"Average Al" Skinner

[JConman]

Equaly annoying about Eagledom's argument about looking at the whole 13 years is that the whole 13 year span is pretty damn good. He inherited a program in shambles coming off an admissions scandal in which there were many allegations that BC was a racist institution. The negative publicity was unbelievable. I believe we had like 6 or 7 scholarship players his first year in 97-98, 2 of whom were last minute recruits Harley and Berrbohm. 4 of those players (Curley, Woodward, Granger and the Greek guy whose name escapes me either graduated or left). He then had to basicaly build a whole new team in 98-99. We sucked for 2 years, and then in his 4th season we won the Big East title (00-01). He then followed that with another NCAA tourney appearance, and an NIT appearance in which we were probably the last team left out. So stop making it sound like he had Jim O'Brien's first 8 years, Eagledom.

[angryty]

The problem with this argument is that both sides overstate their case. The King of Dicks loses credibility when he basically says Al Skinner is a horrible coach. However, the Skinner rah-rahs lose a lot of credibility when they fail to acknowledge that Skinner is an awful tournament coach and that he squandered a couple of teams that had multiple NBA players on them. Skinner is a slightly above-average coach--the black Herb Sendik--who has reached his ceiling at BC. There is no mystery about the guy at this point, he is what he is. If people are happy with that, so be it. I am not and while I don't want him fired for a variety of reasons, I think a Toby-style divorce wouldn't be a bad thing for the program at some point in the next year or two.

[EaglesTalon]

The problem with this argument is that both sides overstate their case. The King of Dicks loses credibility when he basically says Al Skinner is a horrible coach. However, the Skinner rah-rahs lose a lot of credibility when they fail to acknowledge that Skinner is an awful tournament coach and that he squandered a couple of teams that had multiple NBA players on them. Skinner is a slightly above-average coach--the black Herb Sendik--who has reached his ceiling at BC. There is no mystery about the guy at this point, he is what he is. If people are happy with that, so be it. I am not and while I don't want him fired for a variety of reasons, I think a Toby-style divorce wouldn't be a bad thing for the program at some point in the next year or two.

In my second post in this thread, I said that Al Skinner is a good coach who has underachieved in March.


I guess I don't really differentiate between a first round loss and a second round loss. Winning two games and advancing to the second weekend is nice, because a team is still relevant in the four days of down time. But, then, when you get to the second weekend, I still don't see a difference between losing in the sweet sixteen or the elite 8.

People look at 2006 as an indictment on Al Skinner's ability to coach when BC lost to a #1 seed by one point in overtime in the Sweet Sixteen. But if BC had won that game and lost two days later to the eventual national champions, would that have suddenly made a disappointing year into a satisfying year?

[branchinator]

The problem with this argument is that both sides overstate their case. The King of Dicks loses credibility when he basically says Al Skinner is a horrible coach. However, the Skinner rah-rahs lose a lot of credibility when they fail to acknowledge that Skinner is an awful tournament coach and that he squandered a couple of teams that had multiple NBA players on them. Skinner is a slightly above-average coach--the black Herb Sendik--who has reached his ceiling at BC. There is no mystery about the guy at this point, he is what he is. If people are happy with that, so be it. I am not and while I don't want him fired for a variety of reasons, I think a Toby-style divorce wouldn't be a bad thing for the program at some point in the next year or two.

In my second post in this thread, I said that Al Skinner is a good coach who has underachieved in March.

I guess I don't really differentiate between a first round loss and a second round loss. Winning two games and advancing to the second weekend is nice, because a team is still relevant in the four days of down time. But, then, when you get to the second weekend, I still don't see a difference between losing in the sweet sixteen or the elite 8.

People look at 2006 as an indictment on Al Skinner's ability to coach when BC lost to a #1 seed by one point in overtime in the Sweet Sixteen. But if BC had won that game and lost two days later to the eventual national champions, would that have suddenly made a disappointing year into a satisfying year?

