it into not only a moot point, but even a positive. The reality is that at this stage in the BC rebuild, BC is never going to recruit blue chip prospects that are going to makes headlines on ESPN’s Top 100. Even those that do consider BC tend to be a flash in a pan.

I think that BC Basketball should zig when everyone else zags. If the world is moving towards the 3-point shot, focus on rebounding and baskets in the lane. If the world is moving to fastbreaks, slow it down. If the world is focused on offense, be the master of defense. On a level playing field, BC will have the results we've had over the past decade. I think some of Skinner's elite success was due to the tedious nature of the Flex (which highlighted skills not valued by other programs). I do not want to watch the Flex or Princeton offense. However, I prefer to win boring than lose with an "exciting" up-and-down-the-court, free-flowing, 3-point-shooting, "modern", nonsensical offense that Christian was supposedly running. If we ultimately go in the "system" direction, I probably prefer Grant over similarly situated candidates (Cooley, Rhoads, Coen, JT3).

While the selective JT3 story is being pushed by media folks, here is a reminder of what GTown folks were saying in 2017. Interestingly, it seems that part of JT3's downfall was trying to up his recruiting profile such that he was chasing stars instead of those who fit his system. https://www.espn.com/mens-college-baske ... pson-looms

This thought is a beautiful bit of contrarianism - the kind that works. However, keep in mind, the last time we zigged against the greater direction of the sport, we hired Steve Addazio. This needs to be done correctly, or not at all. I’d rather zag intelligently than zig ineffectually.

[twballgame9]

Addazio's idea could have worked in the hands of a smarter, less rigid individual.

[2001Eagle]

Addazio's idea could have worked in the hands of a smarter, less rigid individual.

Yeah, but “coach hard, love hard”

[HJS]

So.. for posterity... Mark Blauschun apparently is reporting that our first choice is Tommy Amaker... if he turns us down, it is JT3... if he turns us down, it is Paul Hewitt. That’s the top 3 from his sources. If we get rejected from all these hot commodities, our fallback is Eisley.

[Corporal Funishment]

So.. for posterity... Mark Blauschun apparently is reporting that our first choice is Tommy Amaker... if he turns us down, it is JT3... if he turns us down, it is Paul Hewitt. That’s the top 3 from his sources. If we get rejected from all these hot commodities, our fallback is Eisley.

He's just naming black people. If we miss on Eisley, our next choices must be Chris Cheeks and Wesley Snipes.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

if he was just naming black people, he would have included skinner

[Dick Rosenthal]

So.. for posterity... Mark Blauschun apparently is reporting that our first choice is Tommy Amaker... if he turns us down, it is JT3... if he turns us down, it is Paul Hewitt. That’s the top 3 from his sources. If we get rejected from all these hot commodities, our fallback is Eisley.

There is a better chance that I am appointed head of the search and hire Schmidt then there is a chance of JT3 or Paul Hewitt—a guy coming off of running a George Mason team that should perennially contend for the A10 into the ground. I mean, I suppose he and JT3 have both gone to Final Fours after landing players that neither would have any chance of getting at BC, so there is that. Meanwhile, Amaker couldn’t attract talent to Michigan and is regularly out coached by The Don. Amazing. If he is the pick—and that is something I could see happening, such is my lack of faith in the idiots running our alma mater—I would prefer we burn the program to the ground and spread salt on it.

I have an idea. If we are going to hire an African-American candidate with big time success at a P5 conference that has not done much since he left, let’s go whole hog—so to speak—and hire Nolan Richardson. Time to give the rest of the ACC 40 Minutes of Hell every night and see what happens.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

i'm not certain, but i think i can hear the sounds of cutting and pasting as a result of and inspired by angry dick's post

[eepstein0]

So.. for posterity... Mark Blauschun apparently is reporting that our first choice is Tommy Amaker... if he turns us down, it is JT3... if he turns us down, it is Paul Hewitt. That’s the top 3 from his sources. If we get rejected from all these hot commodities, our fallback is Eisley.

There is a better chance that I am appointed head of the search and hire Schmidt then there is a chance of JT3 or Paul Hewitt—a guy coming off of running a George Mason team that should perennially contend for the A10 into the ground. I mean, I suppose he and JT3 have both gone to Final Fours after landing players that neither would have any chance of getting at BC, so there is that. Meanwhile, Amaker couldn’t attract talent to Michigan and is regularly out coached by The Don. Amazing. If he is the pick—and that is something I could see happening, such is my lack of faith in the idiots running our alma mater—I would prefer we burn the program to the ground and spread salt on it.

