What do you like best about Al Skinner?

[BCEagles25]

His recruiting skills?
His player developement skills?
His in-game skills
His mental tougness?
His ability to draw up a mean inbounds play?

In all seriousness, I love his recruiting. He takes under-recruited players and slays with them. He slays everyone except Harvard.

[Eagledom]

His recruiting skills?
His player developement skills?
His in-game skills
His mental tougness?
His ability to draw up a mean inbounds play?

In all seriousness, I love his recruiting. He takes under-recruited players and slays with them. He slays everyone except Harvard.

This under-recruited stuff is B.S. Its a nice way of saying he can't recruit anyone good. Before I get all the "what about Troy Bell, Craig Smith, and Jared Dudley" responses, let's remember this is over a 14 year period - of course there are going to be exceptions when you play in one of the best conferences in the country. Fact is, overall, his recruiting has not been very good. The "diamond in the rough" complement is actually very similar to the other most popular saying about Al - "he never gets too excited or nervous - he's always under control, and the team takes on his personality." In good times, this is a nice way of saying, his teams will never fall apart when things are going bad. On the other hand, his teams consistently play with no fire and, therefore, play down to the level of the competition and lose games against complete SHIT teams (Harvard, Robert Morris, URI, St. Joes, St. Bonny, St. Louis, Wisconsin Milwaukee, Duquesne, etc, etc, etc.).

[commavegarage]

Haha. Nothing like OJ in action. No response. I just laugh.

[EaglesTalon]

I'd love to hear OJ's explanation on how a shitty coach can take shitty recruits and routinely finish in the top third of two of the best college basketball conferences in the country.

[BC923]

Dare I say his snappy dressing?

[Eagledom]

I'd love to hear OJ's explanation on how a shitty coach can take shitty recruits and routinely finish in the top third of two of the best college basketball conferences in the country.

last 3 years....6th, 11th, 3rd. Routinely in the top 1/3?

[EaglesTalon]

If you compare all the Big East teams in Al Skinner's last five seasons in the Big East, take the average # of conference wins per team and list them from best to worst, you get this:

Pittsburgh 11.6
Syracuse 11.2
Connecticut 11.2
Boston College 11
Notre Dame 9.8
Villanova 8.2
Providence 8
Georgetown 7.4
Seton Hall 7.2
Miami 6.25
West Virginia 5.8
St. John's 5.6
Rutgers 4.8
Virginia Tech 4

Then, if you compare all the ACC teams in Al Skinner's first four seasons in the ACC, take the average # of conference wins per team and list them from best to worst, you get this:

North Carolina 12.5
Duke 11.5
Boston College 8.5
Clemson 8.25
Florida State 8.25
Maryland 8.25
Virginia Tech 7.5
Virginia 6.75
Miami 6.5
Wake Forest 6.5
NC State 6.25
Georgia Tech 5.25

Last five seasons in the Big East BC had the fourth highest # of wins per year in a 14 team conference. Is that not top third?
In the first four full seasons in the ACC, BC had the third highest # of wins per year in a 12 team conference. Is that not top third?

[Eagledom]

If you compare all the Big East teams in Al Skinner's last five seasons in the Big East, take the average # of conference wins per team and list them from best to worst, you get this:

Pittsburgh 11.6
Syracuse 11.2
Connecticut 11.2
Boston College 11
Notre Dame 9.8
Villanova 8.2
Providence 8
Georgetown 7.4
Seton Hall 7.2
Miami 6.25
West Virginia 5.8
St. John's 5.6
Rutgers 4.8
Virginia Tech 4

Then, if you compare all the ACC teams in Al Skinner's first four seasons in the ACC, take the average # of conference wins per team and list them from best to worst, you get this:

North Carolina 12.5
Duke 11.5
Boston College 8.5
Clemson 8.25
Florida State 8.25
Maryland 8.25
Virginia Tech 7.5
Virginia 6.75
Miami 6.5
Wake Forest 6.5
NC State 6.25
Georgia Tech 5.25

Last five seasons in the Big East BC had the fourth highest # of wins per year in a 14 team conference. Is that not top third?
In the first four full seasons in the ACC, BC had the third highest # of wins per year in a 12 team conference. Is that not top third?

Once, again, your cut-off in the big-east is convenient. What would happen if you added one more year? As far as the ACC goes, 6th, 11th, 3rd.

[commavegarage]

Got him OJ!

In the last 9 years, Skinner averages about 3.5th in finishing.

