All-Time BC Suck Team

[branchinator]

I said that Paul Hewitt wasn't a one-year wonder. And he wasn't. He also made the tournament 4 other times while at Georgia Tech. There was no shifting of arguments but nice try anyways, Mrs. Skinner.

He was a one-year wonder because the other times he made it to the tournament he was bounced in the first or second round

So, according to this simplistic logic, Skinner's 2005-2006 season was a "one year wonder" as well. But I wouldn't consider him as such. It's hard to reach the NCAA Tournament. Hewitt was terribly inconsistent as a coach but he certainly wasn't a one year wonder. Again, keep trying.

[twballgame9]

He wasn't a one year wonder, Caddy, he was more like an every other year guy. He was a piss poor coach that could land NBA level athletes, not realizing that unless you are Calipari or Pitino and can get 4-5 a year, is a recipe for disaster. He never built a program. His limited success was utterly contingent on landing at least one NBA player a year, and he didn't do it. And his success was limited because he didn't know what the hell to do with it when he got it.

Al built a program in two years, largely by landing guys that could be NBA players with work and seasoning. Then he coached them up (despite OJ thinking they arrived on campus as NBA players). Then he let the program slip a bit, putting all his eggs in one senior class that turned out to be mediocre. When that happened, many of his pros became cons. "Let's his guys play and figure it out" became "doesn't use enough time outs or do enough coaching." "Player's coach" because "lazy barcalounger guy". "Identifies diamonds in the rough" became "got lucky getting a couple of kids that were NBA ready".

It's all revisionist and relativistic bullshit.

[branchinator]

He wasn't a one year wonder, Caddy, he was more like an every other year guy. He was a piss poor coach that could land NBA level athletes, not realizing that unless you are Calipari or Pitino and can get 4-5 a year, is a recipe for disaster. He never built a program. His limited success was utterly contingent on landing at least one NBA player a year, and he didn't do it. And his success was limited because he didn't know what the hell to do with it when he got it.

Al built a program in two years, largely by landing guys that could be NBA players with work and seasoning. Then he coached them up (despite OJ thinking they arrived on campus as NBA players). Then he let the program slip a bit, putting all his eggs in one senior class that turned out to be mediocre. When that happened, many of his pros became cons. "Let's his guys play and figure it out" became "doesn't use enough time outs or do enough coaching." "Player's coach" because "lazy barcalounger guy". "Identifies diamonds in the rough" became "got lucky getting a couple of kids that were NBA ready".

It's all revisionist and relativistic bullshit.

Spot on.

[commavegarage]

"Paul Hewitt would give a nut for Al Skinners record or former player list."

And that was the post that I actually responded to. To the first part, sure, Hewitt would have killed to have Skinner's regular season record. Not many coaches wouldn't. But the players? They both had considerable talent during their tenures. Hewitt's talent was just more transient. If you want to give Skinner a decided advantage in something, it's the development of players.

As for Hewitt's "one magical run", well, he also made the NCAA Tournament in 2001, 2005, 2007, and 2010. He wasn't a one year wonder by any means. What he did have was too many shitty seasons during the latter part of his tenure, kind of like Skinner.

No, he was a one year wonder, his other four appearance resulted in two first round knockouts and two second round knockouts. Yipee!!!!! He was 189-160 overall, 72-104 in the ACC, had ONE winning season in the ACC and never finsihed above third place. I love the jackasses that discount the regular season as if it means nothing.

Al Skinner made the NCAA Tournament 7 times. He was a 1st or 2nd round knockout in all of them but one when his loaded team squeaked by Pacific and then beat a star-studded Montana team. If you want to blast Hewitt for his poor seasons, go ahead, but ridiculing his postseason record is hilarious coming from a Skinner supporter. I liked Skinner until I realized that he had reached his plateau. Skinner's teams at BC constantly underperformed when it mattered most.

exactly Skinner and Hewitt are pretty similar in terms of postseason record.

If you ignore the 0-0 post seasons with all that talent he had.

And if you ignore the final four run one had.

[twballgame9]

"Paul Hewitt would give a nut for Al Skinners record or former player list."

And that was the post that I actually responded to. To the first part, sure, Hewitt would have killed to have Skinner's regular season record. Not many coaches wouldn't. But the players? They both had considerable talent during their tenures. Hewitt's talent was just more transient. If you want to give Skinner a decided advantage in something, it's the development of players.