I have an idea. If we are going to hire an African-American candidate with big time success at a P5 conference that has not done much since he left, let’s go whole hog—so to speak—and hire Nolan Richardson. Time to give the rest of the ACC 40 Minutes of Hell every night and see what happens.

Amaker should be a legit candidate as should Eisley. The other two guys are funny

[Dick Rosenthal]

So.. for posterity... Mark Blauschun apparently is reporting that our first choice is Tommy Amaker... if he turns us down, it is JT3... if he turns us down, it is Paul Hewitt. That’s the top 3 from his sources. If we get rejected from all these hot commodities, our fallback is Eisley.

There is a better chance that I am appointed head of the search and hire Schmidt then there is a chance of JT3 or Paul Hewitt—a guy coming off of running a George Mason team that should perennially contend for the A10 into the ground. I mean, I suppose he and JT3 have both gone to Final Fours after landing players that neither would have any chance of getting at BC, so there is that. Meanwhile, Amaker couldn’t attract talent to Michigan and is regularly out coached by The Don. Amazing. If he is the pick—and that is something I could see happening, such is my lack of faith in the idiots running our alma mater—I would prefer we burn the program to the ground and spread salt on it.

I have an idea. If we are going to hire an African-American candidate with big time success at a P5 conference that has not done much since he left, let’s go whole hog—so to speak—and hire Nolan Richardson. Time to give the rest of the ACC 40 Minutes of Hell every night and see what happens.

Amaker should be a legit candidate as should Eisley. The other two guys are funny

On what basis should Amaker be a candidate? He failed miserably at one of the easiest P5 jobs in existence and for all the kudos he receives for coaching at Harvard, he has underperformed The Don in the Ivy League. Seriously? Where is there any indication on his resume that he would be an a significant upgrade (or any upgrade whatsoever) over Donahue or Christian? He shouldn’t even get an interview except as a courtesy and to check a box. Eisley may turn out to be a terrible coach and utterly unsuited to being a head coach at a P5 school—like our last two coaches—but at least there is no empirical evidence that indicates he is likely to be a terrible coach at a P5 school like there is with Amaker. If we are considering Amaker, just hire Eisley and be done with it. You can then go spend money putting together a staff suitable for helping a newbie head coach hit the ground running.

[HJS]

I would prefer we burn the program to the ground and spread salt on it.

Just out of curiosity, what in the world do you think we were doing the last dozen years?

[DuchesneEast]

Still waiting for Jared Dudley to get the offer.

[twballgame9]

i'm not certain, but i think i can hear the sounds of cutting and pasting as a result of and inspired by angry dick's post

You heard correctly, it was just happening in Mary Ann's.

[HJS]

Still waiting for Jared Dudley to get the offer.

I'd prefer that over any retread mentioned by Blauds. I am of the opinion that the only black coaches Blauds knows the names of have already appeared in his articles. Somewhere, Danny Manning, Walter McCarthy, Mike Davis and Henry Bibby are wondering how to hire Paul Hewitt's agent.

[Onyx Blackman]

I'd be okay with Nolan Richardson, but only as an assistant to Bobby Knight.

[claver2010]

i'm not certain, but i think i can hear the sounds of cutting and pasting as a result of and inspired by angry dick's post

cuarenta minutes de inferno if recall correctly

[Dick Rosenthal]

I would prefer we burn the program to the ground and spread salt on it.

Just out of curiosity, what in the world do you think we were doing the last dozen years?

I would divide this 12 year period of futility into three parts. First, was Greasy Gene feeling his oats and thinking he was discarding Al and his boring system for the next big thing—the guy who took Cornell to a Sweet 16. It was a bad hire, but at the time I can recall most observers thinking it was a bold move. As Donahue failed, Greasy Gene was eased out and Butt Cut was hired, we enter Part Two, where Leahy hires a guy as AD who looks good on paper but turns out to be utterly in over his head. Said AD is too stupid to understand what Leahy and the alums want out of him, so he outsources the responsibility to Fogeler who makes a pedestrian hire that is unpopular with fans looking for some pop, but is at least justifiable through Leahy’s prism—ie, Christian has had success elsewhere and is cheap. This goes badly and because our leadership is cheap, they refuse to pull the trigger when they should have a few years ago. Part three is where you get to the part where you can argue that leadership is now deliberately going full Scipio Africanus on the program, of course you could also argue that having poured a bunch of money into football—facilities and eventually coaching as well—that our cheap leadership was willing to take it in the shorts for a couple of more years to husband resources necessary to make a bold move upgrading infrastructure and coaching.

