31,744 threads containing 151,355 posts in 19 years - (1) Make an argument; (2) Don't call someone an evil pant-load
WATCH
Refreshed at 3:57 AM EST
GW, THE FUTURE OF THE PROGRAM, AN ACCOUNTING AND A LOOK AHEAD
Created: 3/28/2015 2:26:38 AMReplies: 81
3/28/2015 2:26:38 AM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

As a fairly new reader and poster of this esteemed board, its impossible to not detect an air of defeatism among some of the loyal and thoughtful writers.  1) "Any highly successful coach will just"  ....  2) "We can't ever land a legit top recruit"  3)  "We can't possibly be Gonzaga of the East"  #1 is just not consistent with college basketball history, most do, but some don't leave.  For every 5 Pitinos and Bill Selfs, there's a Mark Few.  #2, So far that track record is pretty low, (that only comes most likely after #1 and #3 or something akin to it, but even in the interim, no guarantee we can't.  I don't think a Derrick Rose is coming to GW but an initially overlooked Delon Wright type might.  We need to prove that first, and its not the only path to raise the program new heights.)  #3 To the we can't be a Gonzaga type team, NONSENSE.  Are you aware of the history of the Gonzaga program?   Gonzaga had never made an NCAA tourney for decades, not once, in 1994 when we had made a Sweet 16, defeated the #1 team in the country with the POTUS sitting in attendance, Gonzaga had yet to play a single game in the NCAA tourney.  5 years later they had played 1 game, a thrashing as a 14 seed, GW meanwhile by the end of the 90s had been to 5 tourneys in 7 years.  Gonzaga fans who saw the GW influx of international talent winning NCAA tourney games as a celebrated Cinderella would have said "please we'll never be a GW."  What a defeatist attitude to have, any success will be met be a lost coach and an immediate step back, we can't do this, we can't do that.  This program can and at some point likely will rise to new heights. We have some fairly unique advantages and some other obstacles, but seriously, Gonzaga doesn't? Is there a man alive today who thought in 1994 that Gonzaga would be sitting on top of its mountain today???  Its been 16 years since that end of the 90's and we have one tourney win. Dissapointing. Yet is it conceivable 16 years from now we could have a highly successful sustain run, absolutely it is.  Although, its a lot less likely if the fan base thinks that's impossible, if they hang onto that defeatism, if the AD and the Coaches buy into that defeatism as well.  If on the other hand you are part of the fan base that demands more, that pushes for more, that helps make your voice heard, you pave a tiny part of the path that may make it so.  Greg Marshall's first 4 to 5 years look a lot like Lonergan's at GW, 4 more years look where they are.    Has Lonergan already set us down that path? Maybe...just maybe he has. Maybe it will have to be the next guy, but that path is going to be paved one day....The Dude Abides.


 

3/28/2015 8:10:49 AM - Long Suffering Fan - 4,060 posts (#5)

The problem GW basketball has is NOT the administration or athletic department.  The problem is the lack of a fan base, the size of which may fluctuate during good or bad years, but never seems to grow.  We have been able to sustain success iin stretches for several years (i.e. The Jarvis 90s, the Hobbs 00s and now looking like the Longergan era, and crowds will increase, but it just doesn't seem to last.   Until there is fan support for a program that is very much worth supporting, I am not optimisitc on taking that next step...it is going to take more than a great coach to get us there.

3/28/2015 9:15:18 AM - notta hater - 2,482 posts (#12)

how many of you have GW Gnomes in your yard? Dammit, I have to see a Hoya Gnome in my freaking garden every night. Then I have Va Tech and UVA banners lining the street during football season. Heck, I even see Gonzaga and Landon window stickers on my way to work and home every day. I rarely see GW anything. With the total number of alum we pump-out there should be some pride and the ability to push some swag out the door and create a buzz about the school. Not seeing fans at the hoops games is merely a symptom of a bgger problem - and that does belong to the faculty, administration and AD.

3/28/2015 10:18:17 AM - Long Suffering Fan - 4,060 posts (#5)

I used to think it belonged on the faculty, administration and AD also, Notta, but I am not so sure anymore.  I think the AD does a great job of trying to market the team, both at home and away, however it seems that the only things that brings people in are the free food and booze. But then they don't come back until there is more free food and booze.  Yes, attendance has been up the past couple of seasons based upon the teams successes on the court, as good teams will cause the more casual fan to re-engage; but we have never been able to survive the leaner years.  It even trickles down to this board, where the most ardent supporters of the team come to gather...but far,more so when we are good    I don't expect everyone to go to every game and hang on every word that is written about the team, but for some reason, we cannot reach a point where selling out a 4700 seat arena in a metropolitan area of close to 6 million people and a huge alumni base should be such a challenge.

3/28/2015 11:28:39 AM - newtman - 1,354 posts (#25)

Notta, GW really has not developed an identity in basketball. we have over the years been called The GW Colonels more than a few times. I recognize there are some dumb sportswriters but I don't remember anyone calling them the Duke Blue Angels or Kansas Kayhawks. OK we're not in there league but people should know we are the Colonials. 

LSF, the GW students and alum have a choice as you know. The vast majority choose almost anything else but they chhose to do something else. It's that simple. Now when you offer food the basketball game is a top priority. You and I have been around forever it's always been that way. It's likely to be a challenge well into the future getting people to attend games unless GW starts recruiting fans. 

3/28/2015 12:47:11 PM - thinker - 2,734 posts (#11)

I'm with LSF. No matter how many ways you twist it around GW is limited by its limited fanbase. I think the students that come to GW have a relatively limited interest in sports and it's proven difficult to make basketball the cool thing to do on campus. And if you weren't interested in the team as a student you just aren't very likely to be interested as an alum.

In a lot of ways GW basketball is like the awesome neighborhood restaurant - it's convenient, the prices are very reasonable, the food ranges from good to very good, it's usually a pretty fun night - everything is right for a successful restaurant except people just don't go there.

3/28/2015 12:56:59 PM - Tennessee Colonial - 1,166 posts (#27)

Yep, went to pick up some printer goods here in Nashville wearin my hooded GW sweatshirt. The checkout guy said, yes, I heard of GW, isn't it in St. Louis.? He said he was a Vanderbilt Polly Si major. Huh?  Maybe its an identity crisis we have. Change name of school the The United States University. Then these fools could not  forget we're in DC.   Now to you guys thinking of cold, I just got in from mowing my friggin grass. March, not April.

3/28/2015 1:10:34 PM - NJ Colonial - 1,962 posts (#17)

Dude: thank you for your fresh and open-minded perspective and attitude. I believe, as I think you and many others do, that GW has unlimited potential. Now that leadership is in place in both Rice Hall and Smith Center that is committed to sustained success - the future is bright for Colonials Athletics. Don't let old time cynics like LSF get to you, they love and believe in GW but they are carrying around a lot of emotional baggage. Go GW - Raise High! 

3/28/2015 1:54:59 PM - newtman - 1,354 posts (#25)

NJ, I disagree that LFS is a cynic. He's telling you his experience over 45 years. I've been here 46 years and I agree with him. Thinker too. We've seen this movie again and again. You think GW has a bright future and we're hopeful too. The older guys are perhaps a little more impatient. 

3/28/2015 2:14:18 PM - Poog - 3,852 posts (#6)

Pocket Protector Patrons' Prescience

3/28/2015 3:14:24 PM - Bo Knows - 598 posts (#42)

Hope springs eternal but Newtman, LSF, Poog, Thinker, and I (and others) have been around too long. You can't make GW into something it is not no matter how badly you might want that. I'd like to dunk. I could practice and try harder everyday. I will never dunk. So I can keep thinking I am going to dunk or I can be realistic and play within my skills and get better at those things that I can. GW has an opportunity to be a perennial nice mid-major program (top 50) who if it catches lightning could push for a Sweet 16 or better very occasionally. To expect a Sweet 16 or better every year is pure folly. To expect to be like Gonzaga is also pure folly for the reasons set forth in another thread. You either enjoy what we have and hope for better realizing it may not happen or you don't. That's not being defeatist or cynical, that's being real - understanding where GW is as an institution etc. I believe it was Clint Eastwood who once said - "A man's got to know his limitations."

