SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 19, 2005 22:43:14 GMT -5
Obviously, but how many top programs do you see that don't sign any top ranked recruits and are able to stay at that elite level year in and year out? Not many I would have to assume. Al Skinner is doing an amazing job getting very talented guys that fly under the radar and he currently has a top 10 team, but without signing top recruits you will never have a program that is at the elite level year in and year out. I look at it differently. to build -- or rebuild -- a program, a coach has to get good quality recruits and establish a winning tradition. Every year we see this happen. Marquette a few years back, Gonzaga every year -- they aren't winning the big recruiting battles any more tha Skinner did. But they got great kids and won. once a program is established, especially if it is in a Big Six conference, the chances to bring in highly ranked recruits increase. "winning recruiting battles" can mean winning a beauty contest -- as Amaker did with Seton Hall -- or getting great kids in and building a winning tradition. Clearly, Amaker did NOT do that -- at Seton Hall, nor at Michigan.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 19, 2005 22:49:12 GMT -5
The difference here is that the roster we currently have is not quality with Esherick at the helm, but it is with JT3 at the helm. JT3 has figured out to get more out of Esherick's older players (Bowman, Cook) than Esherick could, and he has done a great job thus far with Roy and Green. I don't think Esherick would have those guys at the same point as they are now. I disagree with what you wrote -- though possibly not with what you meant. The "quality of the roster" is the same no matter who the coach is. How well the team plays is much more a function of the coach. THe quality of our roster is not subject to the coach, how well that roster plays is absolutely a function of the coach. My belief is that Craig really did assemble a much better roster than we thought -- although not very deep. But I agree that he would not have been able to make this roster anywhere near as productive as they have been with T3. And the additional point that I and others have been making is that regardless of how effective Craig was at getting talented players on campus, he was not effective at getting them to play well nor even to stay. Some have pointed out that JT2 had a lot of transfers also. but, 1. That doesn't justify continued roster turnover 2. JT wasn't losing starters, like Hunter, Bethel, Hall and nearly Bowman. JT did lose Brunner, but there were extenuating circumstances and in retrospect, it's very good that Brunner left so his Samurai incident is assoicated with Fresno instead of GU.
|
|
kghoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,992
|
Post by kghoya on Feb 20, 2005 1:23:29 GMT -5
everybody deserves a second chance...im just glad eshericks second chance at coaching a college basketball team is unlikely to be with the only college team that interests me...(georgetown)
|
|
angus
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 188
|
Post by angus on Mar 25, 2005 19:11:41 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,516
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 25, 2005 19:55:48 GMT -5
Congratulations to angus for fishing the original thread out from pages deep to add the punctuation! Jack would be proud, not to mention Clutter Police. And congrats to Reggie as well.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
Post by TC on Mar 25, 2005 22:12:50 GMT -5
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Mar 26, 2005 3:08:00 GMT -5
Gregg Doyel of CBS Sportsline took a swipe at the Esh in his column "Dribbles" which is a blog of info that is going on in CBB. Specifically the shot was fired in regard to job openings and who he thought should be in consideration. The comment was;
" Tulane needs to stay irrelevant. Hire Craig Esherick".
|
|
HOYAPLAYA
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
IT'S TIME FOR A RUNNNNNNN!!!!!!
Posts: 1,329
|
Post by HOYAPLAYA on Mar 26, 2005 7:47:16 GMT -5
Gregg Doyel of CBS Sportsline took a swipe at the Esh in his column "Dribbles" which is a blog of info that is going on in CBB. Specifically the shot was fired in regard to job openings and who he thought should be in consideration. The comment was; " Tulane needs to stay irrelevant. Hire Craig Esherick". Gregg Doyel is a jackass who seems to write articles just to fire people up these days. Every single one of his articles is fact-less or backed up by some tricky stats that can be used to make the opposite agrument also. CBS Sportsline obviously knows what they are doing, because the headlines draw you in to his ridiculous points.
