RJSuperfly,
RhodyVault continues on a push for all 4 Rhode Island teams to play each other every year just as PC-URI play every year
In the old days pre Big East and A10 URI-PC played twice a year. Several years they alternated Home-Away with both games at the Providence Civic Center.
RV seems hell bent on Bryant playing URI, PC and Brown every year.
What say you on this subject???
How does this help URI and hurt URI in your humble opinion?
How does this help PC and hurt PC in your humble opinion?
How does this help Brown and hurt Brown in your humble opinion?
So there is an argument to be said for that. He's now 5 coaching seasons removed from a tournament bid and 7 coaching seasons removed from a tournament win. The further he gets removed from that, the more people can wonder if that run at Dayton was simply a flash in the pan. Even more so now, an above average coach going to a new program in the portal era should be more like a quick reload and less like a slow rebuild. So in year 2, if he still has the pedigree people thought he had at Dayton, your team should be competitive and within a game or two of a Top 4 A10T seed. If you are a bottom 4 team a second year in a row, I'd be wondering what the hell you are paying for. And if he flounders this year, people are really going to wonder if Archie still has it. For perception of him as a coach, this season may very well be the most important of his career.
Archie's 2019-'20 IU team was going to the NCAA tournament. So this "5 coaching seasons removed from a tournament bid and 7 coaching seasons removed from a tournament win" doesn't take that into context. All these if's...you can go on forever with this stuff.
Archie is doing fine. He will do fine. I realize it's the hazy, lazy days of summer with nothing going on except sunburns. So let's chill out on the hyperbole over year-2 being so important for Archie's career.
And for the record, conference-wise Brad Underwood at Illinois was 11-27 in his first 2 years at Illinois...John Belein 21-33 at Michigan in 3 years...Bruce Pearl 16-38 at Auburn in 3 years.
19-20 team was probably going to the tournament. Bracket Matrix had them as a 10 seed. Started the season 15-4, 5-3. Finished 5-8.
In this era of hoops, it's impossible to compare old rebuilds to current ones. You can land someone Day 1 and immediately have those former players/transfers to start for you season 1. Even more, there is an extra year of players moving thanks to COVID eligibility. So the pool of portal players moving has never been bigger and they don't have to sit.
So maybe you hit only singles and doubles your first offseason with only a month or two on the ground, but certainly by offseason 2 you can have a team built of guys you brought in who have talent and can play immediately. There shouldn't be a long, dramatic period where it takes you 3+ years to even be competitive. In this era, in year 2 you should be flirting with NIT and year 3, NCAA, at worst.
Georgetown was 2-39 in Big East games the last 2 years. Does anyone believe Ed Cooley is getting years of patience to rebuild? And I'm not that obtuse, you don't have the pedigree of Gtown, or the resources, but surely you have enough that with the right coach in this era, you shouldn't be screaming from the rooftops for a 10th place finish in the 1-2 bid A10. You have way more going for you than that.
It’s hyperbole bc inferring it’s his most impt season as a coach infers he’s on the hot seat or will get fired if he underperforms. True at IU, not happening here.
Also given according to some in this new world it’s so much easier to build a tourney team can you point to 1 mid major program who fired their coach and within 2 years went from the bottom of their league to competing for tourney bids? Maybe there is 1 but I can’t think of any.
Archie's 2019-'20 IU team was going to the NCAA tournament. So this "5 coaching seasons removed from a tournament bid and 7 coaching seasons removed from a tournament win" doesn't take that into context. All these if's...you can go on forever with this stuff.
Archie is doing fine. He will do fine. I realize it's the hazy, lazy days of summer with nothing going on except sunburns. So let's chill out on the hyperbole over year-2 being so important for Archie's career.
And for the record, conference-wise Brad Underwood at Illinois was 11-27 in his first 2 years at Illinois...John Belein 21-33 at Michigan in 3 years...Bruce Pearl 16-38 at Auburn in 3 years.
19-20 team was probably going to the tournament. Bracket Matrix had them as a 10 seed. Started the season 15-4, 5-3. Finished 5-8.