3/28/2015 3:28:11 PM - FredD - 590 posts (#44)

+1 LSF An established school which GW certainly is should not struggle to put 3k in the seats for most games IF GWhad real school spirit.  They just plain don't. Not when I went there 80-82 and not now. It's a fun diversion for most students and nothing more. With all the recruiting info out there how many students track recruiting? How many ponder Swann and Cimino's playing time? 50? 100? I'm sure it is not 200. I love GW Basketball but I know where it stands as a priority for most folks.

3/28/2015 3:56:12 PM - 173.73.93.218 - 3 posts (#256)

Change in culture has to start sometime, why not now?

3/28/2015 4:01:13 PM - LA Fan - 1,520 posts (#22)

Beyond UCLA can anyone name a school in a big city that has a really strong local following of alumni a for their basketball team?  New York, Chicago, DC, LA, Seattle, San Francisco, Miami, Boston?  I think there is a reason a lot of the names remaining in the tourny are Kentucky, Arizona, Michigan State, Wisconsin etc.  The two strongest fan bases in the A10 are VCU and Dayton.  If GW were in Dayton we would have a strong fan base too.  

Big cities just don't lend themselves to that diehard sports mentality for college basketball.  Notice I didn't even include Georgetown.  Yes, they play in a 20,000 seat arena, but it is more than half empty for many of their games.  Maryland is a school for the suburbs and beyond.  I don't know how  a city school is supposed to get people invested when the culture of cities doesn't really support that kind of rabid following that you get in smaller towns?

3/28/2015 5:07:07 PM - Real reason - 1 posts (#258)

gw is around to piss off the alumni while they are at gw.  The alumni do not give a sh@t about the school.

This has been a 30 year problem.

3/28/2015 6:04:24 PM - Poog - 3,852 posts (#6)

I can attest to 45

3/28/2015 6:19:47 PM - Tuna Can - 1,655 posts (#19)

You know.... one small thing, I make well over 200K a year on duplicating keys at just one of my DC stores (I work in--I don't own) and it pisses me off that I don't se a GW vanity key anywhere and I cut Maryland and Gtown keys all day long. The push on the GW name and visibility is just not their from the school.

I actually found out what it would take to get a set of GW logo Keyblanks set up for order and it is just 15 grand for two standard keys. That's one quarter of the tuition for one student at GW for a year. And yet, three or four times a day, someone could be pulling out their GW keys OVER and OVER and looking at them and no one bothered.

3/28/2015 6:32:44 PM - ziik - 2,894 posts (#9)

I knew I made a mistake. I used to make keys. I think I made $1.72/hour.  I guess the business has changed.

3/28/2015 6:33:10 PM - Tuna Can - 1,655 posts (#19)

I am not that pissy about the school as some of you. Possibly like Poog, I have grown to accept some of this and relish the great successes.... LIKE BASEBALL. I haven't gone to a game, but I am following the results and reading the box scores. When you see the recruiting there.... the staff that has been assembled (many young pitchers who are really doing well), the field players, the contact hitting and getting on base and now finding a bit of power. Most importantly, the staff seems to have a solid infield to back up the pitching. The AD is doing something very right. Sports at GW is coming along. It is just the basketball team that only slightly passed 20 wins. (joking there). 

What the BBall team needed last year were two things and my gripes about Lonergan would have been meaningless.... we needed another Big capable of taking some of the attention away from Kevin and we needed not to have both Kethan and Joe coming off serious injuries that probably limited their preparation for the season.

Anyway, I see the athletic program at GW coming along. Every team is really aming at success or changes get made and improvements and support happens to make this happen. You know one other thing. It seems that in the far past, recent grads would stay in touch with sports at the school. Now, not so much. You used to see lots of kids finding their way over to "the adult side." Not now. Stop beating up on us guys with ear hair come overs. What the school needs to do is focus on the kids who grab the sheep's skin and go off making all sorts of disposable income (that's also a joke) BUT there are many who can afford to buy a ticket and show up for games.

3/28/2015 6:44:58 PM - Tuna Can - 1,655 posts (#19)

Ziik, it is way better than T Shirts, dude. I would say we do over 600K a year in DC. It is such a good business that we don't count the stock or keep inventory. Margin. Anyway, as amuzing as my situation is that I am "selling keys" at an old age, I absolutely love what I am doing and I can only wish that all folks find their "sweet spot" for a job. I came out of GW as a techie and now I have gravitated to huckster. What a life. Off to listen to some local live music. Wish you guys all the best.

3/28/2015 7:34:01 PM - notta hater - 2,482 posts (#12)

I used to sell keys too! Well, until I got busted and spent 16 years in jail.

3/28/2015 7:52:18 PM - 72.190.92.121 - 1 posts (#258)

"Beyond UCLA can anyone name a school in a big city that has a really strong local following of alumni a for their basketball team?  New York, Chicago, DC, LA, Seattle, San Francisco, Miami, Boston?"

UCLA fits that bill. So does the Univ. of Washington (Seattle). When they were good, the Univ. of Houston and Georgia Tech also had strong lcoal followings.

 

 

 

3/28/2015 8:03:24 PM - ziik - 2,894 posts (#9)

I do not sell T-shirts, TC, though I used to give them away. Seriously? You make replacement keys? At what sort of place? A walk-in business?  (I used to make keys in a job at an apartment house. Replacing lost or broken keys, etc. I was still at GW, it was in the 60's, I am sure I made less than $2.00/hr, as noted.)  I am happy for you, TC. You need some help sweeping up the filings or something, let me know. For some reason, I thought you were in the food business.

I think GW ought to give away 2 free hotdogs and a Coke to everybody who shows up for a Smith Center game. Throw in some mustard. I am convinced, psychologically, a free bite builds biz.

3/28/2015 9:14:45 PM - BC - 1,624 posts (#20)

I'd like to see a discussion of GW the school versus GW the Basketball program, because I see it as a tradeoff rather than a tradeoff.   Not that I wouldn't want to see both at the same time, I just don't see it happening.

3/29/2015 6:12:27 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

Some good reflections here, I will respond more when the time presents.  NJ Colonial, I'm with you brother, what in particular do you think has been the most important changes made?  For the hardest line skeptics, why can't it be down here, and before you answer, can't a program be mentioned in each traditional excuse why we can't sustain winning?  I personaly think most damaging is the notion that any very successful coach will immediately leap frog to a higher program.  For now, I'd lastly add that Georgetown was a rubbish baskteball program with 40 years of futility before the arrival of JT Jr, no NCAA in 40 years, nothing at all.  Big programs can be built, and not always in the most ideal situations.     (oh, last thing for the Lavin defenders the other day, dude was canned but allowed to say "mutual" Steve didn't seem to care to make it seem mutual.  For St Johns, this is the smart decision, tolerating mediocrity too long is how once great programs fall... or in our case, tolerating mediocrity too long after a program with a great season or 2!)
 

 
3/29/2015 6:33:58 PM - GW Alum in Houston - 63 posts (#196)

Regarding the fan base.

GW's issue is that it is not terribly relevant to the people of DC.  Its a private school.  Most people in DC/VA/MD cannot afford to send their kids there.  Our alumni base isn't concentrated in our home area as much as other schools.  There are other schools that we have to dethrone for the 'casual fan'.  And Georgetown and U Maryland aren't chumps.  Many private schools have this issue.  We just are going to have trouble with the 'casual fan'.    To be fair, we do better than other private schools (Rice, Tulane, etc.) that are similarly situated. 

Georgetown managed to end run the private school issue with John Thompson's embrace of certain DC cultural elements.  Not arguing that GW should do the same.  St Louis and Dayton have managed to be successful in that space.  But neither of them have major competition. 

I think that anything GW does to attract the 'casual fan' is going to be incremental, given our competitive environment.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but understand that GW basketball is going to be a tough sell to the larger DC community.

-----

Here's what some other private schools have done.