It's not the fact that BC lost that warrants criticism on Al, it's HOW they lost, including a blown 17 or 18 first half lead and ultimately getting beaten on a fucking back door cut. That's just weak. In 2005, BC raced out to a 12-0 or so lead against UW-M and then proceeded to get steamrolled because the team was clue as to how to break a press. Again, that's on coaching. Al's total body of work is fine but if you narrow your scope to the NCAA tournament, Al doesn't come off looking too good.

[buconvict]

The problem with this argument is that both sides overstate their case. The King of Dicks loses credibility when he basically says Al Skinner is a horrible coach. However, the Skinner rah-rahs lose a lot of credibility when they fail to acknowledge that Skinner is an awful tournament coach and that he squandered a couple of teams that had multiple NBA players on them. Skinner is a slightly above-average coach--the black Herb Sendik--who has reached his ceiling at BC. There is no mystery about the guy at this point, he is what he is. If people are happy with that, so be it. I am not and while I don't want him fired for a variety of reasons, I think a Toby-style divorce wouldn't be a bad thing for the program at some point in the next year or two.

In my second post in this thread, I said that Al Skinner is a good coach who has underachieved in March.

I guess I don't really differentiate between a first round loss and a second round loss. Winning two games and advancing to the second weekend is nice, because a team is still relevant in the four days of down time. But, then, when you get to the second weekend, I still don't see a difference between losing in the sweet sixteen or the elite 8.

People look at 2006 as an indictment on Al Skinner's ability to coach when BC lost to a #1 seed by one point in overtime in the Sweet Sixteen. But if BC had won that game and lost two days later to the eventual national champions, would that have suddenly made a disappointing year into a satisfying year?

It's not the fact that BC lost that warrants criticism on Al, it's HOW they lost, including a blown 17 or 18 first half lead and ultimately getting beaten on a fucking back door cut. That's just weak. In 2005, BC raced out to a 12-0 or so lead against UW-M and then proceeded to get steamrolled because the team was clue as to how to break a press. Again, that's on coaching. Al's total body of work is fine but if you narrow your scope to the NCAA tournament, Al doesn't come off looking too good.

Agreed. However, can you really blame Al Skinner for Villanova catching fire from three in the second half, and *** ******* not guarding anybody on the final play?

[branchinator]

You're right. The head coach bears no responsibility when his team blows such a big lead. I mean, Villanova was on fire!!!!!

[EaglesTalon]

Do people really think that only BC is involved in games were big leads evaporate? I can't tell you how many times I've been flipping through channels and have seen a game that looks like it's going to be a blowout, then when I flip through 15-20 minutes later, it's suddenly a close game.

If people want to judge Al solely on his tournament record, then fine. I just think that if you look at ALL the games he's coached, he's a better than average coach. I don't think that over the past ten years, you can routinely finish in the top third of the Big East and the ACC (widely considered two of the top college conferences) if you're just an average or mediocre coach.

And I'll never understand why Al always gets marks taken away when his teams lose a game they should have won, but never gets those credits back when his teams win a game they should have lost. Especially when I think the reasons that BC tends to drop these winnable games is very much the same as the reason why BC can win games against very good or great teams. So, postseason record aside, would BC fans prefer to have an up-and-down regular season, where they'll drop some games that piss you off, but they'll win games that will allow our bandwagon fairweather students to rush the court when they win? Or would the regular seasons be a lot more fun if BC always beat the bad teams, but never beat anybody good?

[branchinator]

Criticizing Skinner's tournament performance, which is quite bad, doesn't mean that you think he's an average coach overall. Getting a team with BC's talent to the tournament consistently is not easy and Skinner deserves credit for this. But when you get there, you want more. And Skinner's teams have seriously underperformed. I'd say that Skinner's top 2 teams this decade were the 2000-2001 Big East Champion squad and the 2005-2006 team that nearly won the ACC tournament. And both teams laid serious eggs in the first round and were lucky to advance.