In this era of hoops, it's impossible to compare old rebuilds to current ones. You can land someone Day 1 and immediately have those former players/transfers to start for you season 1. Even more, there is an extra year of players moving thanks to COVID eligibility. So the pool of portal players moving has never been bigger and they don't have to sit.
So maybe you hit only singles and doubles your first offseason with only a month or two on the ground, but certainly by offseason 2 you can have a team built of guys you brought in who have talent and can play immediately. There shouldn't be a long, dramatic period where it takes you 3+ years to even be competitive. In this era, in year 2 you should be flirting with NIT and year 3, NCAA, at worst.
Georgetown was 2-39 in Big East games the last 2 years. Does anyone believe Ed Cooley is getting years of patience to rebuild? And I'm not that obtuse, you don't have the pedigree of Gtown, or the resources, but surely you have enough that with the right coach in this era, you shouldn't be screaming from the rooftops for a 10th place finish in the 1-2 bid A10. You have way more going for you than that.
It’s hyperbole bc inferring it’s his most impt season as a coach infers he’s on the hot seat or will get fired if he underperforms. True at IU, not happening here.
Also given according to some in this new world it’s so much easier to build a tourney team can you point to 1 mid major program who fired their coach and within 2 years went from the bottom of their league to competing for tourney bids? Maybe there is 1 but I can’t think of any.
BAR, there are not many mid-major programs who fired their coach and paid a ton of money for a major upgrade like URI did with Miller. It's the mid-major equivalent of Pitino/SJU or Cooley/Georgetown. Both guys are expected to be competitive quickly. It's not like you paid $600k for some unproven commodity. You aren't paying Archie $2 million to have the same expectations as Chris Caputo. If he's as good as people say he is, there is no reason for you to not be flirting with the NIT this year. Maybe not in the NIT, but an above average A10 season.
Last edited by rjsuperfly668 months ago, edited 1 time in total.
ramster wrote: ↑8 months ago
RJSuperfly,
RhodyVault continues on a push for all 4 Rhode Island teams to play each other every year just as PC-URI play every year
In the old days pre Big East and A10 URI-PC played twice a year. Several years they alternated Home-Away with both games at the Providence Civic Center.
RV seems hell bent on Bryant playing URI, PC and Brown every year.
What say you on this subject???
How does this help URI and hurt URI in your humble opinion?
How does this help PC and hurt PC in your humble opinion?
How does this help Brown and hurt Brown in your humble opinion?
83658085-BC5D-4E0A-83EF-066D1E01D258.png
I'm all for scheduling them, if it makes sense.
I'm not giving up scheduling flexibility and locking in dates with them (like PC/URI).
And also, it's only more of a discussion now because Bryant has been decent the last few years.
If both were Q4 opponents, I'd probably want to alternate them.
Some believe they'd rather play both than cupcakes like Sacred Heart of Stonehill.
I believe it's different, these guys play pickup in the summer, there is some familiarity, should beat them with eyes closer but stranger things happen when one team is playing their "Super Bowl" and the other team is playing a Q4 opponent.
ramster wrote: ↑8 months ago
RJSuperfly,
RhodyVault continues on a push for all 4 Rhode Island teams to play each other every year just as PC-URI play every year
In the old days pre Big East and A10 URI-PC played twice a year. Several years they alternated Home-Away with both games at the Providence Civic Center.
RV seems hell bent on Bryant playing URI, PC and Brown every year.
What say you on this subject???
How does this help URI and hurt URI in your humble opinion?
How does this help PC and hurt PC in your humble opinion?
How does this help Brown and hurt Brown in your humble opinion?
83658085-BC5D-4E0A-83EF-066D1E01D258.png
i think the concept of a RI Beanpot style tourney or event has been kicked around here (KB) before. the Chowder Cup, Governor's Cup, Calamari Cup, whatever... if done early in the OOC season, I don't see how it's a bad thing. i love the idea. logistics/location(s) TBD.
some fun, good interstate competition, poop talking, bragging rights, what's not to like about in state rivalries? RI is unique in this one as we only have four D1 teams.