TCU - Became the 'school' for a part of their region.  Basically TCU is "we are Fort Worth".  GW is going to have difficulty doing so because our high profile competition is mere blocks from our campus.  Georgetown's decision to play home games OFF campus would normally be a bad one, but it unfortunately works very well for them.  If Georgetown played on campus, it would increase the 'going to the game' hassle for many of its fans due to G'town's bad transport links. 

Dayton - outshine the competition.  On the face of it, Wright State should be the primary team for Dayton.  But because of Dayton's dominance athletically, Dayton gets and retains the edge.  If Wright State managed to up their schedule and competitiveness, watch for 'casual fans' to slowly move to them.

St Louis - no competition.  Wanna see college basketball in St Louis - then you'll be watching the Billikins.

St Johns - no public school competition.  Easier transport links to games than the competition.  Better schedule.  That's why Fordham's bid into the A-10 was doubly stupid.  Fordham has the same problem as GW.  Actually there's is far worse - they have bad transport links.  So even if Fordham got good, they'd still not have much support. 

-------

Instead of bitching about low attendance, lets focus on how we can differentiate our product to the casual fan and make our school more relevant.  And understand that GW's environment for fan support is about as difficult as any other team playing top level basketball. 

What we can do: 

1) Maximize what we own.  The GW community should be doubly encouraged and incentivised to attend games. 

2) Work on what we can change.  Try and find where we can favorably differentiate ourselves from Georgetown in the eyes of the casual fan.

3) Ensure that the game day experience is tailored towards fan retention.  Perhaps do the following:   Have a special.  Pay for a ticket to a game in December and get a free ticket to the Fordham or Duquesne game in February.  Give people a reason to return.  

4) Get creative.

 

 

3/29/2015 7:21:43 PM - Fan - 212 posts (#106)

remember 30 years of being pissed off.  The only good thing GW does is give food and booze.  No support with that.  Count the sell outs at smith center (real sell outs with all seat gone!!).  Have a great day.   See you when the food and booze is flowing.

3/29/2015 7:28:35 PM - ziik - 2,894 posts (#9)

To sell out the Smith, bring back VaTech, West Virginia, Michigan State. Their fans travel.

3/29/2015 7:43:54 PM - Thomas - 1,100 posts (#29)

Georgetown joined the Big East, the Big East then got a TV contract with ESPN in the early 80's which gave them nationwide exposure, and allowed each school to bring in the best high school players. That's how John Thompson Jr was able to turn them into a national power, and why they are still somewhat of a big-name national program today. I'm not sure that GW can duplicate what they did because the top 7 conferences have all their conference games on TV now. The only way GW can build up a rabid fan base and a VCU-like home court atmosphere is making a deep NCAA tourney run or a 5+ year run of NCAA tourney appearances.

3/29/2015 7:56:40 PM - Cutis - 240 posts (#99)

I like GW Alum in Houstons concept of being creative. I believe the administration tries to come up with ideas but a seasoned observer is not put in charge to oversee things  through. Examples. Each game the cheerleaders give out 6 pizzas to the fans. Why in the world would they deliver these to the "blues eats" where many fans just finished dinner at the Colonial Club. All the pizzas should be sent to the student section. Two or three games a year t-shirts are put on seats ,to be worn during the game to increase spirit. This year two-thirds of the shirts placed in the "blue seats " were the "small" size. Who  is in charge. Who is thinking these things out? Minor items perhaps but I see a trend of letting newbies decide. This year many of us in the Colonial Club experienced parking glitches in the assigned garages. Again, there was good intentions but not much thinking things out. I am in favor of providing the student section with, pizza, hot dogs, free soda and raffles for iTunes gift cards. Bribe them,entice them,make things fun. Spend money,but spend it on the students.Make the games a social happening and they will come.

3/29/2015 11:16:16 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

Lots of good thoughts here.  Good ideas Cutis, like them all.  JT the 2nd arrived ta Gtown in  1972, and for about decade built the program, the 2nd half of which he had them ensconced in the postseason, his first Elite 8 team was in place before the Big East invite. Those first 8 years was done as an Independent, it was the success of the program under JT that led to The Big East invite, but that train was rolling with or without that invite.  Sleep Floyd was already there, Ewing was on the way.  Thompson did all of that with Gtown as a lowly program and an Independent, its hard to think he wouldn't have done the same for GW (or that someone else couldn't have conveivably)  The perpetual thinking that the program can't achieve higher heights doesn't help matters, I believe it plays some part in slowing that process.  For instance there was a chain on this site from Hobbs last year with many posters calling for an extension for Hobbs 4 years ago, 4 years deep into a giant step backwards from the 06-08 seasons and a huge step backward from the tracks that Jarvis laid throughout the 90's.  No GW coach should be given 3 or 4 terrible consecutive years in a row again.  One more example, I am still just mind blown how many people on this site believe this year was not a big dissapointment.  Last year we were playing in the 8 vs9 game in the NCAA tourney, with Core 4 all back and some promissing Freshman on board, jumped out early to a strong start and by February we were getting blown out by Duquense, the team being sucked into the death spiral of losing, the RPI plummeting 60 spots, the season resigned to a hail marry at the A10 tourney, no NCAA in sight.  From 2013 to 2014 to 2015, all signs were pointing up, but here you had no shortage of "I feel good about this year, we expected it hey we lost two guys etc etc"   Doesn't sound like what you'd like to hear from the dead center core of a potential future sustained winning program. 

3/30/2015 12:00:25 AM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

For every losing and mediocre program, you always hear all of the excuses.  You almost never hear its the ADs and the series of Coaches hired by the ADs.  In reality, it is in fact mostly the ADs and the coaches hired by those ADs.  Of course, yes some programs have major advantages and other major challenges and making the wrong choices makes those challenges harder, but in the end of the day its the Head coach hires.  Whenever a program hires the wrong coach/es you begin to hear all of the excuses, you even heard them at UCLA over the years, and at Kentucky, at Indiana and at St Johns.  Its always some explanation that speaks to one or more perceived challenge, until the right coach is hired and proves that was just an excuse and you stop hearing about how you can longer win big here or there.  For every program that never has, you only hear the excuses.  Look at the success of Steve Fisher at San Diego, dude took over a horrific program, 5-23, two years later NCAA tourney, 14 years later, NCAA tourney LOCK.  Steve Alford at Manchester, Southwest Missouri State, Iowa and New Mexico.  Alford at each of those schools has won more NCAA tourney games since 1999 than GW has, each and every stop including SW Missouri St.   The same is true of St Johns, Alford at each stop won more tourney games since 1999 than St Johns has during that entire stretch.  Its the Coaches, hire the right coach, the "barriers to success" look more and more like excuses.  Hire the wrong one/s, re-enter the cacophony of noise about the barriers.

3/30/2015 9:58:04 AM - The MV - 4,837 posts (#4)

What The Dude and several others should realize is that when a program hasn't been able to accomplish something, there is usually a good reason or reasons for this.  This isn't meant to sound overly defeatest and attempts should always be made to improve.  Let me address several of The Dude's points:

1) Any highly successful coach will just"....I believe the next word is bolt or something to this effect.  There are coaches who have managed to become synonomous with their "non-major" program while having success...McKillop, Few, Martelli.  However, these are the exceptions to the rule.  The only coaches to lead GW to the NCAA Tournament are William Reinhart (left coaching after 6 sub-500 seasons going 3-18 in his final season), Mike Jarvis (took the St. John's job), Tom Penders (took Jarvis's players, asked to leave), Karl Hobbs (asked to leave) and Mike Lonergan.  Being from the area and alluding to GW as his dream job, Lonergan looks like the most serious candidate to want to stay for the duration of his coaching career while leaving on his terms.  Nevertheless, the odds are against this.

2) We can't ever land a legit top recruit...Not sure how to interpret this.  Top 100?  We have.  Top 10?  Probably never will.  This is hardly an indictment of this program.  Personally, in many years, I believe we do better in the recruiting wars than I would expect given our program's history, facilities, conference, where we exist within the sport's landscape, etc.  If you'd like to counter by asking why can't we ever land a top 10 recruit, I'd simply say it's not realistic.  Dream all you'd like but reality needs to play a role at some point.

