[LUconn]

Karcher: 6 seasons... 1 winning, 1 (.500), 4 losing.

Dunton: 5 seasons... 1 winning, 4 losing.

Apples and oranges... uh, maybe, maybe not, but mediocrity is mediocrity.

There is more to life than competing in the Big South... Karcher could have won the Big South every year but if he would have gone 4-7 overall he would have still been run out of town. We have to shoot higher than just being a "good" team in a bad conference.

Also, would we have even had the one winning season if not for the two transfers Davis brought with him? Just some things to think about. I have nothing against cheerleaders but lets not cloud our judgment and over inflate the success.

I don't want to have to constantly be the Randy Dunton apologist, but you guys are really forcing me to be. Have you ever watched college basketball before or did you just check the records before you posted. There really is not more to life than competing in the Big South. You can't go from terrible in the conference to competing on a national scale in just a few years (which, actually, I believe can happen in 1AA football, but that's another argument). It's a lot longer of a process than definatly you would like and even longer than Dunton has suggested. The 5 year plan was never gonna happen.

[PAmedic]

Well stated, Scar. Perhaps you should be running for office instead of looking for another project.

I'd like to see him get the nod for PA Lt. Governor, somebody get Swan-nie on the cell.

[TIMSCAR20]

Well Medic I think at this point it would have to be in Virginia. I will always be from Philly whenever someone asks me where I am from but I would think by now I would have to consider myself a Virginian. Still got love for PA no doubt....I may have to run. I would get 2 votes and both of them would be from people with the last name Scarborough.

[Rocketfan]

Karcher as a coach was the equivalent of Mel......dont' throw Dunton in the category, thats nuts. While Dunton WILL turn it around next year, we will be paying Karcher while he tries to find some High School to take him.

While Karcher may or may not have had the talent to win the Big South every year, his playing calling was brutal and vs. some top 25 1-AA competition was the reason we lost. If you give Randy the talent ( which i think he will have next year) he will bring you a winning squad. The Guest might also want to registar for credibility and do your research as well if you are going to say " Davis" was the only reason those recruits came here....nice try but that pot shot is way off.

[nickrichard]

Rocket...he is not as far off as you think. I know for a fact that Mantlo and Gabe both came with Davis. Pretty significant part of that championship team, huh?

[LUconn]

Not that I think it matters but didn't Gabe play under Randy at some point? Maybe I'm mistaken.

[D Edcil]

CHRIS - I like your appraoch. You make three outstanding points that shows you really do a good job at what you do. (Although apparently my spelling is so bad, I would like to see more pictures.)
1. Only one winning season in 9 years. That is awful. That is under MEL and RD. I am happy for the one and would like to see more. Whether they were Davis' players or not is in material.
2. There was a lot of adversity that was unseen and there was not an apparatus to support the team in the times of need. Not pointed fingers, but that is a GREAT observation.
3. Scheduling. That is done in the basketball office, so any complaints he had, he needs to lodge with himself.

I agree that the players that are being heralded as "impact" still have as many questions as the team as a whole. As the true Cubs fan I am, "Wait till next year" is a great motto. Where are the marketing people?

[D Edcil]

Karcher: 6 seasons... 1 winning, 1 (.500), 4 losing.

Dunton: 5 seasons... 1 winning, 4 losing.

Apples and oranges... uh, maybe, maybe not, but mediocrity is mediocrity.

There is more to life than competing in the Big South... Karcher could have won the Big South every year but if he would have gone 4-7 overall he would have still been run out of town. We have to shoot higher than just being a "good" team in a bad conference.

Also, would we have even had the one winning season if not for the two transfers Davis brought with him? Just some things to think about. I have nothing against cheerleaders but lets not cloud our judgment and over inflate the success.

I don't want to have to constantly be the Randy Dunton apologist, but you guys are really forcing me to be. Have you ever watched college basketball before or did you just check the records before you posted. There really is not more to life than competing in the Big South. You can't go from terrible in the conference to competing on a national scale in just a few years (which, actually, I believe can happen in 1AA football, but that's another argument). It's a lot longer of a process than definatly you would like and even longer than Dunton has suggested. The 5 year plan was never gonna happen.

LUCONN - I am going to have to disagree vehemetly (spelling error I know ) on this one. It is MUCH MUCH easier to turn a basketball program around then a football program around. In basketball if you have one or two outstanding players you will do really well. History - LSU - Maravich Purdue - Rick Mount ISU - Lary Bird Kansas - Danny Manning shoot even Weber State with Harold "The Show" Areceneaux. I could even throw in Bevo Francis for you but that was before NCAA tournament. The point is if you have a superstar and a few decent role players you can do well in basketball. Football, you need ALOT. Great quarterback, good for you but who is blocking, and catching passes. Great receiver, whose throwing the ball? You do not see very many if ANY DI football teams turn it around in a year. In basketball it happens all the time. UNC is a great example but there have been many other "Worst to First" stories. SO yes, I watch, have watched, and done more then that in regards to college basketball. Bottom Line - It is MUCh easier to turn a poor basketball program around then a poor football program around.