If OJ disagreed about Coach K's recent results, he would say, "But what about the first years he was there?"

[RyanBC]

OJ Sucks ass.

[EaglesTalon]

What would happen if you added one more year? As far as the ACC goes, 6th, 11th, 3rd.

BC would drop to 9.7 wins per year over six years instead of 11 wins per year over five years. BC would still be in 4th out of 14 teams for a six year period instead of four.

Since the ACC expanded to 12 teams, Boston College has won more games in the ACC than every team except UNC and Duke. A shitty coach with shitty recruits does that how ... ?

[buconvict]

What would happen if you added one more year? As far as the ACC goes, 6th, 11th, 3rd.

BC would drop to 9.7 wins per year over six years instead of 11 wins per year over five years. BC would still be in 4th out of 14 teams for a six year period instead of four.

Since the ACC expanded to 12 teams, Boston College has won more games in the ACC than every team except UNC and Duke. A shitty coach with shitty recruits does that how ... ?

FAXCIAL

[Eagledom]

What would happen if you added one more year? As far as the ACC goes, 6th, 11th, 3rd.

BC would drop to 9.7 wins per year over six years instead of 11 wins per year over five years. BC would still be in 4th out of 14 teams for a six year period instead of four.

Since the ACC expanded to 12 teams, Boston College has won more games in the ACC than every team except UNC and Duke. A shitty coach with shitty recruits does that how ... ?

FAXCIAL

Small sample size, pluse a 6th place finish and a 12th place finish. Nothing overly impressive.

Not to mention one of those teams was the best he has ever had a BC with Smith, Dudley, Marshall, Hinnant, Rice, and **** ******** and he still underachieved with them when it counted.

[BCEagles25]

What would happen if you added one more year? As far as the ACC goes, 6th, 11th, 3rd.

BC would drop to 9.7 wins per year over six years instead of 11 wins per year over five years. BC would still be in 4th out of 14 teams for a six year period instead of four.

Since the ACC expanded to 12 teams, Boston College has won more games in the ACC than every team except UNC and Duke. A shitty coach with shitty recruits does that how ... ?

FAXCIAL

Small sample size, pluse a 6th place finish and a 12th place finish. Nothing overly impressive.

Not to mention one of those teams was the best he has ever had a BC with Smith, Dudley, Marshall, Hinnant, Rice, and **** ******** and he still underachieved with them when it counted.

You're not winning this arguement. You'll never win this arguement. Keep trying, though it's kinda funny.

[Eagledom]

What would happen if you added one more year? As far as the ACC goes, 6th, 11th, 3rd.

BC would drop to 9.7 wins per year over six years instead of 11 wins per year over five years. BC would still be in 4th out of 14 teams for a six year period instead of four.

Since the ACC expanded to 12 teams, Boston College has won more games in the ACC than every team except UNC and Duke. A shitty coach with shitty recruits does that how ... ?

FAXCIAL

Small sample size, pluse a 6th place finish and a 12th place finish. Nothing overly impressive.

Not to mention one of those teams was the best he has ever had a BC with Smith, Dudley, Marshall, Hinnant, Rice, and **** ******** and he still underachieved with them when it counted.

You're not winning this arguement. You'll never win this arguement. Keep trying, though it's kinda funny.

Actually, its quite the opposite. I have already won this argument once. Al's results prove it. He is nothing but an average coach, a lazy recruiter, with absolutely pitiful results in the postseason. Its pathetic that BC fans expect so little of the basketball program that "top third" finishes and ZERO results in the postseason are all we expect from the basketball team. But Al realizes that and has been coasting along for years.

[pick6pedro]

This whole argument is reatrded. Dom, your definition of average is the entire problem here. You refuse to either acknowledge that average means different things to different people or that it's possible that Al falls somewhere outside the "average" category that you label him. Every time anyone cites his accomplishments, you say that person is "pathetic" because they "expect so little of the program" even when they don't mention whether those are their expectations or not. You even say it if someone states they are still disappointed despite some successes and some failures. Problem is that citing the good things he's done (which you refuse to do - calling his regular season results "not overly impressive") is exactly what takes him out of the average category. Or at least out of the "average" that most people would define. So how about you start by defining average as you see it because clearly you're not sure what that word means. And how about you look at a whole body of work rather than what helps your argument.

Until then, your argument is pointless and can't be taken seriously.