3) We can't be the Gonzaga of the East.  I agree and the fact that Gonzaga hadn't emerged as a basketball power up until say 20 years ago has nothing to do with this.  Gonzaga plays in a much smaller and less competitive conference which they are able to dominate.  Gonzaga can tell its recruits that it will play challenging OOC games and that it will go to the NCAA tournament annually.  To their credit, they have taken advantage of their circumstances.  Playing in a much tougher and deeper A10, GW is not in a position where they can tell a recruit that tgheir ticket is annually punched.  SLU went to the dance two straight years and finished in last place this year.  Martelli has coached several tournament teams but an annual trip is clearly not a given.  Only VCU resembles this role for the time being.

4) This year was a big disappointment.  Maybe I'm nitpicking but I'd remove the word big from this thought.  A season that resulted in something very close to a pre-season expectation shouldn't be regarded as a big disappointment despite the circumstances.  To be 16-4 and finish the way we did was certainly disappointing.  But a big disappointment would have been no post-season appearance.   

3/30/2015 11:58:40 AM - Alumnus - 2,040 posts (#16)

GW can always improve the program at the margins, and it should, but Thomas has it right.  Georgetown broke through at just the right time, and caught onto a number of upward trends that don't exist now.  There are many obstacles now that Georgetown didn't face on its way to becoming a D.C. area power, not the least of which is, there are two schools here that won the whole thing, so even three consecutive NCAA appearances mostly caused a big yawn outside of the faithful.   I think the only thing that would permanently raise the program's stature is a much higher level of enthusiasm from the student body, which would have to continue when they graduated.  The surrounding community is mostly interested in what it sees as "major league" programs, or what they can brag about in their own backyard, which is why high school sports gets so much coverage.   Unfortunately, I don't think you can recruit potential students based on whether they're likely to care a lot about the basketball program. 

3/30/2015 1:00:42 PM - Free Quebec - 6,289 posts (#2)

Cutis' post is really good and I agree with everyting in it.  Except one thing.

At the final home game this year, a cheerleader came over to the blue seats to give a pizza to a couple of kids in the second row.  But the pizza box slipped out of her hands, opened up, and fell face down on the head of a dude in the first row.   Apologies to the guy who got nailed with the pizza if he's reading this, but that was awewome. 

YAY PIZZAAAAAANNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

I think if the cheerleaders would dump a pizza on a blue seater's head every game, fans might pay big bucks to see that.

 

3/30/2015 1:29:50 PM - newtman - 1,354 posts (#25)

GW students want freebies. Try Cutis' plan giving students pizza and soda. This sounds a little crazy but give them food for the OOC games and the first few A10 games. Then don't give them anything for a couple games and see what attendance is. Then more pizza and soda. Just an experiment (not most scientific) but we may find out what the students really want basketball or pizza and soda. 

Do we have any marketing people to target alumni?

3/30/2015 2:37:46 PM - Willie - 28 posts (#231)

Now ask yourself this ... why do we have to "bribe" our students to show up? Do you think even Dayton, VCU or URI bribes their students to show up? To ask this question is to answer it and gives the very reason we are even having this discussion - GW students don't really care about the product.

Also, free pizza and soda sounds great until the food police come in and tell you we shouldn't be serving GMOs and sugar because we are contributing to health issues lol. But in all seriousness, unless you are proposing to do this indefinitely, once you take it away - they will leave. (historical note: this has been tried before at GW and was not all the successful).

3/30/2015 3:00:17 PM - BC - 1,624 posts (#20)

Make love of GW an absolute admissions requirement!  Do it now.    Or subliminal "suggestions" transmitted by the scoreboard suggesting GW basketball games were a substitute for sex, food and drugs.    Cheat our way to the top!   

Or support GW as much as we can, hope that this is the Admin, AD and Coach that can slowly entice a permanent attraction to GW basketball for students and Alumni.

3/30/2015 3:04:40 PM - Mentzinger - 3,619 posts (#7)

Butler. Private school. City school. No football. In a state where basketball is everything. Tons and tons of fans, history and tradition.

Xavier, same thing.

3/30/2015 3:12:50 PM - Mentzinger - 3,619 posts (#7)

I think marketing and promotions have improved 1,000% since JK and is probably now at the point of diminishing returns.  

 

3/30/2015 5:13:38 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

I find it just amazing that someone can look today at Gonzaga and pretend looking back that they had some sort of unique advantage.  A program with zero history, in an area of the country without much talent and sparsely populated, low funds, playing teams in little gyms, and the well they play in a weak conference what an advantage, The MV there are 197 schools all playing in non high major conferences, that's an advantage? They can tell recruits we're an NCCA tourney lock? They are a lock BECAUSE OF MARK FEW! Not because Gonzaga has some unique advantage. He can get a great parade of international players to Spokane, Washington but we can't get more to Washington DC??? Look at Winthrop before and after Greg Marshall.  Look at Wichita St before Greg Marshall. Its the Coaches, not the programs.  All of this talk about the students not attending games, the lack of school spirit, its all just a giant excuse.  It didn't prevent Jarvis from building a winning program from 1-27, it didn't prevent Hobbs from taking the team to #6 in the country from the Penders mess, and its not the reason their success was not better maintained (including Jarvis who after winning 3 tourney games early, missed the tourney in 2 of his last 4 years and never won another NCAA game, the program was at best plateuing rather than continuing to ascend) I was in college and law school during some of those peak years, as many of you surely recall the gym was packed at the peak of the winning. How about we win a few tourney games and see what the local fervor might be, we have one win in 20 years!  The Steve Aflord and Steve Fisher success stories at SW Missouri State New Mexico and SD St?   What about the failures of Matt Doherty at UNC and SMU? A college program is about a great salesman who can recruit players to the program, and then a great mind that knows how to best ultiize and coach that talent.  At the end of the day, that's what matters, the various challenges are just excuses.  Yes, we're not Kentucky, and we're also not SW Missouri St, and we're also not 1995 Gonzaga, there's not a guy in America who would have chosen Gonzaga in 1995 over GW to go coach.

3/30/2015 5:55:25 PM - herve - 9,107 posts (#1)

Funny thing about Gonzaga is with all the talk about how they are the exception and every non-major conference school wants to model themselves after their program they have the EXACT same amount of Final Four appearances as a lot of schools: zero. They have two Elite 8 appearances ever. I was surprised because all the talk about them sure makes it seem like they live in the Elite 8 and have made several Final 4s.

3/30/2015 5:57:56 PM - Bo Knows - 598 posts (#42)

Dude, your apparent lack of knowledge about Gonzaga is astounding. Ever hear of John Stockton? How about other coaches ... Dan Monson? Did you know Gonzaga won before Mark Few took over? How many NBA players has Gonzaga had over the years (I can tell you whatever number it is it is a lot more than GW has had since that would really be zero on a sustained basis)? You might be right about 1995 but you would have been wrong in 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, or 2015. 1995 is 20 years ago. A lot has happened since. 

We all want GW to be the best it can be. But you also have to have a little dose of reality as to the nature of the GW institution, its traditions and history as well as its challenges. It's easy to say it can happen, a lot harder to make it happen.

3/30/2015 5:58:59 PM - The MV - 4,837 posts (#4)

The Dude, playing in a smaller conference when you can dominate it.  The downside is you can't make the Dance without winning your conference tournament.  Ask Murray State about that.

Mark Few has certainly sustained the success but the actual Gonzaga phenomenon began while he was an assistant coach.  Dan Fitzgerald took the team to an NIT folllowed by an NCAA and then Dan Monson took a 24 win team to the NIT (again, the downside) and then the NCAA's.  It was Monson's NCAA team that truly put Gonzaga on the map with a string of upsets over big-name schools before losing to UCONN in the Elite 8.  Few took over from there and adopted what I'd call the John Chaney philosophy of stacking the schedule against big name opponents.  Practically all such games would be played on the road or on neutral courts but this was the price they were willing to play.  Recruiting, particularly international recruiting, was upgraded because recruits could be told that they'd be playing top teams in November and December rather than January and February, and then again in March.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Gonzaga had or has a unique advantage.  They looked at their situation and decided to capitalize on it.  Upsetting teams during Monson's last year changed everything for them.  Few has turned out to be a great coach but very few (pun intended) may have known this at the time of his hiring.  Your point about coaches is fairly obvious.  If Few wasn't a competent coach, or if he always had one eye on his next job, Gonzaga would not have been nearly as successful.  Most coaches would have moved on to a more prominent job but Few turned his job into a more prominent one.  Gonzaga is very fortunate that he decided that Gonzaga is the long-term place for him.

