A year after the change...

[hoyalove4ever]

A) where would we be if Esh and Joe Lang were still here?

B) what would the reaction have been if we had the exact same results this year but Esh was the coach?

Just some food for thought...

Here's hoping for at least one more NIT game at home.

[the_way]

I think we have been down this road too many times. Lets be thankful for what we have and move forward.

[HoyaAlbany]

We would not have had the exact same results if Esh was still here!

[TBird41]

hoyalove4ever said:

A) where would we be if Esh and Joe Lang were still here?

B) what would the reaction have been if we had the exact same results this year but Esh was the coach?

Just some food for thought...

Here's hoping for at least one more NIT game at home.

A) If Esh and Lang were here I think this would have been a much more negative season. I doubt we would have won the close games we did. Roy, Jeff and Tyler would probably not have developed as much as they did. I don't think we would have been as bad as predicted, but we would have been somewhere around 6-10 in the BE and right on the bubble for an NIT berth. The fact that we'd have had an easier schedule would have probably assured us of the NIT game.
All the cool stuff the AD did probably wouldn't have happened (i.e. pep rally) but whether that would have been b/c of lack of interest (a pep rally isn't feasible if there isn't a buzz on campus for the team) or b/c of lack of interest, I don't know. Then again, Lang may have just said some more things like "you can't expect to make the NCAAs every year" which would make me want to light myself on fire.

Now, onto your 2nd question
B) If the team was in the exact same position, then I think the fan base wouldn't be as excited as they are/were. It's a lot easier to get excited w/ a new coach, then w/ an old one that you've had bad experiences with. While that 5 game swoon was ugly, we chalked it up to youth, inexperience and lack of depth. If it'd been Esh in charge, people would have been saying "same old Esherick". When your track record is negative, people tend to expect more negativity and hence find it. The problem I think is that we wouldn't be where we are right now w/ Esh and Lang b/c we wouldn't have had the same schedule or the same buzz going in as we had w/ JT3.

[hoyalove4ever]

My point about the exact same results is just this: would Hoya fans be generally optimistic and fairly satisfied w/ the NIT and late-season results if Esh was still coaching? I feel that there would be much more anger and finger-pointing.

Look, I like JT III and fully support him as coach. I'm certainly not trying to incite anything. But this board is a forum for debate, and this subject piques my interest. Don't respond if you're not interested.

[hoyahoyasaxa]

We would've been a bubble NIT team, maybe losing in the first round. Esherick would've said, "I'll be here for 100 more years." Lang would've said, "We can't expect to make the NIT every year." Blake Esherick would've subbed-in during one of the games to be an enforcer.

The team is much better and the athletic department has done a much better job of promoting the team this year.

We are better with JTIII and Brick than we were with Esherick and Lang. No question.

[hoyahoyasaxa]

hoyalove4ever said:

My point about the exact same results is just this: would Hoya fans be generally optimistic and fairly satisfied w/ the NIT and late-season results if Esh was still coaching? I feel that there would be much more anger and finger-pointing.

Look, I like JT III and fully support him as coach. I'm certainly not trying to incite anything. But this board is a forum for debate, and this subject piques my interest. Don't respond if you're not interested.

We could not have been competitive with Esherick's offensive "system." JTIII's allows us to compensate for relative deficiencies in our talent-level (with teams like UConn, ND, Nova, etc). We would never have had the same season with Esherick. No way.

If, for some amazing reason, we did actually have the same results, I think there would have been discontent, not optimism. Esherick's recruiting class wouldn't have been as good, I don't think, so the reason for optimism wouldn't have been there. And many fans would have thought we were still treading water. The experienced players had to learn a whole new offensive system this year. More would have been expected of them if Esherick had stayed and they hadn't had to do that.

All the same, this question is sort of like asking, "If Gino Toretta won 4 Super Bowl games with the 49ers instead of Joe Montana, would everyone think Gino Toretta was one of the best quarterbacks ever?" Well, the answer is yes, but it never would have happened anyway.