|
|
Big Dog
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by Big Dog on Mar 26, 2005 12:22:25 GMT -5
Gregg Doyel is right on this one. Georgetown became irrelevant because of Mr. E
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,268
|
Post by prhoya on Mar 26, 2005 12:44:18 GMT -5
Nothing gets this board going like Esh. I'm so glad to see him go.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,737
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 26, 2005 14:52:50 GMT -5
Gregg Doyel is right on this one. Georgetown became irrelevant because of Mr. E I don't think any school in a major conference is irrelevant, but that having been said, Craig certainly didn't make Georgetown "irrelevant". Georgetown did. It's a form of rationalization to a lot of people to assume that Craig singlehandedly ran the program off the rails. But if you were around in 1997 or 1998, or in the years immediately preceding Iverson, many of the same issues were there, too. Like a lot of things, it's a cumulative effect.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 26, 2005 15:13:18 GMT -5
I don't think any school in a major conference is irrelevant, but that having been said, Craig certainly didn't make Georgetown "irrelevant". Georgetown did. It's a form of rationalization to a lot of people to assume that Craig singlehandedly ran the program off the rails. But if you were around in 1997 or 1998, or in the years immediately preceding Iverson, many of the same issues were there, too. Like a lot of things, it's a cumulative effect. Facilities and funding don't lose basketball games. Coaches and players do. We had enough talent to make the Sweet 16 so long as we had enough of JT2's players in the program, but it became clear once those players graduated that they were not adequately replaced. Also, if the same issues were there when AI was here, why did we win games then and didn't win games outside of the MEAC last year? JT2 wasn't a rocket scientist on the bench, but he commanded respect and was able to get his players to buy into the program. I can't say the same for Esherick having seen his key players decommit (Townes), leave early (Sweetney/Wilson (to a lesser extent), and transfer (Bethel, Thomas, Hall). Also, I don't think many people single-handedly focus on Esherick. There were other factors in play, such as the March 2004 statement from DeGioia about standing behind Esh to say nothing of the ill-advised contract extension of one year prior based on the apparent advice of AD Lang, who seemed to spearhead the effort, judging from press coverage and his statements to the press. Those two things did more than anything else to convince the press of GU's irrelevance, not their visits to McDonough or funding problems. It seems to me that those issues got press once Esherick was fired and the press decided to evaluate the level of the GU job and overall prospects for success. Recent press, in fact, has been quite complimentary of the overall state of our facilities, with Jarvis apparently calling McD one of the better practice facilities in the country and Barker Davis speaking of the value of the upgrades to the basketball office, which, to my understanding, began when Esherick was still around (specifically with new video equipment and upgrades to asst coaches' offices). It would also be worthwhile to ask the players why they were successful this season. Most likely, they won't share with us their appreciation for new sneakers, a new basketball office, more funding, etc. It will most likely come down to new coaching. I've seen one such comment on another site from a player who has been exposed to all coaching philosophies recently presented on the Hilltop. I think that, in your efforts to offer a fair and balanced treatment of the issue, you sometimes go off the other side of the spectrum. Reality is usually somewhere in the middle, and explanations that appear to absolve Esherick of responsibility, IMO, are very misleading. To make such statements with "certainty," is also a bit premature if not misleading as well. My position is that the majority of our irrelevance is a result of Esherick and those who enabled him until mid-March 2004. Our turnaround this season with the same facilities and funding (more or less), attest to the validity of this explanation. I will add that there has been increased funding or the appearance of such during this season, but I'm not sure how that translates immediately to wins on the floor. If anything, it allows us to recruit with a wider net, in which case, we'll see the results in 1-2 years.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 26, 2005 15:19:22 GMT -5
I recently read on MDVarsity that Esherick was a candidate for the Good Counsel HS job in the area, but he is not a finalist for the position.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,737
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 26, 2005 16:18:36 GMT -5
I enjoy the discussion, but it's apparent that you react first rather than read what I said.
I did not cite facilities or funding as an element in Georgetown's decline from 1989 to 2004 in the above post. I would maintain, however, that Georgetown University (particularly in the O'Donovan administration years) did not place a priority in building up the men's basketball program.
The decline in the 90's was the result of three factors: a decline of local recruiting, of transfers, and of a lack of internal change. That continued well into this decade.
You also continue to suggest that Joe Lang was primarily culpable in all this. Men's basketball reports straight to the top. If Jack DeGioia wanted to give Craig an extension and whether Joe said yes or no, it would have happened anyway. Joe may well have disagreed with his coaches but that was always handled internally. In a more visible role, Jack took the tactic of being a major public supporter of Craig right up to the time Craig shot his mouth off about the next 30 years.
No one is absolving Craig Esherick for responsibility for his tenure. But as I've tried to say for 3+ years now, Craig was a symptom of the problem, not the cause of the problem. If he was, why was he hired in the first place, and why did the coach who placed him there have such confidence in him?
And if you think that all is right with the world simply and solely because Craig's gone, you're missing the larger point. Providence and Seton Hall have never had Craig Esherick employed there, and they've got a lot of the same problems now, too.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,516
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 26, 2005 16:36:44 GMT -5
Jersey - while you accuse DFW of going too far and of trying to "absolve Esherick of responsibility" he really isn't trying to do that at all. You're reading too much into his statements, IMO. He's actually trying to do the same thing you are: keep pressure on fixing the support structure of the program. Yes, of course much of this year's success is due to the new coaching staff. But if we sit back and stay satisfied that Mike Jarvis likes the new paint in McDonough and don't take this opportunity to press for new on campus facilities and stronger institutional commitment to the program, it will be an opportunity lost just like the opportunity to leverage JT Jr's success was lost. You go almost as far the opposite direction in your responses to every one of DFW's posts as you say he does in his.