3/30/2015 6:01:15 PM - Bo Knows - 598 posts (#42)

Herve - I believe I saw a stat that Gonzaga has played in 40 NCAA tournament games since 1999. That is pretty impressive for a WCC school.

3/30/2015 7:00:06 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

Bo Knows.  With all due respect, its you who knows VERY LITTLE about Gonzaga.  Dan Monson was the Coach at Gonzaga for two years, he inherited a Dan Fitzgerald's team coach Mark Few and Monson were the assistants and Few the chief recruiter.  Monson was Coach for 2 years before leaving for a decade of nothing at Minnesota while Few made Gonzaga into a nationally reknowned powerhouse, a team that spent 2 of the last 3 years nearly wall to wall ranked in the top 2 in the country, Monson inherited another Coach's team and earned a 10 seed that made a nice little run before leaving after 2 years for a decade of mostly crap at Minnestoa and another decade of mediocrity at Long Beach St.  Check your facts a little before you insult others.  As for 1990, of course you are wrong, in 1994 Gonzaga had never made a single NCAA tourney.  This was a program that had spent decades in the WCC and Big Sky and done absolutely nothing.  The 50's 60's 70's 80's and half of the 90's no tourneys, not even close.  NBA PLAYERS? David Stockton has now played 7 NBA minutes, that's more minutes than any non Stockton in the 50 year history of Few before Gonzaga.  Lets be frank you know John Stockton played there, but were unaware his teams stunk, and you knew that Dan Monson was the coach in 99 but didn't realize it was Fitzgerald who laid the decent tracks (with great assistance from Few)  Mark Few took over a program that in 55 years had 2 NCAA tournes as a 14th and 10th seed and made it into an absolute juggernaut.  If you want to make a counter argument, you should consider MV's fact based approach, as opposed to pretending you know something about Gonzaga basketball and I don't. "Won before Mark Few" the basis of your otherwise factually inaccurate assessment boils down to a pair of double digit seeds.   As for the MV's other point, its true playing in a truly small conference has some upside and downside, mostly downside I'd argue, but if you emerge as the big Hoss of a little, somewhat advantegeous.  Gonzaga BYU and St Marys have all been fairly constant presences out of the WCC.  Murray St and Gonzaga are not really a good comparison, I think people have the mistake view that Gonzaga plays in an atrocious conference and by that virtue they're guaranteed a bid.  As for Dan Monson, he left Minnesota as a terrible team, and he's now spent a decade making Long Beach St a terrible team.  Check your facts, or drop the word "Knows" from your name.

 
3/30/2015 7:15:18 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

Worse yet, you don't seem to know too much about GW either, the school I take it you are a fan of Bo? The answer to your question about NBA players is about the same # today for both, 10 vs 12.  The answer when Few became head coach? SEVEN GW players in the NBA, one Gonzaga player.   Herve, its true that they have lacked Final 4 runs, but Few's made 16 straight NCAA tourneys and won 22 tourney games.  The seeds since 2004, #2, 3, 3, 10, 7, 4, 8, 11, 7, 1, 8, 2.   I'd say that's a pretty good model to build your program after.  Whereas before Few became Head Coach, GW surely in the 90's one of the mid majors people would mention you'd want to model your program after.  16 years later...22 NCAA wins vs 1. 

 
3/30/2015 7:30:44 PM - Bo Knows - 598 posts (#42)

Dude - you really don't get it. But let me help you out. Go to Spokane and go to a Gonzaga game and then come back and tell me all your theories of how we can create that here. And while your at it I am sure you have a 7-figure check ready to start the process. No credible Dude that I know talks out of his ass.

3/30/2015 8:55:43 PM - CPots - 469 posts (#54)

Have to agree with The Dude that it's all about the coach and anything is possible if the coach can build and sustain a winning program... Gonzaga, Xavier, and (hate to say it) GTown are great examples.  The coach is the face of the program and the most powerful marketing and recruiting tool (if your school lacks history - which ours does at the elite level).

3/30/2015 9:20:50 PM - thinker - 2,734 posts (#11)

A coach is important but it's not just that. It's also resources. In the case of Georgetown it's also the university's unflinching willingness to give the coaches lots of flexibility on recruiting. Georgetown has never had a tough time being very lenient on admissions standards nor being involved in shady situations.

Xavier has sustained a winning program by having an amazing string of coaches -

Pete Gillen

Skip Prosser

Thad Motta

Sean Miller

Chris Mack

And you have to credit the administration for excellent judgement over 30 years.

3/30/2015 10:47:28 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

CPOTS for the win, its largely all about the Coach(and in my view the AD who hires the Coach/es) and if he/they can build and sustain the winning program.  Yes there are some advantages and disadvantages at programs and people including Thinker have raised some of them (leniency with allowing academically dicey admits is one of them) but those neither guarantee success or prevent it.   How a serious student of the college game could come to any other conclusion puzzles me.  Bo, are you able to concded its actually you that had little understanding of Gonzaga? That prior to 1995 they had absolutely no track record of success at all? No NCAA tourneys, 40 years playing in low-mid majors and not a single auto-bid, when Fitgerald finally delivered they were a 14th seed in 95.  You were pretty quick to sugggest I knew nothing about Gonzaga (who I root for with a passion only 2nd to my passion for GW for two decades) are you eqully quick you had in fact a flawed understanding about Gonzaga?  No hard feelings, its just rather frustrating to have someone who knows very little suggest someone else doesn't!  Winning big against heavy odds is what made Gonzaga the Gonzaga of today, any other interpretation is just pure fiction (and it could all go away if Few does)  Thinker nails that Xavier has been the blueprint for sustaining success with a long series of successful coaches, the product of one great choice after another.  The evidence that its the coaches and not something specific to the program is both the tremendous success of those coaches when they have gone elsewhere, and the prior lack of success, in the 25 years before Pete Gillen, zero NCAA tourneys.  Excellent judgement for 30 years indeed.  If Few ever leaves, it will all come down to his replacement too, it took Few a very long time to get Gonzaga to the top, it would take about 1/16 of that time to end the ride. 

3/30/2015 11:15:05 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

Now, how can we create that here you ask Bo? How did Gonzaga? Lets be very clear about this.  International recruiting.  "Gonzaga has developed something like a Moneyball approach to recruiting, offering itself as a home to tall, talented Europeans as well as Americans who were not ideal fits at their old programs." Does that sound familiar? Wasn't that largely how Jarvis kickstarted the GW program in the 90's? Yinka? Koul? Yegor? Now, Penders and then for many more years Hobbs by and large got away from that approach, despite an explosion in international talent, we saw a big decrease in the international pipeline (its worth noting that even Hobbs' best team had a decided international DNA) perhaps the biggest lasting detriment from those years.  Lonergan in contrast, 3/5 of the 5 best recruits to date have been international.  For Gonzaga, developing a star who went onto NBA success, Ronny Turiaf played a big role which helped build a pipeline. This all began with Few designating assistant Tommy Lloyd in charge of the international recruiting and the of them building relationships overseas.  Enter Turiaf, Robert Sacre, Kelly Olynyk, Elias Harris. Prez Karnowski, Domantas Sabonis, Pangos, JP Batista etc etc.  Or in Few's words:

Growing up and developing outside of the AAU world, they don't have pre-existing biases when it comes to colleges, Few said. International players don't feel pressure to play in certain leagues — "the Power 5 and all that crap," Few puts it — and instead focus on colleges' credentials. They see the NCAA tournament streak. They see Gonzaga's track record with players like them. They see a fit.‚Äč

Our GW 90's Pipeline was following along those lines and we've begun to lay the tracks again.  Or you can you know, endlessly lose recruiting wars for high level DMV talent and sweat out some NIT bids with an occassional Round 1 tourney loss.  Gonzaga didn't do it all of course internationally, and nor should we, but that's our ticket, and your advantage/disadvantage people, what better school to do that then the one in the shadow of the White House??? There was a time when that was the "Washington" the International recruits wanted to live in, not the one that houses that global mecca of urbane and cosompolitan civilization Spokane, Washington.