As for Hewitt's "one magical run", well, he also made the NCAA Tournament in 2001, 2005, 2007, and 2010. He wasn't a one year wonder by any means. What he did have was too many shitty seasons during the latter part of his tenure, kind of like Skinner.

No, he was a one year wonder, his other four appearance resulted in two first round knockouts and two second round knockouts. Yipee!!!!! He was 189-160 overall, 72-104 in the ACC, had ONE winning season in the ACC and never finsihed above third place. I love the jackasses that discount the regular season as if it means nothing.

Al Skinner made the NCAA Tournament 7 times. He was a 1st or 2nd round knockout in all of them but one when his loaded team squeaked by Pacific and then beat a star-studded Montana team. If you want to blast Hewitt for his poor seasons, go ahead, but ridiculing his postseason record is hilarious coming from a Skinner supporter. I liked Skinner until I realized that he had reached his plateau. Skinner's teams at BC constantly underperformed when it mattered most.

exactly Skinner and Hewitt are pretty similar in terms of postseason record.

If you ignore the 0-0 post seasons with all that talent he had.

And if you ignore the final four run one had.

You are right, he is awesome because he rode one team to the Final Four.

[Cadillac90]

4) College basketball is all about what you do in the Big Dance.

So by your simplistic logic, one final appearance should classify as a one year wonder because he flopped in the other four appearances. Keep trying.

[Cadillac90]

He wasn't a one year wonder, Caddy, he was more like an every other year guy. He was a piss poor coach that could land NBA level athletes, not realizing that unless you are Calipari or Pitino and can get 4-5 a year, is a recipe for disaster. He never built a program. His limited success was utterly contingent on landing at least one NBA player a year, and he didn't do it. And his success was limited because he didn't know what the hell to do with it when he got it.

Al built a program in two years, largely by landing guys that could be NBA players with work and seasoning. Then he coached them up (despite OJ thinking they arrived on campus as NBA players). Then he let the program slip a bit, putting all his eggs in one senior class that turned out to be mediocre. When that happened, many of his pros became cons. "Let's his guys play and figure it out" became "doesn't use enough time outs or do enough coaching." "Player's coach" because "lazy barcalounger guy". "Identifies diamonds in the rough" became "got lucky getting a couple of kids that were NBA ready".

It's all revisionist and relativistic bullshit.

I actually agree with you. I think branchy is pulling his best move by now agreeing with you. Hewitt was a decent coach, had some pretty good years but could find any consistency. Personally, I would prefer more consistency out of my coach. I am sure the final game experience was exciting but Hewitt couldn't parlay that into anything more than a few more tournament appearances. It is very much like Bruce Weber and Illinois right now. He took them to the final game in '05 but has done crap since then and the fans are getting restless, especially given the fact that he is not developing the players he's recruiting.

[twballgame9]

4) College basketball is all about what you do in the Big Dance.

So by your simplistic logic, one final appearance should classify as a one year wonder because he flopped in the other four appearances. Keep trying.

College basketball is not all about what you do in the big dance. It's an absurd concept. There are like 8 hoop weirdos on this site that even remember GT was in the Final Four one year, and that is only because they beat BC (one of their only real opponents in a great 3 seed draw) on the way to that Runner-Up National Championship Title that everyone cares so much about.

Making the Final Four is awesome. Judging coaches on that is retarded. For an ACC team that usually runs from 3-8 in most years, the measuring stick should be making the tournament two of every three years and having some success in the early rounds.

Also people talk about BC making the Sweet 16 as if it is easy, as if there is no luck involved. Top 16 teams means top 4 seeds. How often is BC a 1, 2, 3 or 4 seed? How often will they be one playing in a conference with Duke and UNC? Random teams make runs, but percentages are with the chalk. BC is rarely the chalk.

None of which is intended to ignore the one disaster against Pearl and UMW. But the rest of the losses were not really unexpected. Villanova and Georgetown were 1 seeds, GT a 3 seed and the teams that lost to Texas and USC just weren't very good and didn't matchup well. But that always gets ignored by the "BC SHOULD MAKE MORE SWEET SIXTEENS!!!!!!!1111!!" crowd.

[BCFAN94]

4) College basketball is all about what you do in the Big Dance.