[EaglesTalon]

Criticizing Skinner's tournament performance, which is quite bad, doesn't mean that you think he's an average coach overall.

there are plenty of people on this site who have made that exact argument.

[buconvict]

You're right. The head coach bears no responsibility when his team blows such a big lead. I mean, Villanova was on fire!!!!!

That Villanova had 4 guards who played in the NBA. To suggest that Al could've magically done something about them catching fire in the second half (when they scored like 40-something points) is foolish. Go zone, they shoot over you. Go man, and they get dribble penetration on a bigger, slower, defender.

I'm not happy the way that game turned out, but saying "BC lost because of Al Skinner" is beyond dumb.

[branchinator]

You're right. The head coach bears no responsibility when his team blows such a big lead. I mean, Villanova was on fire!!!!!

That Villanova had 4 guards who played in the NBA. To suggest that Al could've magically done something about them catching fire in the second half (when they scored like 40-something points) is foolish. Go zone, they shoot over you. Go man, and they get dribble penetration on a bigger, slower, defender.

I'm not happy the way that game turned out, but saying "BC lost because of Al Skinner" is beyond dumb.

Good thing I never said "BC lost because of Al Skinner". But he does bear a good portion of the responsibility. That BC team also had 3 NBA players and 3 others (Rice, Hinnant, Marshall) who're having productive careers in Europe. Our offense after the first 10 minutes of that game grinded to a halt. Defense wasn't the reason we lost.

As for Villanova "catching fire", they scored a whopping 27 points in the 2nd half. You're right, they really blew us out of the building in the 2nd half. You might want to consider checking your facts before posting next time. You'll sound a little less retarded if you do.

[EaglesTalon]

Just for shits and giggles I took all the Big East teams and looked at their average # of wins per year from 1999 to 2004 (I threw out TOB's first two years and gave him the benefit of the doubt of suffering from the horrible effects of GAMBLOR).

Miami 6.60
Virginia Tech 4.80
Pittsburgh 4.00
West Virginia 3.83
Syracuse 3.50
Boston College 3.50
Temple 1.33
Rutgers 0.67

Also worth noting that the two years I threw out, Syracuse finished 6-1 in the BE both of those years. So, for TOB's tenure in the Big East, he was better than Rutgers and Temple.

[buconvict]

You're right. The head coach bears no responsibility when his team blows such a big lead. I mean, Villanova was on fire!!!!!

That Villanova had 4 guards who played in the NBA. To suggest that Al could've magically done something about them catching fire in the second half (when they scored like 40-something points) is foolish. Go zone, they shoot over you. Go man, and they get dribble penetration on a bigger, slower, defender.

I'm not happy the way that game turned out, but saying "BC lost because of Al Skinner" is beyond dumb.

Good thing I never said "BC lost because of Al Skinner". But he does bear a good portion of the responsibility. That BC team also had 3 NBA players and 3 others (Rice, Hinnant, Marshall) who're having productive careers in Europe. Our offense after the first 10 minutes of that game grinded to a halt. Defense wasn't the reason we lost.

As for Villanova "catching fire", they scored a whopping 27 points in the 2nd half. You're right, they really blew us out of the building in the 2nd half. You might want to consider checking your facts before posting next time. You'll sound a little less retarded if you do.

Rice got hurt and didn't play in the second half. Retard.

Al needs to take the blame because his team didn't shoot well in the second half. Got it.

[branchinator]

Are you going to address the fact that you said that Villanova was "catching fire" in the 2nd half and scored "40 something points" when they actually only scored 27 points while shooting 8 for 27 from the field? If your goal was to be as incorrect as possible, you did a very good job and I commend you. And I commend you further for attempting to bring Tyrese Rice's injury into the fold when it obviously has no impact on your point of Villanova catching fire, which never happened unless you think 33.3% is "catching fire".