[Boz]

This one is right up doseofreality's alley. Definitely a process vs. results question.

I don't think too many people are overly ecstatic about the results this year, especially considering the position we were in a few weeks ago, but I don't know anyone who thinks the process -- including offense/defense, game management and recruiting & other off-the-court issues -- hasn't taken a quantum leap forward.

OK, "quantum leap" might be a bit strong, but I'm ever the Pollyanna.

[prhoya]

A and B wouldn't be in question because Jeff Green was not signed and delivered before Esh left. So, it is possible that Jeff wouldn't be a Hoya and, obviously, the results wouldn't have been close to what they were/are. Also, we could have had other player transfers. I remember the Bowman rumors and the nervousness it created for this board's members.

What a difference a year makes!

[hoyalove4ever]

The perception of getting better depends upon what qualities you value in a coach.

I do agree that JT III is better at game management than Esherick was, although I reject the absurd contention that any significant part of our struggles during Esherick's tenure was due to in-game coaching. (If you disagree, find some games you think illustrate your points, let's obtain game tapes, and I will be happy to debate you into the ground over this issue). Therefore, if you believe that winning basketball games has a lot to do with in-game coaching, it is logical to believe that JT III has caused a significant improvement in performance by virtue of this ability.

On the other hand, if you believe that basketball is more of a player's game, then your focus should be on recruiting, and the big question should be if JT III or Esh would have brought in better recruits in the long run. I feel that JT III has done an excellent job of recruiting, but the last freshman class under Esh was very solid, with one star, one project with great upside, one solid role player, and one TBD as of now. Also, Esh had gotten a good verbal from a player who went on to commit to UCLA. Finally, a couple of the guys who committed under JT III (Edgerson, Spann) had already been recruited by Esh.

As I strongly feel that basketball is a player-dominated sport at every level, the question of recruiting is of paramount importance to me. Suffice to say that I am very satisfied w/ JT III's efforts in this respect, but I am not convinced that Esh could not have done just as well or even better. We will never know the answer, and that's okay; my point is that this is not a clear issue, although perhaps it does not merit extensive debate as it is a moot point now.

As to different offenses, a basketball team can succeed under any offensive system. Preference for one offense over another is more a matter of taste. One could argue that the Princeton offense was an improvement, or one could argue that the team would have performed better under a familair system with a serious infusion of new talent.

My point in starting this post was to incite thought, and I appreciate the comments of those who have made substantive contributions.

[hoyalove4ever]

PR: Jeff signed in fall 2003 but didn't get his SAT score until summer 2004. There is not a shread of evidence that JTIII or Esh would have influenced whether he qualified or not.

[prhoya]

HL4F: The fact that it's impossible to have a "shread of evidence" is why I used the word "possible".

As for your other e-mail, there's no denying that the team is playing better and above expectations than under Esh. I think is a mix of recruiting and coaching that leads to success. You cannot have one without the other.

[DFW HOYA]

hoyahoyasaxa said:

We are better with JTIII and Brick than we were with Esherick and Lang. No question.

Please do not lump in comments on Craig Esherick with that of Joe Lang. Lang served the University for 32 years and did so with distinction and with class, and with none of the attitude that inflicted the fans' discontent upon Esherick.

And for those who roll their eyes about the "unrealistic expectations" quote, well, he was right. For the amount of institutional support men's basketball was getting at Georgetown compared to other Big East teams in 2002, yes, it was unrealistic to automatically pencil in GU in your brackets every year. Underpaid coaches, vastly insufficient facilities, inconsistent recruiting, and a lack of player stability in the 1990's all contributed to the slide, yet many people at Georgetown still saw the NCAA's as a given.

We've now come to understand that the NCAA's are still the goal, as Lang pointed out, but people still want to shoot the messenger for saying what the rest of the Big East had already known for years. Ranking at or near the bottom of the Big East in almost every major financial and scholarship aid category is not the way to "expect" national success, but Georgetown continues to do a lot with a little.