And so now, having stabilized, upgraded and digested the football expenses, we can hope that they are about to do the same thing with basketball. Hiring a young, dynamic alum and giving him an experienced staff would be an indication that that is where they want to go. Hiring a guy who has failed already with better resources is complete, abject surrender of the kind that can’t be spun. At that point, there would be no arguing that Leahy is out to destroy basketball—a charge that has already been made against him at Marquette.

[HJS]

I would prefer we burn the program to the ground and spread salt on it.

Just out of curiosity, what in the world do you think we were doing the last dozen years?

I would divide this 12 year period of futility into three parts. First, was Greasy Gene feeling his oats and thinking he was discarding Al and his boring system for the next big thing—the guy who took Cornell to a Sweet 16. It was a bad hire, but at the time I can recall most observers thinking it was a bold move. As Donahue failed, Greasy Gene was eased out and Butt Cut was hired, we enter Part Two, where Leahy hires a guy as AD who looks good on paper but turns out to be utterly in over his head. Said AD is too stupid to understand what Leahy and the alums want out of him, so he outsources the responsibility to Fogeler who makes a pedestrian hire that is unpopular with fans looking for some pop, but is at least justifiable through Leahy’s prism—ie, Christian has had success elsewhere and is cheap. This goes badly and because our leadership is cheap, they refuse to pull the trigger when they should have a few years ago. Part three is where you get to the part where you can argue that leadership is now deliberately going full Scipio Africanus on the program, of course you could also argue that having poured a bunch of money into football—facilities and eventually coaching as well—that our cheap leadership was willing to take it in the shorts for a couple of more years to husband resources necessary to make a bold move upgrading infrastructure and coaching.

And so now, having stabilized, upgraded and digested the football expenses, we can hope that they are about to do the same thing with basketball. Hiring a young, dynamic alum and giving him an experienced staff would be an indication that that is where they want to go. Hiring a guy who has failed already with better resources is complete, abject surrender of the kind that can’t be spun. At that point, there would be no arguing that Leahy is out to destroy basketball—a charge that has already been made against him at Marquette.

I agree with your recollection of Part One. I generally agree with your framing of Part Two, however, at no point in time did anyone ever think that Jimmy Mac hire was "justifiable". You can go back and look at the threads at the time, and NO ONE gave the guy a chance. It was immediately positioned as a joke of a search resulting in an even bigger joke of a hire. Part Three is again correct... though I think you need to acknowledge Marty's massive role in dragging this thing out an additional 3 years due to the surrendering a mindnumbing extension (which resulted in a failed firing attempt just months later).

As for the hire, as atrocious as the supposed candidates have been, I'd argue that they are all improvements over JC. Amaker, JT3, Hewitt and Manning would all be upgrades over JC... heck, even Brian Gregory would be an upgrade (even though we all know he would never leave Dayton). None of them would do anything in elevating the program (in wins or attention). But, none of them would sink it lower than where JC has piloted. I am fine with Eisley. If not him, I want someone under 50 (maybe appreciably so).

[Logitano]

So.. for posterity... Mark Blauschun apparently is reporting that our first choice is Tommy Amaker... if he turns us down, it is JT3... if he turns us down, it is Paul Hewitt. That’s the top 3 from his sources. If we get rejected from all these hot commodities, our fallback is Eisley.

There is a better chance that I am appointed head of the search and hire Schmidt then there is a chance of JT3 or Paul Hewitt—a guy coming off of running a George Mason team that should perennially contend for the A10 into the ground. I mean, I suppose he and JT3 have both gone to Final Fours after landing players that neither would have any chance of getting at BC, so there is that. Meanwhile, Amaker couldn’t attract talent to Michigan and is regularly out coached by The Don. Amazing. If he is the pick—and that is something I could see happening, such is my lack of faith in the idiots running our alma mater—I would prefer we burn the program to the ground and spread salt on it.