I support RV on this concept. that said, he's still a boob.
19-20 team was probably going to the tournament. Bracket Matrix had them as a 10 seed. Started the season 15-4, 5-3. Finished 5-8.
In this era of hoops, it's impossible to compare old rebuilds to current ones. You can land someone Day 1 and immediately have those former players/transfers to start for you season 1. Even more, there is an extra year of players moving thanks to COVID eligibility. So the pool of portal players moving has never been bigger and they don't have to sit.
So maybe you hit only singles and doubles your first offseason with only a month or two on the ground, but certainly by offseason 2 you can have a team built of guys you brought in who have talent and can play immediately. There shouldn't be a long, dramatic period where it takes you 3+ years to even be competitive. In this era, in year 2 you should be flirting with NIT and year 3, NCAA, at worst.
Georgetown was 2-39 in Big East games the last 2 years. Does anyone believe Ed Cooley is getting years of patience to rebuild? And I'm not that obtuse, you don't have the pedigree of Gtown, or the resources, but surely you have enough that with the right coach in this era, you shouldn't be screaming from the rooftops for a 10th place finish in the 1-2 bid A10. You have way more going for you than that.
It’s hyperbole bc inferring it’s his most impt season as a coach infers he’s on the hot seat or will get fired if he underperforms. True at IU, not happening here.
Also given according to some in this new world it’s so much easier to build a tourney team can you point to 1 mid major program who fired their coach and within 2 years went from the bottom of their league to competing for tourney bids? Maybe there is 1 but I can’t think of any.
BAR, there are not many mid-major programs who fired their coach and paid a ton of money for a major upgrade like URI did with Miller. It's the mid-major equivalent of Pitino/SJU or Cooley/Georgetown. Both guys are expected to be competitive quickly. It's not like you paid $600k for some unproven commodity. You aren't paying Archie $2 million to have the same expectations as Chris Caputo. If he's as good as people say he is, there is no reason for you to not be flirting with the NIT this year. Maybe not in the NIT, but an above average A10 season.
Now do Umass. They hired a coach with a final four under his belt. Paid him as much as Archie. What are they flirting with?
There is no Musselman-esque style rebuilds that you can point to at the mid major level bc it is still incredibly difficult to land game changing talent at this level. English brought his former players with him and got 1 guy (out of 3-4) to honor the commitment they made to Cooley.
I assume you are paying him very well for an unproven coach. He had a lot to sell in PC and didn't really convince anyone besides kids already committed to him to come on over. Being paid a lot doesn't help you attract recruits. Recent success, track record, facilities, NIL $$, exposure, etc are what recruits value. Besides his track record Archie had little to nothing to sell for a year. Now we start moving the needle.
Isn't the rebuild relative to the conference? Who is asking for Elite 8 (Muss at Ark) or Top 10 (Smart at Marq) for year 2? Why such a colossal defense for suggesting you should be competing for the top half of the conference and flirt with a potential NIT bid? Of course he doesn't have NIL, facilities, resources of his power conference peers, but is URI really lacking that far behind other A10 programs? Do you really see yourself so lowly?
rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑8 months ago
Isn't the rebuild relative to the conference? Who is asking for Elite 8 (Muss at Ark) or Top 10 (Smart at Marq) for year 2? Why such a colossal defense for suggesting you should be competing for the top half of the conference and flirt with a potential NIT bid? Of course he doesn't have NIL, facilities, resources of his power conference peers, but is URI really lacking that far behind other A10 programs? Do you really see yourself so lowly?
No I don’t and I along with others expect a climb up the standings this year for sure. But this thread started with the inference that this was Archie’s most impt season ever. When you can’t point to 1 mid major that went from worst to near first in under 2 years it would seem to indicate that to be a difficult challenge regardless of the salary the coach is paid. Mid table is a realistic expectation and benchmark for this season. With the following year being an expectation for a post season team.