To lay blame for whatever irrelevance the program had last year solely at the feet of Esherick and "those who enabled him" is to miss the larger problems that need to be addressed to solidify the program going forward to the future. It also denies credit to those same enablers for dealing with that part of the program's problem and finding what we all would agree was a better solution than we hoped. We need better alumni support - there is no way 600-700 Hoop Club members is enough, for instance. Young alums need to have much more involvement in that organization - you've seen just this year how much effect a strong Hoop Club can have.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 26, 2005 16:44:03 GMT -5
I enjoy the discussion, but it's apparent that you react first rather than read what I said. I did not cite facilities or funding as an element in Georgetown's decline from 1989 to 2004 in the above post. I would maintain, however, that Georgetown University (particularly in the O'Donovan administration years from 1989 through 2000) did not place an administrative priority in building up the program. The decline in the 90's was the result of three factors: a decline of local recruiting, of transfers, and of a lack of internal change. You also continue to suggest that Joe Lang was primarily culpable in all this. Men's basketball reports straight to the top. If Jack DeGioia wanted to give Craig an extension and whether Joe said yes or no, it would have happened anyway. Joe may have very well disagreed with his coaches but that was always handled internally. Jack took the tactic of being a major public supporter of Craig right up to the time Craig shot his mouth off about the next 30 years. Had Craig not said that, would he have still coached this season? That having been said, it is not "pro Thompson" or "anti Thompson" to say that not all is solved in a year. Nothing against Barker Davis, a great reporter and a fellow alumnus, but his compliments about the new paint job in the basketball office means almost nothing to the issues at hand. McDonough's facilities are a negative to the program and no coat of paint can change that right now. No one is absolving Craig Esherick for responsibility for his tenure, good or bad. But as I've tried to say for 3+ years now, with varying degrees of success, Craig was a symptom of the problem, not the source of the problem. If it was, would JT3 be otherwise successful by running the same program with the same system? No. And if you think that all is right with the world simply and solely because Craig's gone, you're missing the larger point. Providence and Seton Hall have never had Craig Esherick employed there, and they've got a lot of the same problems now, too. I react to your argument, which you have consistently stated as regarding "institutional support." What are the components of institutional support? I would suggest that you've been consistently critical of the overall funding and facilities. If that's not the case, feel free to correct me. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the discussion here and my initial reply to you relates to the long term decline into the 2000s or Esherick tenure, but your reply regards how you see the decline in the 1990's, as if I commented about that initially, not as much into the Esherick Era, so I'm not sure that you've addressed the matter at hand. Also, you initially cited "Georgetown" as being responsible for the decline during the Esherick Era. Well, I'm looking to deconstruct that because you often assign responsibility to things or entities that often defy clear definition, such as money that is not there. I don't know why you do this, but it contributes to a lack of clarity because "Georgetown" is not a person, it is a place. How is a place responsible for the decline of a program? What is clearly intended, unless I'm mistaken, is to suggest that the primary representatives of Georgetown are responsible for the decline of the program? So, I seek to ascertain how these people are involved in the program itself and how they were allegedly responsible for the decline. think the primary institutional-level factors are funding and overall facilities/physical plant issues. Your reply alludes to "building up the program," but what the heck does that mean? Your follow-up critique of Davis also suggests that I read your initial post and interpreted its meaning correctly in terms of, at least, identifying facilities as a primary component of what you meant by "Georgetown". Also, if you read my post, I did not suggest that Lang was primarily responsible. I suggested that he "seemed to spearhead" the effort and that he advised DeGioia. I would suggest that this is a valid explanation when one considers how Lang was the primary spokesman in local papers during the process, which accounts for why he appears to have been responsible. I did not ever write in my post that appearances aligned with reality. Also, I did not write that Esherick was solely responsible, just that he was primarily responsible, along with those people who enabled him. Like you, I support the construction of a renovated or new on-campus convocation center/basketball facility, and I'd like to see some additional changes with respect to how the program is handled at an institutional level. I would also suggest there is a right way and a wrong way to approach the McD issue. Some people (not necessarily you) want to renovate it under any circumstances, but I'd rather not see an emergency stopgap that is only operable for 10-15 years, so I'm supportive with some reservations.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 26, 2005 17:08:11 GMT -5
