GW73 wrote:

...or does the GW administration like mediocrity?

Consider  the following ...

Rhode Island just fired David Cox after 4 years. His record was 64-55.

It's year 4 for JC next season. To equal the record that got Cox fired,  GW will have to be 35-5 next season.

UMass fired Matt McCall after 5 seasons with a .43 per cent winning percentage.

To equal what got McCall fired, GW will have be 19-13 next season. 

Since the hiring of Mike Jarvis, only three GW coaches got four years as head coach. By year 4 Hobbs (64-53) and Lonergan (69-60) had winning records, after having sub .500 season their first two years. (Jarvis never had a losing season. And Hobbs was later fired after two winning seasons. He won 16 and 17 games his last two years.)

For JC to just get his record to .500, GW will have to be something like 27-5 next season. 

I would like nothing better than be proven wrong, but it's hard to be optimistic.  I sure hope we are at least 19-13..

But for now, all the talk of improvement this season, I just don't get it. 

Wins and losses tell the story.

The last three years -- 12-20, 5-12, 12-18. That's not improvement.

One conclusion is that the GW administration has lowered the bar and a winning men's basketball team doesn't matter.

Please tell me I am wrong. Here's to 19-13 next season and getting us on the right track.



 

I agree with your point, though records can be manipulated by playing the kind of schedules Karl Hobbs played… or JC played this year.

I remember ML saying something like he would rather go 15-15 vs a hard schedule than 18-12 vs cupcakes.


That said, I hope basketball still matters to this school.  They have certainly paid lip service to it.

I sure would love to know if Tanya Vogel really thinks JC is the coach to get us back to the highs we’ve experienced, and if not, how hard she’s willing to fight to make the change now instead of doing what she did with MoJo where she sent a letter to season ticket holders after year 2 that basically said I know he’s not going to win because I’m waiting another year to make a change just because.

I’d say this question has two different metrics for how important men’s basketball is/whether the administration likes mediocrity.
 
I don’t think there’s any evidence that TV is averse to firing coaches.  She canned Rizzotti when it was time and also let go of Mojo in Year 3.
 
You wrote that “since the hiring of Mike Jarvis, only three GW coaches got four years as head coach” as if getting four years is something outside of the norm of college basketball. Penders didn’t get 4 years because he resigned after scandals emerged and Mojo didn’t get 4 years because there was absolutely no hope for the future and also because it was reported his contract was written in a way to make it financially possible to move on after 3 years.
 
Like it or not, coaches almost always get 5-year deals in the NCAA and barring scandals will almost always coach 4 years. Fans may grumble what's the point in allowing a 4th year if the first 3 are bad, but schools just do not have the $$ like pro sports teams to cycle through coaches every 2-3 years.

After year 4, coaches will either get fired or get an extension because it is impossible to recruit kids to come to school if there’s no guarantee you’ll be there when they show up on campus (Only the bluest of blue bloods could get away with it). Because of that, I would be EXTREMELY shocked if JC doesn't get fired next season if we don't make it to at least the NIT.  The reason being that the only other option would be for him to get an extension and I don't see how TV could justify giving him one based on the past 3 seasons plus a year 4 going say 16-15.   I think if Year 4 passes and TV lets JC stay as a lame duck, THEN we can say the school is ok with mediocrity.  I was actually surprised that UMass let McCall coach this year. If you look at the scholarship tree, UMass currently does not have ANY freshman committed for next season.  That’s what happens when you let a coach stay on in Year 5 w/o an extension.
 
The one silver lining is with the transfer portal it’s never been easier to make extreme turnarounds.  JC hits on two front court transfers and we can make as much noise as anyone in the A10.  Many of the top A10 teams are senior-laden so they’ll all be in some sort of rebuild next year as well.
 
The metric that I think probably does show mediocrity is how the school does not fund the program like it wants it to become a top-tier program in the A10.  I don’t think we’ll ever have the facilities or resources like a Dayton, VCU, or SLU but we should at least be funding at the same level as Bona, St Joe’s, Richmond, Davidson, etc.  Instead, we’ve sort of pinned all our hope on a coach being able to win in spite of the resources committed to the team.  That shows we are ok with being a middle of the road team in the conference.

Last edited by GW0509 (3/11/2022 6:55 pm)

GW Alum Abroad wrote:

GW0509 wrote:

.
 
Penders didn’t get 4 years because he resigned after scandals emerged (GW honored the remainder of his contract so they probably would've let him coach Year 4 had he not resigned)

Uh, no way Tommy Penders was going to be allowed within a mile of campus after getting caught covering up criminal charges of sexual assault in the dorms by a player he brought to campus. That his best player went on national TV (when "national TV" meant something) to boast about flunking out and that his son got caught violating NCAA benefits rules did not help him either. While the lawyers may have made it a "resignation", it was a termination with cause by all practical measures. And deservedly so.

The rest of your post is pretty valid, however.