10th or worse would be a massive disappointment this year. In the second year of a rebuild with this coach we should not be in the first round pig games
4 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑8 months ago
Isn't the rebuild relative to the conference? Who is asking for Elite 8 (Muss at Ark) or Top 10 (Smart at Marq) for year 2? Why such a colossal defense for suggesting you should be competing for the top half of the conference and flirt with a potential NIT bid? Of course he doesn't have NIL, facilities, resources of his power conference peers, but is URI really lacking that far behind other A10 programs? Do you really see yourself so lowly?
No I don’t and I along with others expect a climb up the standings this year for sure. But this thread started with the inference that this was Archie’s most impt season ever. When you can’t point to 1 mid major that went from worst to near first in under 2 years it would seem to indicate that to be a difficult challenge regardless of the salary the coach is paid. Mid table is a realistic expectation and benchmark for this season. With the following year being an expectation for a post season team.
I'm struggling here to understand how people can't compartmentalize these issues. Why are we saying that expecting to compete for a top-8 finish in a down/bad conference somehow means it's Archie's most important season ever when he literally faced a "tournament or fired" scenario at IU but isn't currently at that point at URI?
rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑8 months ago
Isn't the rebuild relative to the conference? Who is asking for Elite 8 (Muss at Ark) or Top 10 (Smart at Marq) for year 2? Why such a colossal defense for suggesting you should be competing for the top half of the conference and flirt with a potential NIT bid? Of course he doesn't have NIL, facilities, resources of his power conference peers, but is URI really lacking that far behind other A10 programs? Do you really see yourself so lowly?
No I don’t and I along with others expect a climb up the standings this year for sure. But this thread started with the inference that this was Archie’s most impt season ever. When you can’t point to 1 mid major that went from worst to near first in under 2 years it would seem to indicate that to be a difficult challenge regardless of the salary the coach is paid. Mid table is a realistic expectation and benchmark for this season. With the following year being an expectation for a post season team.
Why does coach pedigree/salary not matter though? When Cluess left Iona and Iona hired Pitino, it was expected, coming off a 12-17 season, that Iona would be immediately competitive, and sure enough in 3 years they went 64-22 (40-9) with 2 tournament births. They didn't take the risk on Pitino for a slow and steady rebuild, it was expected he would punch above his weight in recruiting and build a solid program from Day 1. You aren't going to convince me there is not a difference paying $1.5-$2 million per year for a proven commodity over paying someone who might have succeeded at a lower level but has no results/recruiting success at a higher level shouldn't yield different results. And that's the issue with your argument - most mid-majors don't invest in coaches, they just can't, so they grab the next project and hope to hit a grand slam. You are blessed to have brought in a guy a lot of people thought could bring you back to national relevance based on his prior results, and not some random low-major coach with "potential." That gives you a leg up on 95% of your peers.
rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑8 months ago
Isn't the rebuild relative to the conference? Who is asking for Elite 8 (Muss at Ark) or Top 10 (Smart at Marq) for year 2? Why such a colossal defense for suggesting you should be competing for the top half of the conference and flirt with a potential NIT bid? Of course he doesn't have NIL, facilities, resources of his power conference peers, but is URI really lacking that far behind other A10 programs? Do you really see yourself so lowly?
No I don’t and I along with others expect a climb up the standings this year for sure. But this thread started with the inference that this was Archie’s most impt season ever. When you can’t point to 1 mid major that went from worst to near first in under 2 years it would seem to indicate that to be a difficult challenge regardless of the salary the coach is paid. Mid table is a realistic expectation and benchmark for this season. With the following year being an expectation for a post season team.
I'm struggling here to understand how people can't compartmentalize these issues. Why are we saying that expecting to compete for a top-8 finish in a down/bad conference somehow means it's Archie's most important season ever when he literally faced a "tournament or fired" scenario at IU but isn't currently at that point at URI?
I guess it depends what the judgement is for - results or perception. Failing at a top-tier program does not make anyone a bad coach, plenty of good coaches have failed. You can fail at Indiana, Kentucky, Texas, UCLA, etc. and still land on your feet and be seen as a very good coach. The longer it takes him to dig out of the hole at URI, the less likely he seems like the wonderboy people thought he was a decade ago at Dayton. From a perception perspective, not failing at URI is way more important than what happened at Indiana.