 

 

3/31/2015 4:25:18 AM - Tuna Can - 1,655 posts (#19)

Dude is mostly right about the bigs more recently coming from overseas. Before the turn to international talent, though, Gonzaga, in my mind, was pretty formulaic in nature. They lined up 6 foot guards with some offensive pop and great game sense along with a 6'4 or 6'5 scorer. They always seemed to have a pair of these guys throught the late 90's and early 2000's like this starting and then at least one pair in training. 

Listening to Few is sort of like listening to Lonergan. He might only be able to get one true big, but he would load up with 6'8 players and see who developed. He wouldn't get 5-stars, but he would try to find guys who were capable ball players who could be brought along. To be clear, Few still complains about the number of "No Thank You's" on the recreuiting trail. 

The point that I am trying to make is that Gonzaga started with a team approach and they went after players who fit that approach. 

It is also sort of interesting that Gonzaga actually started their rise before some of the folks here could actually read and write. Not every year was great. The key is to not be a one-time wonder. If you have the pieces, then success will circle back on a stronger program. OR, you are at GMU. I know that we all are expecting great things next season, but even after that, you can make an argument that GW will be strong after the Core 4 departs--without even knowing exactly who may be coming to Foggy Bottom as a 2016.

3/31/2015 1:16:12 PM - NJ Colonial - 1,962 posts (#17)

Dude has the right perspective, GW's time is now and the current leadership, President Knapp, trustee/alums Randy Levine and others and A.D. Patrick Nero - understand that success must be sustained over time to build a program and fan base.  Money is being raised, excellent coaches (Lonergan, Tsipis, other sports) have been hired and marketing is vastly improved. Coach Lonergan and Patrick Nero want to build something special in Foggy Bottom, I have heard them say it many times in public and I have discussed it with them privately as well.  GW is on the right course.

3/31/2015 3:27:49 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

NJ Colonial nails the proper perspective.  Frankly, I find it amazing that some people who are so invested in this program have such a dim view of the possibilty that GW could make a sustained success run.  Do those same people follow college basketball? How many dozen runs at more difficult placse need to happen to show it can be done?  The fact that each coach shortly after arrival at GW in the last two decades inherited a mess and then coached an NCAA tourney team within few years shows getting the ball rolling is very feasible at our program.   Keeping that ball rolling, now that's our challenge, yet its happened at dozens of other programs in more challenging scenarios, and if you think it can't I wonder why you'd invest so many years of interest in a program you have so little optimism in.  That's not a blind optimism, that's a measured realism derived from decades of seeing it done elsewhere.  As for Bo, I take it your silence concedes you were off base about Gonzaga.  With regard to Tuna, he mostly gets it right, but he's slightly underplaying the importance of the International recruits role making Gonzaga a national juggernaut level.  A look at the entire history of the program's seed history shows it, the 04 05 06 09 13 and 15 very high seed and wall to wall high ranked teams were dominated by international players.  Turiaf, Sacre, Olynyk, Elias Harris, Pangos, Karnowski, Sabonis etc. Prior to that huge pipeline those 99-01 Gonzaga teams made some great tourney runs but they were 12 seedish caliber teams.  No comparison to the heights that would come with the International talent.  GW can follow a similar path.  Tracks are being layed.

Years → '95 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15
Seeds → 14 10 10 12 6 9 2 3 3 10 7 4 8 11 7 1 8 2
3/31/2015 3:48:06 PM - ziik - 2,894 posts (#9)

Yes, Gonzaga is a nice model program. Just not the only one. ML has done a bit of winning on his own, too, and he surely has paid close attention to GW's efforts over the past 25 years or more. 

What's the deal with Pangos? I've been hearing for 5 years now what a great player he would be. I just have not seen it. What am I missing, Great One? 

3/31/2015 4:15:10 PM - 98.218.68.234 - 3 posts (#256)

Its surely not the only one, its by far the best sustained one of the last decade and a half, but that's not even it.  Its the one that followed a path that happens to be and has long been our best path for GW, the International path.  Do you have a competing vision? What other path would work as well for GW? As for Pangos, he's an exceptional shooter (over 40% from 3 all 4 years, 85% from line) a great floor general, excellent Assist/TO ratio, showed up day 1 as a Frosh as a 14 point 4 assist 3 rebound 40% from 3 no turnover point guard.  23 Win Shares, exceptional handle, great at pushing tempo, outstanding decision maker, the point guard we all want at GW.  What's not to like?

3/31/2015 4:15:48 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

Its surely not the only one, its by far the best sustained one of the last decade and a half, but that's not even it.  Its the one that followed a path that happens to be and has long been our best path for GW, the International path.  Do you have a competing vision? What other path would work as well for GW? As for Pangos, he's an exceptional shooter (over 40% from 3 all 4 years, 85% from line) a great floor general, excellent Assist/TO ratio, showed up day 1 as a Frosh as a 14 point 4 assist 3 rebound 40% from 3 no turnover point guard.  23 Win Shares, exceptional handle, great at pushing tempo, outstanding decision maker, the point guard we all want at GW.  What's not to like?

3/31/2015 4:33:01 PM - ziik - 2,894 posts (#9)

Not to be overly critical, but I have heard Pangos praised so lavishly, I expected more. And I was disappointed at the Gonzaga effort against Duke. Too bad the big guy had foul issues too bad Pangos could not get his shot off. Not a bad game, just less than I had hoped.  

3/31/2015 4:41:37 PM - The MV - 4,837 posts (#4)

The Dude, I'd be interested in learning your definition of a sustained success run.  Dozens of non-BCS programs have not done what Gonzaga has done which is to say make the NCAA tournament practically every year over a 20 year period, and do some legitimate winning (i.e. 2 elite 8's) over that time.  Dozens of non-BCS schools have made an occasional NCAA tournament but so has GW.  Before I'm accused of having a dim view (and yes, 1 NCAA tournament game victory in roughly 20 years will do that to a person), I'd like to know what your proposing GW should be able to achieve, specifically.

3/31/2015 5:57:44 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

Picked a terrible night to have his least impactful game at Gonzaga in four years.  Looked oddly timid, when he began to push the ball late in the game and make plays, you saw a glimmer of the 130 games worth of Pangos.  He also missed an open 3, something I saw maybe 14x out of 130 in four years.  As for general Pangos praise, he's widely viewed as a great college player, but the praise is purely for his college play, no NBA future at all, not a high enough level of an athlete.  No vertical, lacks NBA foot speed.  Squeezes everything out of natural ability, great college player.  The can't miss NBA player on this team is Sabonis, who could become a lottery pick if he stays a year or 2.  He's a 1st round pick right now. 