[Chris Lang]

Anyone who slips a Harold Arceneaux mention in a post is all right by me. He was close to unstoppable his senior year at Weber (I covered all three NAU-Weber games that year). He also had Eddie "The Thrill" Gill on that team, along with Andy Jensen, a balding, 25-year-old senior who was just an offensive rebounding machine.

[D Edcil]

Anyone who slips a Harold Arceneaux mention in a post is all right by me. He was close to unstoppable his senior year at Weber (I covered all three NAU-Weber games that year). He also had Eddie "The Thrill" Gill on that team, along with Andy Jensen, a balding, 25-year-old senior who was just an offensive rebounding machine.

He is def. on my "What happened to list" He was absolutely amazing. I caught a few of his games that year before the tournament and I was absolutely amazed. He tore it up against UNC and there wasn't a thing ANYONE in the country would have done that night to shut him down. If I remember correctly, he had some injury later. What ever did happen to "The Show"
ALso, how can I leave out LMU of the 80's?? Scoring - Bo Kimble and Fryar Rebounding - Hank Gathers. There was a team that only had one or two outstanding players, and they made EVERY team sweat!!

[LUconn]

Karcher: 6 seasons... 1 winning, 1 (.500), 4 losing.

Dunton: 5 seasons... 1 winning, 4 losing.

Apples and oranges... uh, maybe, maybe not, but mediocrity is mediocrity.

There is more to life than competing in the Big South... Karcher could have won the Big South every year but if he would have gone 4-7 overall he would have still been run out of town. We have to shoot higher than just being a "good" team in a bad conference.

Also, would we have even had the one winning season if not for the two transfers Davis brought with him? Just some things to think about. I have nothing against cheerleaders but lets not cloud our judgment and over inflate the success.

I don't want to have to constantly be the Randy Dunton apologist, but you guys are really forcing me to be. Have you ever watched college basketball before or did you just check the records before you posted. There really is not more to life than competing in the Big South. You can't go from terrible in the conference to competing on a national scale in just a few years (which, actually, I believe can happen in 1AA football, but that's another argument). It's a lot longer of a process than definatly you would like and even longer than Dunton has suggested. The 5 year plan was never gonna happen.

LUCONN - I am going to have to disagree vehemetly (spelling error I know ) on this one. It is MUCH MUCH easier to turn a basketball program around then a football program around. In basketball if you have one or two outstanding players you will do really well. History - LSU - Maravich Purdue - Rick Mount ISU - Lary Bird Kansas - Danny Manning shoot even Weber State with Harold "The Show" Areceneaux. I could even throw in Bevo Francis for you but that was before NCAA tournament. The point is if you have a superstar and a few decent role players you can do well in basketball. Football, you need ALOT. Great quarterback, good for you but who is blocking, and catching passes. Great receiver, whose throwing the ball? You do not see very many if ANY DI football teams turn it around in a year. In basketball it happens all the time. UNC is a great example but there have been many other "Worst to First" stories. SO yes, I watch, have watched, and done more then that in regards to college basketball. Bottom Line - It is MUCh easier to turn a poor basketball program around then a poor football program around.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree with that one. D1AA football recruiting and D1 basketball recruiting are worlds apart. I agree that 1 or 2 players can turn around a team for 4 years which itself could lead to turning around the program. You've listed a few exceptions, not the rule. Competing nationally normally requires a top 75 class and that's agasint the likes of major schools. Recruiting for football is going up against JMU or William and Mary, or Georgia Southern. But like I said the recuitment in bball vs fball is a completely different discussion.

[LUconn]

alright, that's way too many quotes within a quote.

[Hold My Own]

You know what I LOVE is the fact that I have not yet heard what "competitive" and "Respectable" is...and regardless of what the TOTAL record was wouldnt you consider an 2,1,2 competitive!!!! it's deeper than wins and losses with 99% of you and that shows by the simple fact that even after 3 GREAT years (considering we came from a lower position in the RPI then we even are NOW!) with a complete turn around....I want an answer....if we finish 2nd place next year and are in real contention is it safe to say it still wont be good enough for some of you? It's just deeper than that guys and you know it deep down

[A.G.]

OK. I'll give it a whirl.
Competetive+ Respectable=Top three in the conference and top 100 in RPI. EVERY YEAR.

That's it. That's the list!

[TIMSCAR20]

A.G. that is your second PTI reference today (I think it was in the football thread) I love that show. Stat boy is really good now on Around the Horn as well.

[A.G.]

YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR! I just love how Korheiser thumps Wilbon in Toss-up every single time!
(Mr. Tony is the Emperor in my dark world!)