[paranoia2]

The Esh bashing has had it's day. We are entering a rebirth of Georgetown basketball that will have us be viable national championship contenders in the next two to five years. While a longshot if Brandon Rush signs our Hoyas will be like Kentucky of 96 with Green, Bowman, Rush and a host of talented guards. How great did our pressure look against UCONN? Pressure defense and Princeton offense.

[hoyalove4ever]

To touch on what DFW said...

Look, I'd love to be in the NCAAs every year, but the bottom line is that in the Big East, failure to achieve that goal DOES NOT mean that the program is being run poorly. Coaches and players can all do an excellent job and still fall short of that goal. If we played in another league it would be different, but we don't, and things are just going to get harder.

Maybe JT III can get us back to the NCAAs every year. That should certainly be a goal, but it is not a fair expectation until GU gives an institutional commitment to men's basketball in more than just a better website (read:$$$$$).

[TrueHoyaBlue]

Maybe JT III can get us back to the NCAAs every year. That should certainly be a goal, but it is not a fair expectation until GU gives an institutional commitment to men's basketball in more than just a better website (read:$$$$$).

And some would argue that that institutional commitment begins with an alumni commitment, not necessarily in terms of dollar amounts, but in terms of numbers of Hoop Club members. If anyone hasn't joined yet, now's a good time to pony up (even as little as 25 bucks or less) and show G.U. that you're interested in continued and further improvement in Hoya Hoops.

[YB]

Don't get me wrong, I like our position a lot more today, but I'd like to point out that a year after the Rally:

-We have no plans for an on-campus arena, and not even starting fundraising;

-We still have markedly smaller fan bases than even the Iverson era;

-Too many students still don't even know when games are or who we play;

-The Ath. Dept. is still underfunded;

-It took more than a year to get a new athletics website online and it needs more content.

There is still more work to do, even if there are positive signs going our way.

[TBird41]

YB said:

Don't get me wrong, I like our position a lot more today, but I'd like to point out that a year after the Rally:

-We have no plans for an on-campus arena, and not even starting fundraising;

-We still have markedly smaller fan bases than even the Iverson era;

-Too many students still don't even know when games are or who we play;

-The Ath. Dept. is still underfunded;

-It took more than a year to get a new athletics website online and it needs more content.

There is still more work to do, even if there are positive signs going our way.

I think that the difference b/w last year and this year is that we seem to have the people in place to fix those problems. I feel like they can be fixed now, whereas last year it seemed like it was hopeless. True, it's just a feeling, but it's nice having our program be a positive factor on campus instead of the depressing, soul-sucking alcoholism inducing buzzkill it was last year.

[hoyahoyasaxa]

YB said:

Don't get me wrong, I like our position a lot more today, but I'd like to point out that a year after the Rally:

-We have no plans for an on-campus arena, and not even starting fundraising;

-We still have markedly smaller fan bases than even the Iverson era;

-Too many students still don't even know when games are or who we play;

-The Ath. Dept. is still underfunded;

-It took more than a year to get a new athletics website online and it needs more content.

There is still more work to do, even if there are positive signs going our way.

Calm down Fluster Douglas. ;D Change is happening, slowly but surely.

[SirSaxa]

TBird41 said:

I think that the difference b/w last year and this year is that we seem to have the people in place to fix those problems. I feel like they can be fixed now, whereas last year it seemed like it was hopeless. True, it's just a feeling, but it's nice having our program be a positive factor on campus instead of the depressing, soul-sucking alcoholism inducing buzzkill it was last year.

Well when you put it THAT way.....

Actually, I agree -- and I think most of us agree that even though there are still a lot of issues that need to be addressed, we are light years ahead of last year at this time. Thank you JT3! And thank you Pres. DeGioa, Frank Rienzo, Jim Higgins, Pops, and JEFF GREEN!