3/31/2015 6:07:52 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

MV, excellent question.  Sustained success is a pretty broad term, so it would encapsulate several permutations.  The GW 93-99 run, 5 NCAAs in 7 years, 7 straight Post-seasons, 3 NCAA tourney wins would count on the low end.  Double that period, 10 in 14 years, 6 NCAA tourney wins, a pair of Sweet 16 and you have low end sustained success.  Gonzaga is high end sustained success.  Let me give you one coach, two sustained success. Both with two key criteria, sustained and upward arching.  Jarvis, has a better first 4 years than his last 4 years, including all of his NCAA tourney wins, no upward arc. The arc tilts bit down after 93.  Nevertheless low end sustained success.  Contrast with this one coach with a decade of sustained success at a pair of schools, huge emphasis on sustained and upward arc:

 

Winthrop Eagles (Big South Conference) (1998–2007)
1998–99 Winthrop 21–8 9–1 1st NCAA First Round
1999–00 Winthrop 21–9 11–3 2nd NCAA First Round
2000–01 Winthrop 18–13 11–3 2nd NCAA First Round
2001–02 Winthrop 19–12 10–4 1st NCAA First Round
2002–03 Winthrop 20–10 11–3 1st  
2003–04 Winthrop 16–12 10–6 T–3rd  
2004–05 Winthrop 27–6 15–1 1st NCAA First Round
2005–06 Winthrop 23–8 13–3 1st NCAA First Round
2006–07 Winthrop 29–5 14–0 1st NCAA Second Round
Winthrop: 194–83 (.700) 104–24 (.813)  
Wichita State Shockers (Missouri Valley Conference) (2007–present)
2007–08 Wichita State 11–20 4–14 9th  
2008–09 Wichita State 17–17 8–10 T–5th CBI Second Round
2009–10 Wichita State 25–10 12–6 2nd NIT First Round
2010–11 Wichita State 29–8 14–4 2nd NIT Champions
2011–12 Wichita State 27–6 16–2 1st NCAA Second Round
2012–13 Wichita State 30–9 12–6 2nd NCAA Final Four
2013–14 Wichita State 35–1 18–0 1st NCAA Third Round
2014–15 Wichita State 30–5 17–1 1st NCAA Sweet Sixteen
3/31/2015 6:29:40 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

Another mid major example of clear sustained success, young coach who stayed in place for over a decade, no sign of leaving:

BYU (Mountain West Conference) (2005–2011)
2005–06 BYU 20–9 12–4 T–2nd NIT First Round
2006–07 BYU 25–9 13–3 1st NCAA Round of 64
2007–08 BYU 27–8 14–2 1st NCAA Round of 64
2008–09 BYU 25–8 12–4 T–1st NCAA Round of 64
2009–10 BYU 30–6 13–3 2nd NCAA Round of 32
2010–11 BYU 32–5 14–2 T–1st NCAA Sweet Sixteen
BYU (West Coast Conference) (2011–present)
2011–12 BYU 26–9 12–4 3rd NCAA Round of 64
2012–13 BYU 24–12 10–6 3rd NIT Semifinals
2013–14 BYU 23–12 13–5 2nd NCAA Round of 64
2014–15 BYU 25–10 13–5 2nd NCAA First Four
3/31/2015 6:34:47 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

And another, again, sustained mid major success, Coach stayed, high level of constant success.  Closer to Gonzaga than the BYU/GW under Jarvis levels:

Bob Huggins (Metro Conference) (1989–1991)
1989–90 Cincinnati 20–14 9–5 2nd NIT Sweet Sixteen
1990–91 Cincinnati 18–12 8–6 3rd NIT Sweet Sixteen
Bob Huggins (Great Midwest Conference) (1991–1995)
1991–92 Cincinnati 29–5 8–2 T–1st NCAA Final Four
1992–93 Cincinnati 27–5 8–2 1st NCAA Elite Eight
1993–94 Cincinnati 22–10 7–5 4th NCAA Round of 64
1994–95 Cincinnati 23–11 7–5 3rd NCAA Round of 32
Bob Huggins (Conference USA) (1995–2005)
1995–96 Cincinnati 28–5 11–3 1st NCAA Elite Eight
1996–97 Cincinnati 26–8 14–2 1st NCAA Round of 32
1997–98 Cincinnati 27–6 12–4 1st NCAA Round of 32
1998–99 Cincinnati 27–6 12–4 1st (American) NCAA Round of 32
1999–00 Cincinnati 29–4 16–0 1st (American) NCAA Round of 32
2000–01 Cincinnati 25–10 11–5 1st (American) NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2001–02 Cincinnati 31–4 14–2 1st (American) NCAA Round of 32
2002–03 Cincinnati 17–12 9–7 T–4th NCAA Round of 64
2003–04 Cincinnati 25–7 12–4 T–1st NCAA Round of 32
2004–05 Cincinnati 25–8 12–4 T–2nd NCAA Round of 32
Bob Huggins: 398–128 (.757) 170–60 (.739)  
 
           
 
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
 
           
           

 

 
           
           
           
           
 
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
3/31/2015 6:42:23 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

The stays in place mid/high mid major coach is a lot less uncommon than some on this board would have you beleive. Here's another you A10 fans are surely familiar with, may he RIP:

 

Utah Utes (Western Athletic Conference) (1989–1999)
           
1990–91 Utah 30–4 15–1 1 NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1991–92 Utah 24–11 9–7 4-T NIT Third Place
1992–93 Utah 24–7 15–3 1-T NCAA Second Round
1993–94 Utah 14–14 8–10 5-T  
1994–95 Utah 28–6 15–3 1 NCAA Second Round
1995–96 Utah 27–7 15–3 1 NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1996–97 Utah 29–4 15–1 1 NCAA Elite Eight
1997–98 Utah 30–4 12–2 1 NCAA Runner Up
1998–99 Utah 28–5 14–0 1 NCAA Second Round
Utah: 238–64 (.788) 118–30 (.797)  
Utah Utes (Mountain West Conference) (1999–2004)
1999–2000 Utah 23–9 10–4 1-T NCAA Second Round
2000–01 Utah 1-0**      
2001–02 Utah 21–9 10–4 2 NCAA First Round
2002–03 Utah 25–8 11–3 1-T NCAA Second Round
3/31/2015 6:54:27 PM - GDL - 34 posts (#225)

What about Calipari, at UMass and Memphis, and Cheney at Temple?

3/31/2015 6:56:51 PM - ziik - 2,894 posts (#9)

Electrons are more precious than you think, Dude.

3/31/2015 7:00:54 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

Good call GDL, Calipari its worth recalling had two decade long runs where he stayed put at high mid majors and sustained high level success at both:

 

UMass Minutemen (Atlantic 10 Conference) (1988–1996)
1988–89 UMass 10–18 5–13 8th  
1989–90 UMass 17–14 10–8 6th NIT First Round
1990–91 UMass 20–13 10–8 T–3rd NIT Semifinals
1991–92 UMass 30–5 13–3 1st NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1992–93 UMass 24–7 11–3 1st NCAA Second Round
1993–94 UMass 28–7 14–2 1st NCAA Second Round
1994–95 UMass 29–5 13–3 1st NCAA Elite Eight
1995–96 UMass 35–2* 15–1 1st NCAA Final Four*
Massachusetts: 189–70 (.730)* 91–41 (.689)  
Memphis Tigers (Conference USA) (2000–2009)
2000–01 Memphis 21–15 10–6 2nd (National) NIT Semifinals
2001–02 Memphis 27–9 12–4 1st (National) NIT Champions
2002–03 Memphis 23–7 13–3 1st (National) NCAA First Round
2003–04 Memphis 22–8 12–4 T–1st NCAA Second Round
2004–05 Memphis 22–16 9–7 T–6th NIT Semifinals
2005–06 Memphis 33–4 13–1 1st NCAA Elite Eight
2006–07 Memphis 33–4 16–0 1st NCAA Elite Eight
2007–08 Memphis 38–2** 16–0** 1st** NCAA Runner-up**
2008–09 Memphis 33–4 16–0 1st NCAA Sweet Sixteen
3/31/2015 7:03:13 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

GDL, Chaney is an excellent good too:

Temple (Atlantic 10 Conference[6]) (1982–2006)
1982–83 Temple 14–15 5–9 3rd (East)  
1983–84 Temple 26–5 18–0 1st NCAA Round of 32
1984–85 Temple 25–6 15–3 1st NCAA Round of 32
1985–86 Temple 25–6 15–3 T–2nd NCAA Round of 32
1986–87 Temple 32–4 17–1 1st NCAA Round of 32
1987–88 Temple 32–2 18–0 1st NCAA Elite Eight
1988–89 Temple 18–12 15–3 2nd NIT First Round
1989–90 Temple 20–11 15–3 1st NCAA Round of 64
1990–91 Temple 24–10 13–5 2nd NCAA Elite Eight
1991–92 Temple 17–13 11–5 2nd NCAA Round of 64
1992–93 Temple 20–13 8–6 T–2nd NCAA Elite Eight
1993–94 Temple 23–8 12–4 2nd NCAA Round of 32
1994–95 Temple 19–11 10–6 T–2nd NCAA Round of 64
1995–96 Temple 20–13 12–4 2nd (East) NCAA Round of 32
1996–97 Temple 20–11 10–6 4th (East) NCAA Round of 32
1997–98 Temple 21–9 13–3 1st (East) NCAA Round of 64
1998–99 Temple 24–11 13–3 1st (East) NCAA Elite Eight
1999–00 Temple 27–6 14–2 1st (East) NCAA Round of 32
2000–01 Temple 24–13 12–4 T–2nd NCAA Elite Eight

 

3/31/2015 7:20:00 PM - GDL - 34 posts (#225)

And my personal favorite, the late great Jerry Tarkanian at Long Beach State, UNLV, and Fresno State.  I believe UNLV was the last team from a "mid-major" conference to win a national championship, although several teams (Memphis, Butler) have come very close in recent years.