So by your simplistic logic, one final appearance should classify as a one year wonder because he flopped in the other four appearances. Keep trying.

College basketball is not all about what you do in the big dance. It's an absurd concept. There are like 8 hoop weirdos on this site that even remember GT was in the Final Four one year, and that is only because they beat BC (one of their only real opponents in a great 3 seed draw) on the way to that Runner-Up National Championship Title that everyone cares so much about.

Making the Final Four is awesome. Judging coaches on that is retarded. For an ACC team that usually runs from 3-8 in most years, the measuring stick should be making the tournament two of every three years and having some success in the early rounds.

Also people talk about BC making the Sweet 16 as if it is easy, as if there is no luck involved. Top 16 teams means top 4 seeds. How often is BC a 1, 2, 3 or 4 seed? How often will they be one playing in a conference with Duke and UNC? Random teams make runs, but percentages are with the chalk. BC is rarely the chalk.

None of which is intended to ignore the one disaster against Pearl and UMW. But the rest of the losses were not really unexpected. Villanova and Georgetown were 1 seeds, GT a 3 seed and the teams that lost to Texas and USC just weren't very good and didn't matchup well. But that always gets ignored by the "BC SHOULD MAKE MORE SWEET SIXTEENS!!!!!!!1111!!" crowd.

No intention here to get into the argument of which coach sucks worse but as far as the loss to 'nova, if it's the year I am thinking of, #1 seed or not, BC was the better team and should have won that game.

[eepstein0]

4) College basketball is all about what you do in the Big Dance.

So by your simplistic logic, one final appearance should classify as a one year wonder because he flopped in the other four appearances. Keep trying.

College basketball is not all about what you do in the big dance. It's an absurd concept. There are like 8 hoop weirdos on this site that even remember GT was in the Final Four one year, and that is only because they beat BC (one of their only real opponents in a great 3 seed draw) on the way to that Runner-Up National Championship Title that everyone cares so much about.

Making the Final Four is awesome. Judging coaches on that is retarded. For an ACC team that usually runs from 3-8 in most years, the measuring stick should be making the tournament two of every three years and having some success in the early rounds.

Also people talk about BC making the Sweet 16 as if it is easy, as if there is no luck involved. Top 16 teams means top 4 seeds. How often is BC a 1, 2, 3 or 4 seed? How often will they be one playing in a conference with Duke and UNC? Random teams make runs, but percentages are with the chalk. BC is rarely the chalk.

None of which is intended to ignore the one disaster against Pearl and UMW. But the rest of the losses were not really unexpected. Villanova and Georgetown were 1 seeds, GT a 3 seed and the teams that lost to Texas and USC just weren't very good and didn't matchup well. But that always gets ignored by the "BC SHOULD MAKE MORE SWEET SIXTEENS!!!!!!!1111!!" crowd.

I'm going to leap out the window if you use the word chalk again.

[DomingoOrtiz]

you guys are missing another unheralded transfer who actually went on to an NBA career. I will give you a hint he played in the 94 BC/UNC game, threw up an airball from 4 feet, fouled Montross softly that allowed him a three point play attempt and then was sent back to the bench. At the end of the year, he said something very bad about his roommate, as legend has it, transferred to a big ten school. didnt think he did much there, and ended up somehow being drafted by the NBA, where I beleive he may have played a few games. and the answer is.....








Paul Grant.

also bouns question: How did the kid do who I believe was from winchester, Keefe, who transferred from out west to Bc and then transferred again to I believe UNLV, ? Any career?

There was also one other kid I was always interested in, not a transfer but a local kid who I never recall hearing about, PAt Bradley who played at Arkansas and had a very good career. How did he end up at Arkansas?

good ol ice hands. he and chris huang shared a snow cone once

what did he say about his roomate?

Bonus question: what football player stole his girlfriend then dumped her a few weeks later?

mike mamula?

Winner!

[eepstein0]

4) College basketball is all about what you do in the Big Dance.

So by your simplistic logic, one final appearance should classify as a one year wonder because he flopped in the other four appearances. Keep trying.

College basketball is not all about what you do in the big dance. It's an absurd concept. There are like 8 hoop weirdos on this site that even remember GT was in the Final Four one year, and that is only because they beat BC (one of their only real opponents in a great 3 seed draw) on the way to that Runner-Up National Championship Title that everyone cares so much about.