Jersey - while you accuse DFW of going too far and of trying to "absolve Esherick of responsibility" he really isn't trying to do that at all. You're reading too much into his statements, IMO. He's actually trying to do the same thing you are: keep pressure on fixing the support structure of the program. Yes, of course much of this year's success is due to the new coaching staff. But if we sit back and stay satisfied that Mike Jarvis likes the new paint in McDonough and don't take this opportunity to press for new on campus facilities and stronger institutional commitment to the program, it will be an opportunity lost just like the opportunity to leverage JT Jr's success was lost. You go almost as far the opposite direction in your responses to every one of DFW's posts as you say he does in his. To lay blame for whatever irrelevance the program had last year solely at the feet of Esherick and "those who enabled him" is to miss the larger problems that need to be addressed to solidify the program going forward to the future. It also denies credit to those same enablers for dealing with that part of the program's problem and finding what we all would agree was a better solution than we hoped. We need better alumni support - there is no way 600-700 Hoop Club members is enough, for instance. Young alums need to have much more involvement in that organization - you've seen just this year how much effect a strong Hoop Club can have. Thank you for the follow-up. I didn't necessarily state that DFW was trying to absolve Esh in his initial post. I am referring more to his posting history of often deflecting responsibility to inanimate objects, such as "Georgetown," or departed members of the program, such as Ronnie Thompson. These deflections, in each case, seem to absolve others of responsibility. In this case, it was no different with his comment that Esherick didn't cause GU's irrelevance. My position on the issue is quite the opposite to the extent that I believe that Esherick (and those who enabled him (DeGioia and Lang)) were primarily responsible for our irrelevance. Out of that group, I believe Esherick is most to blame. So, I do see legitimate disagreement here... Nonetheless, I believe in having a new McD etc. just like the next guy. Why? Because I believe they improve the attractiveness of our program to recruits. I don't see it as connected to winning necessarily as some others do. In all actuality, I don't see a renovated McD as having a great on-the-court effect outside of improved talent, but I see it as a worthy cause nonetheless. I agree about the need for a stronger HHC, and I hope my posts in the other thread have contributed somewhat to the discussion, although my initial post was perhaps unclear or communicated ineffectively. I am hoping that somehow next year's t-shirts can be connected to a membership drive insofar as people should be contacted for t-shirts with the proviso that $25 gets a HHC membership and a t-shirt or two, while $10 just gets a t-shirt. How many folks wouldn't be willing to up to $25 under those conditions? A few, but we'd still be able to pick off a few for HHC membership. All this said, I believe things are headed in a positive direction, and President DeGioia "gets it" more today than he did a year ago. Nonetheless, hard work awaits us.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,516
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 26, 2005 17:23:30 GMT -5
Thank you for the follow-up. You're welcome. It just seems that most of your posts in response to DFW sometimes have a certain MUST... CRITICIZE... ESHERICK... theme to them. Also, if you tie every post DFW makes to things he may have posted 2 years ago, that seems somehow a bit much (but maybe that's just me). Believe me, the HHC is acutely aware of the need to get more young alum involvement. Their subsidy of student tickets to the CSUF game was one such investment in the future. Frankly, I'm tired of the "Oh my God, Esherick ruined this place" angst. Can't we move on?
|
|
Big Dog
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by Big Dog on Mar 26, 2005 17:28:00 GMT -5
No one is disputing that there are larger institutional problems. But that doesn't change the fact that the Esherick era became a disaster--that the guy was a terrible coach for a program that needed a very good one to overcome other obstacles.
DFW always responds to my contrite posts about the Esherror with the endless recitation of the institutional problems. I'm well aware of them. But Esh had a devastating effect on the program's national profile. Georgetown gear used to be available in every sporting goods store in the country, as recently as 1998 (I remember because I was a year in to school there and loved that about it.) But once Esh mangled things, that kind of stuff passed quickly.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,737
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 26, 2005 17:38:12 GMT -5
Believe me, Craig (or John) had little to do with this problem.
Beginning in the mid-90's, there was a fundamental shift in manufacturer licensing strategies (including Nike) that favored larger Division I-A programs, which is why you don't see much of Georgetown and even less of any other team without a I-A team. Even Nike backed off schools like Georgetown and Villanova.
Georgetown lost a lot of licensing revenues over the years as a result, but the wheels were already in motion by 1999 and aren't likely to change. It's no longer a function of winning hoop teams but BCS standing.
Still, Georgetown is the largest I-AA team represented in college licensing. In fact, as of 2004 it was the only one still in the top 50, but this spring's totals now have Georgetown out of the top 50, so the trend continues.
|
|