I have an idea. If we are going to hire an African-American candidate with big time success at a P5 conference that has not done much since he left, let’s go whole hog—so to speak—and hire Nolan Richardson. Time to give the rest of the ACC 40 Minutes of Hell every night and see what happens.

Paul Hewitt and JT3 did have a common foe on their runs to the final 4.

[ATLeagle]

So.. for posterity... Mark Blauschun apparently is reporting that our first choice is Tommy Amaker... if he turns us down, it is JT3... if he turns us down, it is Paul Hewitt. That’s the top 3 from his sources. If we get rejected from all these hot commodities, our fallback is Eisley.

This is really wrong. And if Hewitt ever got a sniff of this job, then PK would be a disgrace. Eisley is not the fallback. They are not hiring a guy who has never been an assistant.

[Corporal Funishment]

I would prefer we burn the program to the ground and spread salt on it.

Just out of curiosity, what in the world do you think we were doing the last dozen years?

I would divide this 12 year period of futility into three parts. First, was Greasy Gene feeling his oats and thinking he was discarding Al and his boring system for the next big thing—the guy who took Cornell to a Sweet 16. It was a bad hire, but at the time I can recall most observers thinking it was a bold move. As Donahue failed, Greasy Gene was eased out and Butt Cut was hired, we enter Part Two, where Leahy hires a guy as AD who looks good on paper but turns out to be utterly in over his head. Said AD is too stupid to understand what Leahy and the alums want out of him, so he outsources the responsibility to Fogeler who makes a pedestrian hire that is unpopular with fans looking for some pop, but is at least justifiable through Leahy’s prism—ie, Christian has had success elsewhere and is cheap. This goes badly and because our leadership is cheap, they refuse to pull the trigger when they should have a few years ago. Part three is where you get to the part where you can argue that leadership is now deliberately going full Scipio Africanus on the program, of course you could also argue that having poured a bunch of money into football—facilities and eventually coaching as well—that our cheap leadership was willing to take it in the shorts for a couple of more years to husband resources necessary to make a bold move upgrading infrastructure and coaching.

And so now, having stabilized, upgraded and digested the football expenses, we can hope that they are about to do the same thing with basketball. Hiring a young, dynamic alum and giving him an experienced staff would be an indication that that is where they want to go. Hiring a guy who has failed already with better resources is complete, abject surrender of the kind that can’t be spun. At that point, there would be no arguing that Leahy is out to destroy basketball—a charge that has already been made against him at Marquette.

I believe you meant Scipio Aemilianus.

[innocentbystander]

I would prefer we burn the program to the ground and spread salt on it.

Just out of curiosity, what in the world do you think we were doing the last dozen years?

I would divide this 12 year period of futility into three parts. First, was Greasy Gene feeling his oats and thinking he was discarding Al and his boring system for the next big thing—the guy who took Cornell to a Sweet 16. It was a bad hire, but at the time I can recall most observers thinking it was a bold move. As Donahue failed, Greasy Gene was eased out and Butt Cut was hired, we enter Part Two, where Leahy hires a guy as AD who looks good on paper but turns out to be utterly in over his head. Said AD is too stupid to understand what Leahy and the alums want out of him, so he outsources the responsibility to Fogeler who makes a pedestrian hire that is unpopular with fans looking for some pop, but is at least justifiable through Leahy’s prism—ie, Christian has had success elsewhere and is cheap. This goes badly and because our leadership is cheap, they refuse to pull the trigger when they should have a few years ago. Part three is where you get to the part where you can argue that leadership is now deliberately going full Scipio Africanus on the program, of course you could also argue that having poured a bunch of money into football—facilities and eventually coaching as well—that our cheap leadership was willing to take it in the shorts for a couple of more years to husband resources necessary to make a bold move upgrading infrastructure and coaching.

And so now, having stabilized, upgraded and digested the football expenses, we can hope that they are about to do the same thing with basketball. Hiring a young, dynamic alum and giving him an experienced staff would be an indication that that is where they want to go. Hiring a guy who has failed already with better resources is complete, abject surrender of the kind that can’t be spun. At that point, there would be no arguing that Leahy is out to destroy basketball—a charge that has already been made against him at Marquette.

I don't care who they hire so long as he recruits ACC level talent and wins with it.

[twballgame9]

So.. for posterity... Mark Blauschun apparently is reporting that our first choice is Tommy Amaker... if he turns us down, it is JT3... if he turns us down, it is Paul Hewitt. That’s the top 3 from his sources. If we get rejected from all these hot commodities, our fallback is Eisley.