We brought in a coach many people thought was out of our league literally and figuratively and are paying him a historic amount for URI, our expectations should be high for this season.
No I don’t and I along with others expect a climb up the standings this year for sure. But this thread started with the inference that this was Archie’s most impt season ever. When you can’t point to 1 mid major that went from worst to near first in under 2 years it would seem to indicate that to be a difficult challenge regardless of the salary the coach is paid. Mid table is a realistic expectation and benchmark for this season. With the following year being an expectation for a post season team.
I'm struggling here to understand how people can't compartmentalize these issues. Why are we saying that expecting to compete for a top-8 finish in a down/bad conference somehow means it's Archie's most important season ever when he literally faced a "tournament or fired" scenario at IU but isn't currently at that point at URI?
I guess it depends what the judgement is for - results or perception. Failing at a top-tier program does not make anyone a bad coach, plenty of good coaches have failed. You can fail at Indiana, Kentucky, Texas, UCLA, etc. and still land on your feet and be seen as a very good coach. The longer it takes him to dig out of the hole at URI, the less likely he seems like the wonderboy people thought he was a decade ago at Dayton. From a perception perspective, not failing at URI is way more important than what happened at Indiana.
I'd argue results form the perception so they aren't necessarily separable. Outside of RI and the A10, Archie is a punching bag. You see the comments online from IU and Big 10 fans both during and after his tenure there? Nobody outside of our small bubble here thinks of him as a wonderboy so thinking this season makes or breaks that perception in the sport is wrong. I just cannot say that this season is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT season of his whole career. I think when he was at IU and trying to prove he is the wonderboy and is a big time coach is when the importance of perception mattered most.
I'm struggling here to understand how people can't compartmentalize these issues. Why are we saying that expecting to compete for a top-8 finish in a down/bad conference somehow means it's Archie's most important season ever when he literally faced a "tournament or fired" scenario at IU but isn't currently at that point at URI?
I guess it depends what the judgement is for - results or perception. Failing at a top-tier program does not make anyone a bad coach, plenty of good coaches have failed. You can fail at Indiana, Kentucky, Texas, UCLA, etc. and still land on your feet and be seen as a very good coach. The longer it takes him to dig out of the hole at URI, the less likely he seems like the wonderboy people thought he was a decade ago at Dayton. From a perception perspective, not failing at URI is way more important than what happened at Indiana.
I'd argue results form the perception so they aren't necessarily separable. Outside of RI and the A10, Archie is a punching bag. You see the comments online from IU and Big 10 fans both during and after his tenure there? Nobody outside of our small bubble here thinks of him as a wonderboy so thinking this season makes or breaks that perception in the sport is wrong. I just cannot say that this season is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT season of his whole career. I think when he was at IU and trying to prove he is the wonderboy and is a big time coach is when the importance of perception mattered most.
I guess this is where we see it different.
Archie struggling at Indiana at worst was going to land him at a stronger mid-major.
Archie struggling at URI and his career might be shot. Last year was always going to be a pass, and next year is likely more important than this year, but it's still important for him to show "I can still be that guy."
Maybe not for you guys as a fanbase, but for the Archie who used to be considered one of the top coaching minds in the country.
I guess it depends what the judgement is for - results or perception. Failing at a top-tier program does not make anyone a bad coach, plenty of good coaches have failed. You can fail at Indiana, Kentucky, Texas, UCLA, etc. and still land on your feet and be seen as a very good coach. The longer it takes him to dig out of the hole at URI, the less likely he seems like the wonderboy people thought he was a decade ago at Dayton. From a perception perspective, not failing at URI is way more important than what happened at Indiana.
I'd argue results form the perception so they aren't necessarily separable. Outside of RI and the A10, Archie is a punching bag. You see the comments online from IU and Big 10 fans both during and after his tenure there? Nobody outside of our small bubble here thinks of him as a wonderboy so thinking this season makes or breaks that perception in the sport is wrong. I just cannot say that this season is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT season of his whole career. I think when he was at IU and trying to prove he is the wonderboy and is a big time coach is when the importance of perception mattered most.
