Donahue needs to go.

[Bryn Mawr Eagle]

Wow, some of you people are retarded.

Seriously?

Yes. my post is serious. People that felt the need to defend the Don in this thread sound idiotic.

I'm pretty sure you missed the pun in the joke.

I suck at pun making, but at least flyingelvi recognized the effort.

[twballgame9]

Wow, some of you people are retarded.

Seriously?

Yes. my post is serious. People that felt the need to defend the Don in this thread sound idiotic.

I'm pretty sure you missed the pun in the joke.

I suck at pun making, but at least flyingelvi recognized the effort.

I apologize, I still don't see the pun. I might be able to squeeze irony out of that, but even that is a stretch.

[eepstein0]

5* coaching
2* recruiting

[RedBaron67]

5* coaching
2* recruiting

This -- 125% agreement. In his extended Heights interview (link on ATLeagle's blog), Donahue shows himself to be pretty cognizant of the whole situation, but I still can't see him surviving at BC if he doesn't upgrade recruiting.

[eagle9903]

5* coaching
2* recruiting

This -- 125% agreement. In his extended Heights interview (link on ATLeagle's blog), Donahue shows himself to be pretty cognizant of the whole situation, but I still can't see him surviving at BC if he doesn't upgrade recruiting.

No still. I'm at the point where unless you (you two especially) can support this repeated absurdity that you state as a conclusion with actual facts, preferably with comparisons to former BC recruiting classes, and not with wrong comparisons to the classes at schools that have always had higher ranked recruits than BC I will continue to call it out every time.

Also Donahue did not show he was cognizant of being a "2*" recruiter in that article. He said he was looking for ACC players, which is no way implied that the players on the current roster were not such. He also said the starting jobs of the current players were not secure. This also does not imply recruiting failure.

closest he gets is:

I told them that everyone coming in here, I’m trying to get guys that will help us win in the ACC, so they’re probably going to want your job. Your responsibility is to get better and better, so personally you don’t lose your job if you’re playing already. You’re trying as a sub to beat those guys out, and then all of us are trying to get better. I think it’s actually, if I’m honest with a guy, I’m saying that no one’s secured this spot. I may say in two years, you know, look at this kid’s freshman and sophomore years and now he’s our junior, and at the same time I’m recruiting a guy at the same position, that’s a lot harder.

and

You know, what I think is more important is that we get a great ACC player. I don’t know if it has to be a position. I’m happy with a lot of our breakdown of post and perimeter. I think the way we play, the beauty of it is, is that I can put guys in different spots. They just all have to be really good ACC players. So if the kid happens to be a 6-foot-7 rebounder that fits what we do, or he is a 6-foot-3 guard, I think he’s just got to be a great player. I think you’ve got to be very selective now. I think you’ve got to make sure you’re upgrading everything about your program each and every day. And recruiting is all about getting a great kid, who is probably a little better than what you’ve got. That’s what everyone is trying to do, and I think it’s critical that we don’t say, “Oh, well we need a big guy to rebound for us. He’s not as good as these guys, but he gives us another guy that can rebound.” I think you’ve got to be careful. I think you’ve got to evaluate not on need necessarily, but on the strength of your league and how good of a player he is in your league. I think that’s more important, especially right now as we grow the program.

[eepstein0]

Post Cooley & Coen we had 1* coaching and 3* recruiting. That formula clearly doesn't work either.

[eepstein0]

5* coaching
2* recruiting

This -- 125% agreement. In his extended Heights interview (link on ATLeagle's blog), Donahue shows himself to be pretty cognizant of the whole situation, but I still can't see him surviving at BC if he doesn't upgrade recruiting.

No still. I'm at the point where unless you (you two especially) can support this repeated absurdity that you state as a conclusion with actual facts, preferably with comparisons to former BC recruiting classes, and not with wrong comparisons to the classes at schools that have always had higher ranked recruits than BC I will continue to call it out every time.

Also Donahue did not show he was cognizant of being a "2*" recruiter in that article. He said he was looking for ACC players, which is no way implied that the players on the current roster were not such. He also said the starting jobs of the current players were not secure. This also does not imply recruiting failure.

closest he gets is:

I told them that everyone coming in here, I’m trying to get guys that will help us win in the ACC, so they’re probably going to want your job. Your responsibility is to get better and better, so personally you don’t lose your job if you’re playing already. You’re trying as a sub to beat those guys out, and then all of us are trying to get better. I think it’s actually, if I’m honest with a guy, I’m saying that no one’s secured this spot. I may say in two years, you know, look at this kid’s freshman and sophomore years and now he’s our junior, and at the same time I’m recruiting a guy at the same position, that’s a lot harder.

and

You know, what I think is more important is that we get a great ACC player. I don’t know if it has to be a position. I’m happy with a lot of our breakdown of post and perimeter. I think the way we play, the beauty of it is, is that I can put guys in different spots. They just all have to be really good ACC players. So if the kid happens to be a 6-foot-7 rebounder that fits what we do, or he is a 6-foot-3 guard, I think he’s just got to be a great player. I think you’ve got to be very selective now. I think you’ve got to make sure you’re upgrading everything about your program each and every day. And recruiting is all about getting a great kid, who is probably a little better than what you’ve got. That’s what everyone is trying to do, and I think it’s critical that we don’t say, “Oh, well we need a big guy to rebound for us. He’s not as good as these guys, but he gives us another guy that can rebound.” I think you’ve got to be careful. I think you’ve got to evaluate not on need necessarily, but on the strength of your league and how good of a player he is in your league. I think that’s more important, especially right now as we grow the program.