This is really wrong. And if Hewitt ever got a sniff of this job, then PK would be a disgrace. Eisley is not the fallback. They are not hiring a guy who has never been an assistant.

I am confused, who has never been an assistant?

[2001Eagle]

Who are the two priority names listed in the 247 article today?

[ATLeagle]

So.. for posterity... Mark Blauschun apparently is reporting that our first choice is Tommy Amaker... if he turns us down, it is JT3... if he turns us down, it is Paul Hewitt. That’s the top 3 from his sources. If we get rejected from all these hot commodities, our fallback is Eisley.

This is really wrong. And if Hewitt ever got a sniff of this job, then PK would be a disgrace. Eisley is not the fallback. They are not hiring a guy who has never been head coach.

[BCEagles25]

Who are the two priority names listed in the 247 article today?

Probably some bullshit

Doubt we know much more of worth until the good-at-basketball teams stop playing

[eepstein0]

I would prefer we burn the program to the ground and spread salt on it.

Just out of curiosity, what in the world do you think we were doing the last dozen years?

I would divide this 12 year period of futility into three parts. First, was Greasy Gene feeling his oats and thinking he was discarding Al and his boring system for the next big thing—the guy who took Cornell to a Sweet 16. It was a bad hire, but at the time I can recall most observers thinking it was a bold move. As Donahue failed, Greasy Gene was eased out and Butt Cut was hired, we enter Part Two, where Leahy hires a guy as AD who looks good on paper but turns out to be utterly in over his head. Said AD is too stupid to understand what Leahy and the alums want out of him, so he outsources the responsibility to Fogeler who makes a pedestrian hire that is unpopular with fans looking for some pop, but is at least justifiable through Leahy’s prism—ie, Christian has had success elsewhere and is cheap. This goes badly and because our leadership is cheap, they refuse to pull the trigger when they should have a few years ago. Part three is where you get to the part where you can argue that leadership is now deliberately going full Scipio Africanus on the program, of course you could also argue that having poured a bunch of money into football—facilities and eventually coaching as well—that our cheap leadership was willing to take it in the shorts for a couple of more years to husband resources necessary to make a bold move upgrading infrastructure and coaching.

And so now, having stabilized, upgraded and digested the football expenses, we can hope that they are about to do the same thing with basketball. Hiring a young, dynamic alum and giving him an experienced staff would be an indication that that is where they want to go. Hiring a guy who has failed already with better resources is complete, abject surrender of the kind that can’t be spun. At that point, there would be no arguing that Leahy is out to destroy basketball—a charge that has already been made against him at Marquette.

I agree with your recollection of Part One. I generally agree with your framing of Part Two, however, at no point in time did anyone ever think that Jimmy Mac hire was "justifiable". You can go back and look at the threads at the time, and NO ONE gave the guy a chance. It was immediately positioned as a joke of a search resulting in an even bigger joke of a hire. Part Three is again correct... though I think you need to acknowledge Marty's massive role in dragging this thing out an additional 3 years due to the surrendering a mindnumbing extension (which resulted in a failed firing attempt just months later).

As for the hire, as atrocious as the supposed candidates have been, I'd argue that they are all improvements over JC. Amaker, JT3, Hewitt and Manning would all be upgrades over JC... heck, even Brian Gregory would be an upgrade (even though we all know he would never leave Dayton). None of them would do anything in elevating the program (in wins or attention). But, none of them would sink it lower than where JC has piloted. I am fine with Eisley. If not him, I want someone under 50 (maybe appreciably so).

I’ve been a season ticket holder to teams coached by JTIII and Paul Hewitt. They are both a million times worse than JC.

[twballgame9]

So.. for posterity... Mark Blauschun apparently is reporting that our first choice is Tommy Amaker... if he turns us down, it is JT3... if he turns us down, it is Paul Hewitt. That’s the top 3 from his sources. If we get rejected from all these hot commodities, our fallback is Eisley.

This is really wrong. And if Hewitt ever got a sniff of this job, then PK would be a disgrace. Eisley is not the fallback. They are not hiring a guy who has never been head coach.

If I'm reading this right it is really stupid of BC.

[eepstein0]

If BC hired Amaker I hope they realize he has a better basketball program, brand name and support at Harvard than he’ll have at BC.