I guess this is where we see it different.
Archie struggling at Indiana at worst was going to land him at a stronger mid-major.
Archie struggling at URI and his career might be shot. Last year was always going to be a pass, and next year is likely more important than this year, but it's still important for him to show "I can still be that guy."
Maybe not for you guys as a fanbase, but for the Archie who used to be considered one of the top coaching minds in the country.
A reasonable "agree to disagree" conclusion. It was still a fun debate - thank you.
rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑8 months ago
Isn't the rebuild relative to the conference? Who is asking for Elite 8 (Muss at Ark) or Top 10 (Smart at Marq) for year 2? Why such a colossal defense for suggesting you should be competing for the top half of the conference and flirt with a potential NIT bid? Of course he doesn't have NIL, facilities, resources of his power conference peers, but is URI really lacking that far behind other A10 programs? Do you really see yourself so lowly?
No I don’t and I along with others expect a climb up the standings this year for sure. But this thread started with the inference that this was Archie’s most impt season ever. When you can’t point to 1 mid major that went from worst to near first in under 2 years it would seem to indicate that to be a difficult challenge regardless of the salary the coach is paid. Mid table is a realistic expectation and benchmark for this season. With the following year being an expectation for a post season team.
Why does coach pedigree/salary not matter though? When Cluess left Iona and Iona hired Pitino, it was expected, coming off a 12-17 season, that Iona would be immediately competitive, and sure enough in 3 years they went 64-22 (40-9) with 2 tournament births. They didn't take the risk on Pitino for a slow and steady rebuild, it was expected he would punch above his weight in recruiting and build a solid program from Day 1. You aren't going to convince me there is not a difference paying $1.5-$2 million per year for a proven commodity over paying someone who might have succeeded at a lower level but has no results/recruiting success at a higher level shouldn't yield different results. And that's the issue with your argument - most mid-majors don't invest in coaches, they just can't, so they grab the next project and hope to hit a grand slam. You are blessed to have brought in a guy a lot of people thought could bring you back to national relevance based on his prior results, and not some random low-major coach with "potential." That gives you a leg up on 95% of your peers.
Did you really compare Archie to perhaps the greatest college basketball coach alive?
Did you really compare climbing the ladder in the MAAC to doing it in the A10?
Just stop.
Yes Archie's pedigree matters and he is going to bring Rhody back to relevance.
It's just not going to be done on name recognition alone; while a mid major the A10 is still a difficult league.
Ask the current national champion coach. It took him 3-4 years to have a roster of "his guys" to compete with the top of the league.
While Archie has the pedigree he was not the get rich quick type hire. He said it so himself at his opening presser.
No I don’t and I along with others expect a climb up the standings this year for sure. But this thread started with the inference that this was Archie’s most impt season ever. When you can’t point to 1 mid major that went from worst to near first in under 2 years it would seem to indicate that to be a difficult challenge regardless of the salary the coach is paid. Mid table is a realistic expectation and benchmark for this season. With the following year being an expectation for a post season team.
Why does coach pedigree/salary not matter though? When Cluess left Iona and Iona hired Pitino, it was expected, coming off a 12-17 season, that Iona would be immediately competitive, and sure enough in 3 years they went 64-22 (40-9) with 2 tournament births. They didn't take the risk on Pitino for a slow and steady rebuild, it was expected he would punch above his weight in recruiting and build a solid program from Day 1. You aren't going to convince me there is not a difference paying $1.5-$2 million per year for a proven commodity over paying someone who might have succeeded at a lower level but has no results/recruiting success at a higher level shouldn't yield different results. And that's the issue with your argument - most mid-majors don't invest in coaches, they just can't, so they grab the next project and hope to hit a grand slam. You are blessed to have brought in a guy a lot of people thought could bring you back to national relevance based on his prior results, and not some random low-major coach with "potential." That gives you a leg up on 95% of your peers.
Did you really compare Archie to perhaps the greatest college basketball coach alive?