Again I'm watching Maryland, UVA, NCST, Pitt, Duke, UNC, Syracuse & FSU pull in Top 25 classes. At some point, the coaching in this conference is going to get above the 6th grade level (it's getting close with Turgeon & Bennett) and the teams with more talent are going to win. BC survived for a while because some of these coaches were so mentally challenged they couldn't take a team of NBA Lottery picks to the NCAA Tournament. Hewitt, Purnell, Haith, Lowe, Greenberg, etc. are dreadful. The ACC had the biggest group of clowns I've ever seen coaching for a while. Now they're all fired and these new guys know how to coach.

Do you seriously think we can complete with those teams if they have 4/5* kids while we continue to pull in short, unathletic shooters? The answer is No. I get that we're not going to win more games than Duke, UNC, 'Cuse & Pitt but I expect to finish with the Maryland's, UVA's and FSU's of the world. With the current state of their recruiting vs. our recruiting, that's not going to happen.

Pointing to the fact we beat FSU is all fine and good, but played their worst game of the season and BC barely won. Do you expect to draw teams worst performances every night out in conference?

[eagle9903]

Post Cooley & Coen we had 1* coaching and 3* recruiting. That formula clearly doesn't work either.

Opinions can't really be conclusively incorrect but yours are.

[eepstein0]

Post Cooley & Coen we had 1* coaching and 3* recruiting. That formula clearly doesn't work either.

Opinions can't really be conclusively incorrect but yours are.

Al went 19-29 in conference with that 3* recruiting in his last three years. Fact.

Donahue took that same team and went 9-7 in conference.

[twballgame9]

Post Cooley & Coen we had 1* coaching and 3* recruiting. That formula clearly doesn't work either.

Opinions can't really be conclusively incorrect but yours are.

Al went 19-29 in conference with that 3* recruiting in his last three years. Fact.

Donahue took that same team and went 9-7 in conference.

Wait what? This is fucking retarded.

[eagle9903]

Again I'm watching Maryland, UVA, NCST, Pitt, Duke, UNC, Syracuse & FSU pull in Top 25 classes. At some point, the coaching in this conference is going to get above the 6th grade level (it's getting close with Turgeon & Bennett) and the teams with more talent are going to win. BC survived for a while because some of these coaches were so mentally challenged they couldn't take a team of NBA Lottery picks to the NCAA Tournament. Hewitt, Purnell, Haith, Lowe, Greenberg, etc. are dreadful. The ACC had the biggest group of clowns I've ever seen coaching for a while. Now they're all fired and these new guys know how to coach.

Do you seriously think we can complete with those teams if they have 4/5* kids while we continue to pull in short, unathletic shooters? The answer is No. I get that we're not going to win more games than Duke, UNC, 'Cuse & Pitt but I expect to finish with the Maryland's, UVA's and FSU's of the world. With the current state of their recruiting vs. our recruiting, that's not going to happen.

Pointing to the fact we beat FSU is all fine and good, but played their worst game of the season and BC barely won. Do you expect to draw teams worst performances every night out in conference?

The year was 2006 and message board posters were saying "the coaching in this conference is going to get above the 6th grade level (it's getting close with Greenberg & Hewitt)" I'm not kidding, people thought coaches like Seth Greenberg and Paul Hewitt (and Sidney Lowe) were going to be a major step up over their predecessors and the ACC would be on the rise. For a year or two they were right, then Hewitt and Lowe imploded and ended up disasters and Greenberg, while still better than Ricky Stokes turned out to be an awful coach. In other words, I'd calm down on the falling sky at least until it actually happens. Boeheim may be gone soon, where does that leave Cuse? and Pitt has been having problems after losing a key assistant whose name is escaping me right now. Leonard Hamilton is 64 years old.

I also have serious doubts about your definition of "athleticism" and the emphasis you place on it. I think you if you were a college coach recruiting you would prefer Darius Miles to Jared Dudley ten out of ten times and I think sportscenter may have addled your brain into such belief. Would you have a problem with the exact 2009 Cornell team wearing BC uniforms? Or any Wisconsin team ever?

I did not point to the fact we beat FSU as evidence of anything, did I?

[eepstein0]

Wisconsin plays defense. We do not.

[eagle9903]

Wisconsin plays defense. We do not.

with athletic players?

[BCEagles25]

Post Cooley & Coen we had 1* coaching and 3* recruiting. That formula clearly doesn't work either.

referring to al skinner's coaching as 1* at any point during his tenure is absolutely crippling to your credibility.