Most people understand that each coach inherits an entirely different situation upon arriving at GW.  Penders took an NCAA caliber team that Jarvis had left him (with literally zero Penders recruits on the roster), took that group to another dance, and then steered the program into an iceberg under his watch.  MoJo took over an NIT Championship team, managed a 20 win season again with nothing but ML recruits during his first season as head coach, and then could not come close to sustaining this once everyone was allowed to transfer.

By contrast, Hobbs and JC had complete rebuilds in front of them while ML took on a program that was showing some improvement under Hobbs though nowhere near the level of talent that KH had formerly produced due to recruiting restrictions.

This really puts Jarvis in a unique category unto himself.  While John Kuester's final GW team was substantially more successful than his second-to-last 1-27 campaign, Jarvis managed to produce instant results, leading the program to an NIT bid in his first season.  What he inherited was significantly worse than the teams that Penders and MoJo inherited.  Plus, Jarvis was able to integrate his own players to his first team. 

These looks at "first two year records", as if to suggest that a coach who was mailing it in and another who was simply too inexperienced were actually better coaches at GW than some of the best coaches in the program's history, are equal parts transparent and ridiculous.
 

Gwmayhem wrote:

Most people understand that each coach inherits an entirely different situation upon arriving at GW.  Penders took an NCAA caliber team that Jarvis had left him (with literally zero Penders recruits on the roster), took that group to another dance, and then steered the program into an iceberg under his watch.  
 

I know this is a tangent to the question being asked but for those who were around during the Jarvis/Penders years, is there a case to be made that the decision to hire Penders was equally or even more consequential to our program's trajectory than the decision to fire Lonergan?  I just wonder if we had gotten that hire right (either Mike Brey or another) and gone to the tournament say 8 out of 11 straight years, where would we be in the college basketball landscape?

The one thing this take is contingent on is the strength of the school admin and given how they totally botched the 05-06 season I am skeptical they'd be able to take advantage of a run like I laid out above.

FWIW, my take on the actual topic is that the college basketball is so fundamentally altered I don't think we can fairly compare CC to any of the previous coaches and how quickly they got us to a tournament.  It remains to be seen if it will lead to shorter or longer leashes for MBB HCs.

GW0509 wrote:

Gwmayhem wrote:

Most people understand that each coach inherits an entirely different situation upon arriving at GW.  Penders took an NCAA caliber team that Jarvis had left him (with literally zero Penders recruits on the roster), took that group to another dance, and then steered the program into an iceberg under his watch.  
 

I know this is a tangent to the question being asked but for those who were around during the Jarvis/Penders years, is there a case to be made that the decision to hire Penders was equally or even more consequential to our program's trajectory than the decision to fire Lonergan?  I just wonder if we had gotten that hire right (either Mike Brey or another) and gone to the tournament say 8 out of 11 straight years, where would we be in the college basketball landscape?

The one thing this take is contingent on is the strength of the school admin and given how they totally botched the 05-06 season I am skeptical they'd be able to take advantage of a run like I laid out above.

FWIW, my take on the actual topic is that the college basketball is so fundamentally altered I don't think we can fairly compare CC to any of the previous coaches and how quickly they got us to a tournament.  It remains to be seen if it will lead to shorter or longer leashes for MBB HCs.

Of course it does GW)509.  The common denominator in your two examples of course is Jack Kvancz who I know many of you think the world of.  Mike Brey was ready to become GW's head coach.  Taking Coach K's advice into account, Mike did not want to be subjected to a public coaching search at his own alma mater.  Mike had more than proven himself at DeMatha, Duke and Delaware.  Losing out on the GW job would be a form of career suicide.  So, Mike said he'd be interested if the interest was mutual, in which case they could work out the financial details.  Meanwhile, Penders had just left Texas in disgrace and clearly had some health issues.  He was an accomplished coach in his day but that day had passed.  It should have been known by all that the combination of declining health and being "demoted" (both in pay and in conference affiliation) would mean that TP would not be willing and/or able to put enough into this job.  Kvancz and Penders went all the way back together to their respective childhoods and Kvancz subsequently refused to commit to Brey knowing that Penders had some interest.  So without a doubt, one could say that the program's trajectory changed as a result of hiring TP and not hiring MB.  (And this is all without even mentioning what took place once Penders did arrive...illegal phone cards, player fights with Tennessee, bringing Atilla in to begin with followed by Atilla's use of a broomstick, etc.)

Now, which had the bigger impact?  Considering that the program did rise again under Hobbs starting in his 3rd year, while we are about to begin year 9 post-Lonergan without any true success since, I'd have to conclude that the Lonergan/Nero mess has certainly had a longer lasting impact.