[Heights]

He lets his teams dig themselves out (or not) of a hole. He never does the panic TO like JOB did at the slightest turns in the game and forces his lineups (once he has identified the keepers) to play through horrible stretches and either turn it around or go down in flames. Infuriates everyone and is tough to watch early in the season every year, but I think pays off in the long run. Sink or swim. He is the anti-JOB type of coach which is fine with me.

He finds out who can suck it up and turn it around and not panic and which players fold. I think this really is why he is able to get (usually) guys who later in the season don't panic and are used to toughing out bad stretches in games.

What I don't like is failure to have a breakthrough at least to the 8 and Final Four at least once with 3 legitimate chances with really great teams. Still waiting for why he got stubborn and went with experience and did not play Rice in the second half against Villanova when they stepped up the pressure and we desperately needed more quickness. And no, I don't buy the "he was hurt" throwaway line the coaches used in the aftermath to explain this.

[buconvict]

What would happen if you added one more year? As far as the ACC goes, 6th, 11th, 3rd.

BC would drop to 9.7 wins per year over six years instead of 11 wins per year over five years. BC would still be in 4th out of 14 teams for a six year period instead of four.

Since the ACC expanded to 12 teams, Boston College has won more games in the ACC than every team except UNC and Duke. A shitty coach with shitty recruits does that how ... ?

FAXCIAL

Small sample size, pluse a 6th place finish and a 12th place finish. Nothing overly impressive.

Not to mention one of those teams was the best he has ever had a BC with Smith, Dudley, Marshall, Hinnant, Rice, and **** ******** and he still underachieved with them when it counted.

Small Sample size? Talon just gave you 10 years of stats. That's not small.

btw, who recruited Smith, Dudley, Marshall, Hinnant, Rice, and Williams?

[Eagledom]

This whole argument is reatrded. Dom, your definition of average is the entire problem here. You refuse to either acknowledge that average means different things to different people or that it's possible that Al falls somewhere outside the "average" category that you label him. Every time anyone cites his accomplishments, you say that person is "pathetic" because they "expect so little of the program" even when they don't mention whether those are their expectations or not. You even say it if someone states they are still disappointed despite some successes and some failures. Problem is that citing the good things he's done (which you refuse to do - calling his regular season results "not overly impressive") is exactly what takes him out of the average category. Or at least out of the "average" that most people would define. So how about you start by defining average as you see it because clearly you're not sure what that word means. And how about you look at a whole body of work rather than what helps your argument.

Until then, your argument is pointless and can't be taken seriously.

Since we are never going to agree on whether he qualifies as average, above average, or great due to the amount of subjectivity involved, I will leave it at this. Al has taken BC as far as he can. There is no indication that over the past 10 years, he is improving the program significantly...it is just more of the same year after year. Personally, I'd like a new coach that will build on what Al has established - a SOLID program that needs to take things a step further, both in terms of recruiting and national recognition and sucess. I believe he has reached his ceiling and really doesn't have the desire or passion to take things any further.

[Logitano]

He finds out who can suck it up and turn it around and not panic and which players fold. I think this really is why he is able to get (usually) guys who later in the season don't panic and are used to toughing out bad stretches in games.

What I don't like is failure to have a breakthrough at least to the 8 and Final Four at least once with 3 legitimate chances with really great teams. Still waiting for why he got stubborn and went with experience and did not play Rice in the second half against Villanova when they stepped up the pressure and we desperately needed more quickness. And no, I don't buy the "he was hurt" throwaway line the coaches used in the aftermath to explain this.

Dude, his teams routinely panic in big game situations. If you have that as a +

[eepstein0]

This whole argument is reatrded. Dom, your definition of average is the entire problem here. You refuse to either acknowledge that average means different things to different people or that it's possible that Al falls somewhere outside the "average" category that you label him. Every time anyone cites his accomplishments, you say that person is "pathetic" because they "expect so little of the program" even when they don't mention whether those are their expectations or not. You even say it if someone states they are still disappointed despite some successes and some failures. Problem is that citing the good things he's done (which you refuse to do - calling his regular season results "not overly impressive") is exactly what takes him out of the average category. Or at least out of the "average" that most people would define. So how about you start by defining average as you see it because clearly you're not sure what that word means. And how about you look at a whole body of work rather than what helps your argument.

Until then, your argument is pointless and can't be taken seriously.

Since we are never going to agree on whether he qualifies as average, above average, or great due to the amount of subjectivity involved, I will leave it at this. Al has taken BC as far as he can. There is no indication that over the past 10 years, he is improving the program significantly...it is just more of the same year after year. Personally, I'd like a new coach that will build on what Al has established - a SOLID program that needs to take things a step further, both in terms of recruiting and national recognition and sucess. I believe he has reached his ceiling and really doesn't have the desire or passion to take things any further.