3/31/2015 7:20:54 PM - GDL - 34 posts (#225)

I loved that 1989-1991 UNLV team.

3/31/2015 7:29:44 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

GDL knows and loves his sustained success mid majors.  Tarkanian has 3, UNLV among the very peak of peak of sustained mid major success/coaching stability.   Is there lingering doubts on the board about the ability to keep mid major coaches who experience various levels of very high level sustained success?

3/31/2015 7:31:21 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

Or you know, 30 years of Guy Lewis at Houston, here's the last 20:

 

1964–65 Houston 19–10     NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1965–66 Houston 23–6     NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1966–67 Houston 27–4     NCAA Third Place
1967–68 Houston 31–2     NCAA Fourth Place
1968–69 Houston 16–10      
1969–70 Houston 25–5     NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1970–71 Houston 22–7     NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1971–72 Houston 20–7     NCAA First Round
1972–73 Houston 23–4     NCAA First Round
1973–74 Houston 17–9      
1974–75 Houston 16–10      
Houston Cougars (Southwest Conference) (1975–1986)
1975–76 Houston 17–11 7–9 6th  
1976–77 Houston 29–8 13–3 2nd NIT Runner-up
1977–78 Houston 25–8 11–5 3rd NCAA First Round
1978–79 Houston 16–15 6–10 T–5th  
1979–80 Houston 14–14 8–8 T–4th  
1980–81 Houston 21–9 10–6 T–2nd NCAA First Round
1981–82 Houston 25–8 11–5 2nd NCAA Final Four
1982–83 Houston 31–3 16–0 1st NCAA Runner-up
1983–84 Houston 32–5 15–1 1st NCAA Runner-up
1984–85 Houston 16–14 8–8 T–5th NIT First Round
3/31/2015 7:49:21 PM - thinker - 2,734 posts (#11)

Dude your extensive data is impressive, but really all your data says is that a few mid-major type schools have managed to be nicely successful in the last 20 or so years. The data doesn't really say why except for their being a quality coach. Others in the thread have talked of community and booster support, having a sizable arena that fills up, etc.

I would say there are a couple of other requirements that I'm not sure the GW administration wants to implement:

1)

3/31/2015 7:51:56 PM - thinker - 2,734 posts (#11)

1)  Putting bigtime money into the program

2)  Relaxing your admssions standards for athletes

3)  Allowing a little more creativity as it were in recruiting

I don't know that GW wants to do those things

3/31/2015 8:03:45 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

Haven't we already at various times shown a willingness to do some of those things Thinker? Further, doesn't the data show more than you are suggesting? I'd suggest it shows MANY coaches have been WILDLY successful at mid majors AND stayed, two things that many on this board seemed quick to label as extremely rare and unlikely ("it hasn't happened yet at GW so ergo it can't!") Finally, one more reason that the international path is so enticing, less of a need to bend acadamic standards, less of a need to impress the AAU kids with fancy gyms and packed huge arenas.  Gonzaga took the rather large influx of cash and built a new gym that looks a lot like the Smith Center, right down its capacity (6k) Total cost was about half...half of the Smith Center 08 renovations.

3/31/2015 10:02:51 PM - thinker - 2,734 posts (#11)

I'm not sure exactly how I would define wildly successful or what many means. To me the data says a handful of coaches in a handful of schools have really done well and sustained that success over time. I'd go further and say that the way success happens at different schools is probably different in a lot of ways. Schools are mostly in somewhat unique circumstances where not everything translates between different schools. I haven't seen anything here on the nitty gritty things that were done at the schools you listed except hire a coach. So it's very hypothetical. We don't know how much schools boosted the basketball budget. We don't know what boosters did. We don't know what admissions standards were relaxed. We don't know which schools used what tricks to get players passing grades. We don't know how much leeway the coaches were given in terms of being able to offer incentives to recruits. And many of these successful mid-major schools have more ardent fans - I just don't know how you change the nature of the students that come to GW or change the nature of alumni.

As far as GW having a more relaxed admissions process in the past? Absolutely there have been times when that happened. I find it very hard to believe though that the current lineup of AD and coach would ask for that leeway or that the Knapp administration would grant it. Nor do I believe that GW is a place where you could provide recruits or their families or coaches incentives. 

3/31/2015 10:43:19 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

In most of these cases, if the Coach leaves, so to does the great sustained success.  That would suggest that its not all of these other factors, the passion of the fan base, relaxed academic standards, if so, the beneficial environment success theory suggests that should outlive the coach.  I frankly think many on this site puts way too much stock into these other factors as a reason for or a barrier to success.  A college program is two things, a great salesman to bring talent to the program and a guy who can coach that talent.  All of those other things just make the salemanship a little harder or easier, sometimes a good deal harder or easier (the scale of success also slides with that calculus, success at Winthrop does not equal success at Kentuck, so Marshall is wildly successful for getting them to the tourney for a decade and Tubby Smith ultimately not successful at Kentucky and Eddie Sutton and Billy Gillepsie much less so.  Kentucky is actually the perfect example, for all of their enormous advantages, the storied tradition, the immense passion of the fan base, the resources, they've had wild swings in success from Coach to Coach.  Same surroundings, immensely different results. That's what happens if you hire Pitino or you hire Billy Gillepsie and Tubby Smith.   I believe some of the "we just can't do it at GW" view is created to make people feel less depressed that despite the ability to do so, we have as of yet have not done so.  They used to think the same things at every school that has ...until that right Coach arrived.

3/31/2015 11:02:15 PM - thinker - 2,734 posts (#11)

Give everything to the wrong coach and it doesn't help.

Don't give a bunch of those things and a very good coach can't overcome the disadvantages very often.

Over time Hobbs developed a number of significant problems that made it necessary for him to go. When he was given a lot more wiggle room in recruiting he constructed one of the greatest ever teams in GW history. When that wiggle room was taken away we saw years of crap. THAT IS NOT THE ONLY REASON WAS FIRED.

The right coach is more than just about that person - it's also about the context that he walks into.

3/31/2015 11:43:31 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

I've been very eager to hear what you all think the reason Hobbs declined so much is.  I'm sure this was often litigated on the board, but I presume a few years later might be a good time to reassess some.  Which significant problems you are referring to?

I don't think NCAA history bears out the degree to which you seem to weigh situational advantages over the Coaching hire. It doesn't explain why Creighton was so bad for so long, so good under Dana Altman, and now that McDermott's son has left, really bad again already.  It doesn't explain why Oregon was mostly bad before Altman, and really good with him, and presumably intermittently good and bad again when he leaves ...or any of the dozen or two other examples I've mentioned.  I come from a family of Columbia fans who used to say these things about even the Ivy league.  That Penn had a unique advantage because they cared about basketball so much, had the support of the school, a bit of a fan base etc and Columbia never cared.  Well, Fran Dunphy had them as the power of the Ivy for 20 years, and they've been terrible in the decade since he left.  For our longest most suffered GW fans, much respect to you, but just imagine 50 years of rooting for Columbia sports.  The truth is, their administration never cared enough to hire the right Coaches, the rest was mostly window dressing. 

3/31/2015 11:48:33 PM - THE DUDE - 221 posts (#105)

(Speaking of sustained success, I present 20 years of Chaney, 20 years of Dunphy and 10 more years of Dunphy.)

RELATED THREADS
Some food for thought
We quit
New Head Coach Candidates for GW
Click here to download android app from Google Playherve@earthlink.net