Did you really compare climbing the ladder in the MAAC to doing it in the A10?
Just stop.
Yes Archie's pedigree matters and he is going to bring Rhody back to relevance.
It's just not going to be done on name recognition alone; while a mid major the A10 is still a difficult league.
Ask the current national champion coach. It took him 3-4 years to have a roster of "his guys" to compete with the top of the league.
While Archie has the pedigree he was not the get rich quick type hire. He said it so himself at his opening presser.
And no one was saying Archie should replicate what Pitino did at Iona. But being competitive shouldn't be difficult.
Not sure why still comparing to rebuilds of old. Imagine if Hurley didn't have to wait to get all his guys eligible?
Why does coach pedigree/salary not matter though? When Cluess left Iona and Iona hired Pitino, it was expected, coming off a 12-17 season, that Iona would be immediately competitive, and sure enough in 3 years they went 64-22 (40-9) with 2 tournament births. They didn't take the risk on Pitino for a slow and steady rebuild, it was expected he would punch above his weight in recruiting and build a solid program from Day 1. You aren't going to convince me there is not a difference paying $1.5-$2 million per year for a proven commodity over paying someone who might have succeeded at a lower level but has no results/recruiting success at a higher level shouldn't yield different results. And that's the issue with your argument - most mid-majors don't invest in coaches, they just can't, so they grab the next project and hope to hit a grand slam. You are blessed to have brought in a guy a lot of people thought could bring you back to national relevance based on his prior results, and not some random low-major coach with "potential." That gives you a leg up on 95% of your peers.
Did you really compare Archie to perhaps the greatest college basketball coach alive?
Did you really compare climbing the ladder in the MAAC to doing it in the A10?
Just stop.
Yes Archie's pedigree matters and he is going to bring Rhody back to relevance.
It's just not going to be done on name recognition alone; while a mid major the A10 is still a difficult league.
Ask the current national champion coach. It took him 3-4 years to have a roster of "his guys" to compete with the top of the league.
While Archie has the pedigree he was not the get rich quick type hire. He said it so himself at his opening presser.
And no one was saying Archie should replicate what Pitino did at Iona. But being competitive shouldn't be difficult.
Not sure why still comparing to rebuilds of old. Imagine if Hurley didn't have to wait to get all his guys eligible?
Dude if Biggie Minnis, Jarell Reischel etc were immediately eligible those first couple of years we would have still stunk. They just weren’t program changing players. The talent level increased as he gained a foothold, recruited for a full year and started to get the program back on track. Same is and will happen with Archie.
The portal allows more movement but it doesn’t make it any easier for A10 programs to attract program changing talent.
We will definitely be competitive this season. That’s not even a question. But inferring if we don’t finish top 5 it’s a failure season for Archie is asinine. And that’s always been the crux of this convo.
Why does coach pedigree/salary not matter though? When Cluess left Iona and Iona hired Pitino, it was expected, coming off a 12-17 season, that Iona would be immediately competitive, and sure enough in 3 years they went 64-22 (40-9) with 2 tournament births. They didn't take the risk on Pitino for a slow and steady rebuild, it was expected he would punch above his weight in recruiting and build a solid program from Day 1. You aren't going to convince me there is not a difference paying $1.5-$2 million per year for a proven commodity over paying someone who might have succeeded at a lower level but has no results/recruiting success at a higher level shouldn't yield different results. And that's the issue with your argument - most mid-majors don't invest in coaches, they just can't, so they grab the next project and hope to hit a grand slam. You are blessed to have brought in a guy a lot of people thought could bring you back to national relevance based on his prior results, and not some random low-major coach with "potential." That gives you a leg up on 95% of your peers.
Did you really compare Archie to perhaps the greatest college basketball coach alive?
Did you really compare climbing the ladder in the MAAC to doing it in the A10?
Just stop.
Yes Archie's pedigree matters and he is going to bring Rhody back to relevance.
It's just not going to be done on name recognition alone; while a mid major the A10 is still a difficult league.
Ask the current national champion coach. It took him 3-4 years to have a roster of "his guys" to compete with the top of the league.