Completely agreed. Al's done a nice job, but I want someone to elevate this program to Villanova & Georgetown level. If Al can do it, which there's no past evidence of it, then he's the guy for the job. Otherwise, find me someone else.

[bcbcbcbcbc4444]

This whole argument is reatrded. Dom, your definition of average is the entire problem here. You refuse to either acknowledge that average means different things to different people or that it's possible that Al falls somewhere outside the "average" category that you label him. Every time anyone cites his accomplishments, you say that person is "pathetic" because they "expect so little of the program" even when they don't mention whether those are their expectations or not. You even say it if someone states they are still disappointed despite some successes and some failures. Problem is that citing the good things he's done (which you refuse to do - calling his regular season results "not overly impressive") is exactly what takes him out of the average category. Or at least out of the "average" that most people would define. So how about you start by defining average as you see it because clearly you're not sure what that word means. And how about you look at a whole body of work rather than what helps your argument.

Until then, your argument is pointless and can't be taken seriously.

Since we are never going to agree on whether he qualifies as average, above average, or great due to the amount of subjectivity involved, I will leave it at this. Al has taken BC as far as he can. There is no indication that over the past 10 years, he is improving the program significantly...it is just more of the same year after year. Personally, I'd like a new coach that will build on what Al has established - a SOLID program that needs to take things a step further, both in terms of recruiting and national recognition and sucess. I believe he has reached his ceiling and really doesn't have the desire or passion to take things any further.

Completely agreed. Al's done a nice job, but I want someone to elevate this program to Villanova & Georgetown level. If Al can do it, which there's no past evidence of it, then he's the guy for the job. Otherwise, find me someone else.

What makes you think we can just transform into Villanova or Georgetown? I think everyone would be happy to let Al go if this were the case, but the chances of this happening are slim, even if Gene decided he wanted to turn BC into that kind of program (not likely).

[eepstein0]

This whole argument is reatrded. Dom, your definition of average is the entire problem here. You refuse to either acknowledge that average means different things to different people or that it's possible that Al falls somewhere outside the "average" category that you label him. Every time anyone cites his accomplishments, you say that person is "pathetic" because they "expect so little of the program" even when they don't mention whether those are their expectations or not. You even say it if someone states they are still disappointed despite some successes and some failures. Problem is that citing the good things he's done (which you refuse to do - calling his regular season results "not overly impressive") is exactly what takes him out of the average category. Or at least out of the "average" that most people would define. So how about you start by defining average as you see it because clearly you're not sure what that word means. And how about you look at a whole body of work rather than what helps your argument.

Until then, your argument is pointless and can't be taken seriously.

Since we are never going to agree on whether he qualifies as average, above average, or great due to the amount of subjectivity involved, I will leave it at this. Al has taken BC as far as he can. There is no indication that over the past 10 years, he is improving the program significantly...it is just more of the same year after year. Personally, I'd like a new coach that will build on what Al has established - a SOLID program that needs to take things a step further, both in terms of recruiting and national recognition and sucess. I believe he has reached his ceiling and really doesn't have the desire or passion to take things any further.

Completely agreed. Al's done a nice job, but I want someone to elevate this program to Villanova & Georgetown level. If Al can do it, which there's no past evidence of it, then he's the guy for the job. Otherwise, find me someone else.

What makes you think we can just transform into Villanova or Georgetown? I think everyone would be happy to let Al go if this were the case, but the chances of this happening are slim, even if Gene decided he wanted to turn BC into that kind of program (not likely).

Bring in some top notch recruits, make a deep tournament run, put BC Basketball on the map because of the former two ideas and there you go. It's not brain surgery. The way to take this team to the next level is to improve our NCAA Tournament performance.

[bcbcbcbcbc4444]

If its that easy why doesnt every school just decide to do that?

[twballgame9]

If its that easy why doesnt every school just decide to do that?

Amen.

[Eagledom]

If its that easy why doesnt every school just decide to do that?

it starts with having a coach that is any good and actually WANTS to do better.

[bcbcbcbcbc4444]

If its that easy why doesnt every school just decide to do that?

it starts with having a coach that is any good and actually WANTS to do better.

Who do you think will be hired if Al is let go?

[BCEagle74]

Al likes early March vacations with the family!

[eepstein0]

Al likes early March vacations with the family!

It's nice to be able to schedule around those type of things.