[Hold My Own]

heres my question...was it good for you? I'm really looking forward to MNF with TK now!

no but really I think that is fair description although I would say Top half in the RPI...I LOVE YOU AVATAR AG!

but weren't there some people wanting there to be a change even though we were "competitive" the last 3 years? before this season ever took place?

[A.G.]

Thanks for the inspiration, HMO and Medic.

Anyhow, I certainly don't recall anyone talking about Coach D's job the past 3 years--except the folks that believe he was the gunman behind the grassy knoll; the man behind global warming and, not to mention, the man truely responsible for the failed levees in New Orleans; and finally, the man with the compromising photos.
Anyhow, you catch my drift. I think the "5th year" in the five year plan will yield close to the promised results.

[Sly Fox]

Very nice discussion with everyone showing some character in your debate.

As for 'Around The Horn', the sooner it dies the better. That show is horrendous. I like PTI but I've never been down with TK's radio show. Thankfully with Romey I don't have to listen to ESPN radio.

[TDDance234]

PTI is by far the best show ESPN has to offer..

[A.G.]

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread!

[- brokeback flamer -]

LUCONN - I am going to have to disagree vehemetly (spelling error I know ) on this one. It is MUCH MUCH easier to turn a basketball program around then a football program around. In basketball if you have one or two outstanding players you will do really well. History - LSU - Maravich Purdue - Rick Mount ISU - Lary Bird Kansas - Danny Manning shoot even Weber State with Harold "The Show" Areceneaux. I could even throw in Bevo Francis for you but that was before NCAA tournament. The point is if you have a superstar and a few decent role players you can do well in basketball. Football, you need ALOT. Great quarterback, good for you but who is blocking, and catching passes. Great receiver, whose throwing the ball? You do not see very many if ANY DI football teams turn it around in a year. In basketball it happens all the time. UNC is a great example but there have been many other "Worst to First" stories. SO yes, I watch, have watched, and done more then that in regards to college basketball. Bottom Line - It is MUCh easier to turn a poor basketball program around then a poor football program around.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree with that one. D1AA football recruiting and D1 basketball recruiting are worlds apart. I agree that 1 or 2 players can turn around a team for 4 years which itself could lead to turning around the program. You've listed a few exceptions, not the rule. Competing nationally normally requires a top 75 class and that's agasint the likes of major schools. Recruiting for football is going up against JMU or William and Mary, or Georgia Southern. But like I said the recuitment in bball vs fball is a completely different discussion.[/quote]

Actually, D makes a great point. It is basic common knowledge that building a good basketball team is easier then building a good football team. Ask either coach, they will probably tell you the same thing. If for no other reason, it is a matter of mathematics. Across the world more people play basketball then American football, therefore you have a much deeper talent resevoir to draw from. (Yes, you have to say "The World" b/c for years alot of our women's players have come from a different continent) Then it comes to simple percentages

Basketball - 12 Scholarships
Football - 65 to 85 scholarships

3 outstanding players on your basketball team now equates to 25% of your team being outstanding. To get the same percentage of outstanding players in football you would need to find 8 players (ok 7. from a much smaller talent pool. To further complicate matters football breaks down into specialties. I could win a heck of a lot of games with an entire team at 6'6" tall b/c their skills can vary to the need. In football, if I have 8 outstanding linemen, I still wont have a good team.
As for competing with other schools, that is a red herring. According to RD we compete in recruiting with the Duke's Carolina's etc. so we are going after a high caliber player. So if that is his goal then that is what you hold him to.

[Brokeback Flamer]

My bad, the whole registration thing threw me. I am taking credit for the above post. So how do I do one of those avatar thingies? I tried to upload one but it isn't showing up

[LUconn]

No, that's not a red herring. That's my entire point. I understand math and can do my own percentages. But I think that it is much much easier to get a lot of top 1AA calibur football players than it is to get 1 or 2 top D1 bball players. That's not even taking into account that there are a lot of coaches willing to break rules to get them. We're not competing against the Duke's and the Carolina's in recruiting. I don't care if that's what coach says, it's not realistic at this point. In fact, most teams in the ACC are just taking the scraps they leave behind.

[Brokeback Flamer]

No, that's not a red herring. That's my entire point. I understand math and can do my own percentages. But I think that it is much much easier to get a lot of top 1AA calibur football players than it is to get 1 or 2 top D1 bball players. That's not even taking into account that there are a lot of coaches willing to break rules to get them. We're not competing against the Duke's and the Carolina's in recruiting. I don't care if that's what coach says, it's not realistic at this point. In fact, most teams in the ACC are just taking the scraps they leave behind.

Well if facts and figures don't work for you how about the real world examples Ed gave you? You will see in the upcoming tournament that there are a good number of teams with 1 or 2 outstanding players that make the tournament. They may not go far but they are there. It is not only basketball coaches who cheat to get players, I am sure there are some of those in football So if it is not numbers, it is not talent pool, it is not real world examples, then what is it, specifically that makes you think it is easier to bring in sufficient numbers of IAA football players to make a good program then just a few basketball players?