While Archie has the pedigree he was not the get rich quick type hire. He said it so himself at his opening presser.
And no one was saying Archie should replicate what Pitino did at Iona. But being competitive shouldn't be difficult.
Not sure why still comparing to rebuilds of old. Imagine if Hurley didn't have to wait to get all his guys eligible?
Wait...now we're saying "Archie doesn't need to replicate what Pitino did at Iona"? Really?
Did you really compare Archie to perhaps the greatest college basketball coach alive?
Did you really compare climbing the ladder in the MAAC to doing it in the A10?
Just stop.
Yes Archie's pedigree matters and he is going to bring Rhody back to relevance.
It's just not going to be done on name recognition alone; while a mid major the A10 is still a difficult league.
Ask the current national champion coach. It took him 3-4 years to have a roster of "his guys" to compete with the top of the league.
While Archie has the pedigree he was not the get rich quick type hire. He said it so himself at his opening presser.
And no one was saying Archie should replicate what Pitino did at Iona. But being competitive shouldn't be difficult.
Not sure why still comparing to rebuilds of old. Imagine if Hurley didn't have to wait to get all his guys eligible?
Wait...now we're saying "Archie doesn't need to replicate what Pitino did at Iona"? Really?
Meaning immediate turnaround, NCAA in year 1.
The A10, even in a down year, is too good of a conference to just say that higher level talent gets you to the top of the league.
The MAAC sucks, and if you were to get a Pitino or even an Archie at that level, you can win right away. It takes more time in a more competitive league.
That said, this is Archie's first year with a legit pipeline and look at the talent upgrade.
Look at the kids already in for next years class. It's pretty clear we're on the way back up.
4 x
If you say you’re a Rhody fan, I know you are my brother. For you have suffered as I have suffered.
And no one was saying Archie should replicate what Pitino did at Iona. But being competitive shouldn't be difficult.
Not sure why still comparing to rebuilds of old. Imagine if Hurley didn't have to wait to get all his guys eligible?
Wait...now we're saying "Archie doesn't need to replicate what Pitino did at Iona"? Really?
Meaning immediate turnaround, NCAA in year 1.
The A10, even in a down year, is too good of a conference to just say that higher level talent gets you to the top of the league.
The MAAC sucks, and if you were to get a Pitino or even an Archie at that level, you can win right away. It takes more time in a more competitive league.
That said, this is Archie's first year with a legit pipeline and look at the talent upgrade.
Look at the kids already in for next years class. It's pretty clear we're on the way back up.
Yes Blue Man I definitely agree with your post, makes sense to me.
Iona was already the best program in their league when Pitino got there.
Very different situation
Tim Cleuss retired after 6 bids in 9 years and 4 straight. Pitino took over just a season after that.
That's pretty damn different than taking over a program that had hit rock bottom in a much tougher conference.
Yeah Iona had much success in the MAAC before Pitino's arrival.
Of course, prior to Cluess leaving for health reasons and they were in transition 2019-2020 in between head coaches.
Besides Archie has not yet proved to be Pitino and the A10 is much stronger than the MAAC.
Like it or not our rebuild isn't happening overnight and may take a bit longer than many here wish.
Fact is that Vault over exaggerated Archie's situation going into 23-24.
PeterRamTime wrote: ↑8 months ago
Fact is that Vault over exaggerated Archie's situation going into 23-24.
I 100% agree with this statement. The rebuild seems to be off to a okay start this year but we won't know until we see the guys on the court for an extended time.
I just hope Vault cuts the "you heard it here first" crap like he's been doing with our coverage, ex the Tre Mitchell debacle. I feel like that or a similar situation may have been what pissed off the staff which Malik Martin referred to when he called him out on Twitter.
2 x
Dan Hurley 2012-2018:
Year 1: 8-21 3-13 T–14th
Year 2:14-18 5-11 10th
Year 3:23-10 13-5 T-2nd NIT 2nd RD
Year 4:17-15 9-9 7th
Year 5:25-10 13-5 T-3rd NCAA T
Year 6:26-8 15-3 1st NCAA T