Making the Final Four is awesome. Judging coaches on that is retarded. For an ACC team that usually runs from 3-8 in most years, the measuring stick should be making the tournament two of every three years and having some success in the early rounds.

Also people talk about BC making the Sweet 16 as if it is easy, as if there is no luck involved. Top 16 teams means top 4 seeds. How often is BC a 1, 2, 3 or 4 seed? How often will they be one playing in a conference with Duke and UNC? Random teams make runs, but percentages are with the chalk. BC is rarely the chalk.

None of which is intended to ignore the one disaster against Pearl and UMW. But the rest of the losses were not really unexpected. Villanova and Georgetown were 1 seeds, GT a 3 seed and the teams that lost to Texas and USC just weren't very good and didn't matchup well. But that always gets ignored by the "BC SHOULD MAKE MORE SWEET SIXTEENS!!!!!!!1111!!" crowd.

I'm going to leap out the window if you use the word chalk again.

would "rock chalk" qualify?

No I'm fine with that. The phrase "chalk" is so over-used that it's painful, especially this time of year. I'm going to physically punch anyone at the bar in the next 12 hours who I hear use that word.

[apbc12]

4) College basketball is all about what you do in the Big Dance.

So by your simplistic logic, one final appearance should classify as a one year wonder because he flopped in the other four appearances. Keep trying.

College basketball is not all about what you do in the big dance. It's an absurd concept. There are like 8 hoop weirdos on this site that even remember GT was in the Final Four one year, and that is only because they beat BC (one of their only real opponents in a great 3 seed draw) on the way to that Runner-Up National Championship Title that everyone cares so much about.

Making the Final Four is awesome. Judging coaches on that is retarded. For an ACC team that usually runs from 3-8 in most years, the measuring stick should be making the tournament two of every three years and having some success in the early rounds.

Also people talk about BC making the Sweet 16 as if it is easy, as if there is no luck involved. Top 16 teams means top 4 seeds. How often is BC a 1, 2, 3 or 4 seed? How often will they be one playing in a conference with Duke and UNC? Random teams make runs, but percentages are with the chalk. BC is rarely the chalk.

None of which is intended to ignore the one disaster against Pearl and UMW. But the rest of the losses were not really unexpected. Villanova and Georgetown were 1 seeds, GT a 3 seed and the teams that lost to Texas and USC just weren't very good and didn't matchup well. But that always gets ignored by the "BC SHOULD MAKE MORE SWEET SIXTEENS!!!!!!!1111!!" crowd.

I'm going to leap out the window if you use the word chalk again.

would "rock chalk" qualify?

No I'm fine with that. The phrase "chalk" is so over-used that it's painful, especially this time of year. I'm going to physically punch anyone at the bar in the next 12 hours who I hear use that word.

Chalk chalk Jaychalk

[twballgame9]

4) College basketball is all about what you do in the Big Dance.

So by your simplistic logic, one final appearance should classify as a one year wonder because he flopped in the other four appearances. Keep trying.

College basketball is not all about what you do in the big dance. It's an absurd concept. There are like 8 hoop weirdos on this site that even remember GT was in the Final Four one year, and that is only because they beat BC (one of their only real opponents in a great 3 seed draw) on the way to that Runner-Up National Championship Title that everyone cares so much about.

Making the Final Four is awesome. Judging coaches on that is retarded. For an ACC team that usually runs from 3-8 in most years, the measuring stick should be making the tournament two of every three years and having some success in the early rounds.

Also people talk about BC making the Sweet 16 as if it is easy, as if there is no luck involved. Top 16 teams means top 4 seeds. How often is BC a 1, 2, 3 or 4 seed? How often will they be one playing in a conference with Duke and UNC? Random teams make runs, but percentages are with the chalk. BC is rarely the chalk.

None of which is intended to ignore the one disaster against Pearl and UMW. But the rest of the losses were not really unexpected. Villanova and Georgetown were 1 seeds, GT a 3 seed and the teams that lost to Texas and USC just weren't very good and didn't matchup well. But that always gets ignored by the "BC SHOULD MAKE MORE SWEET SIXTEENS!!!!!!!1111!!" crowd.

I'm going to leap out the window if you use the word chalk again.

chalk