Thanks, I deleted that part. Admittedly that was before my time so I appreciate the historical context.

GW0509 wrote:

I’d say this question has two different metrics for how important men’s basketball is/whether the administration likes mediocrity.
 
I don’t think there’s any evidence that TV is averse to firing coaches.  She canned Rizzotti when it was time and also let go of Mojo in Year 3.
 
You wrote that “since the hiring of Mike Jarvis, only three GW coaches got four years as head coach” as if getting four years is something outside of the norm of college basketball. Penders didn’t get 4 years because he resigned after scandals emerged and Mojo didn’t get 4 years because there was absolutely no hope for the future and also because it was reported his contract was written in a way to make it financially possible to move on after 3 years.
 
Like it or not, coaches almost always get 5-year deals in the NCAA and barring scandals will almost always coach 4 years. Fans may grumble what's the point in allowing a 4th year if the first 3 are bad, but schools just do not have the $$ like pro sports teams to cycle through coaches every 2-3 years.

After year 4, coaches will either get fired or get an extension because it is impossible to recruit kids to come to school if there’s no guarantee you’ll be there when they show up on campus (Only the bluest of blue bloods could get away with it). Because of that, I would be EXTREMELY shocked if JC doesn't get fired next season if we don't make it to at least the NIT.  The reason being that the only other option would be for him to get an extension and I don't see how TV could justify giving him one based on the past 3 seasons plus a year 4 going say 16-15.   I think if Year 4 passes and TV lets JC stay as a lame duck, THEN we can say the school is ok with mediocrity.  I was actually surprised that UMass let McCall coach this year. If you look at the scholarship tree, UMass currently does not have ANY freshman committed for next season.  That’s what happens when you let a coach stay on in Year 5 w/o an extension.
 
The one silver lining is with the transfer portal it’s never been easier to make extreme turnarounds.  JC hits on two front court transfers and we can make as much noise as anyone in the A10.  Many of the top A10 teams are senior-laden so they’ll all be in some sort of rebuild next year as well.
 
The metric that I think probably does show mediocrity is how the school does not fund the program like it wants it to become a top-tier program in the A10.  I don’t think we’ll ever have the facilities or resources like a Dayton, VCU, or SLU but we should at least be funding at the same level as Bona, St Joe’s, Richmond, Davidson, etc.  Instead, we’ve sort of pinned all our hope on a coach being able to win in spite of the resources committed to the team.  That shows we are ok with being a middle of the road team in the conference.

Didn't mean to say that getting four years was outside the norm in college basketball. You are correct. I meant to point out that in the past GW hasn't been afraid to move on when needed. I also agree with you that TV hasn't been afraid to fire coaches. 

But I wonder if we would agree that TV's two hires as men's head coaches doesn't inspire much faith if she were to get a third chance.

It depends on how the University evaluates the AD.  If it is solely on the 2 basketball teams, then right now MBB is a failing grade and WBB an incomplete (she fired Rizzotti - not her hire I believe).
However, if it encompasses the entire department. The. She probably gets a passing grade of C+- B-.   Although the basketball programs are struggling and may attract the most attention/money (although money is probably debatable), championships the last few years in Rowing, Sailing, Gymnastics, softball and swimming probably show a successful athletic program.
I know we focus only on basketball here but if the university is looking at a larger scope the TV stays

BC wrote:

Aren't rowing and sailing gone now - at least on the D-1 level?   Swimming & Diving did well this past year.  Not sure about any others.  Oh, Cross country did well at least for GW standards.   Women's basketball gets a pass, I think the coach did well with what she was left with and it's still her first year.   Are there any other sports that have done well lately.    I'd say she gets at best a C-.  

BC this is my point wo a guy like Bob Chernak to provide leadership championships in any sport are equally  good.
Now that’s a perfectly defensible position . It’s just not 1 I support. I want wins and real shots at the NCAAs.

Last edited by FredD (3/12/2022 3:49 pm)

I know “Hope springs eternal” and all that crap-but isn’t it time once and for all to seriously consider
tightening our academic standards and moving to the Patriot league.It probably makes sense -so it
wont happen.By all means-let’s not be a class act-academically or in athletics.Let’s keep doing this nonsense 
year after year.Time for a paradigm shift.If we can’t commit to “big time Bball it’s time to move on.

The problem here is that we have no “brand”-very little to identify with.Better than average academics is
not a brand-neither is average-at best basketball.People want to identify with winners-obviously.So they go to big time sports schools or if they can get in the most selective schools.Some end up at the best of both worlds-Duke,Stanford for instance.Where we go to college shouldn’t define us-but it would be nice to “feel” 
better about my Alma Mater.

The sole revenue-producing sport since the 1960's and the University has never done what it needs to--financially or otherwise-- to support a quality, long-lasting product. Shortsightedness at its extreme! That concerns me as the school searches for its fourth coach in six years.