MBB vs Wisconsin @ 8:30

[scrivener]

The whole "it shouldn't be hard to finish middle of the pack" ignores the fact that we're playing in a league with a lot of schools that take basketball very seriously and have lots of tradition, while we're well behind. It's like a Rutgers football fan saying "it shouldn't be that hard to finish middle of the pack in our division at least 50% of the time".

I say it again and again, but fan support is killing us right now. We go into Nebraska on Sunday and play again a team having another bad season, and are facing a packed house with a juiced crowd. We're right in the thick of the bubble, and we come home to a mostly-empty morgue. A better crowd and we may have well gotten another call or two and pulled it out. 12 of our 13 peers care a lot about basketball and will be able to sell recruits on a great home environment, while Micah has to bring his players to football games to try and impress them on the PSU environment.

Whether they take it seriously or not, the majority of the league this year is a jumbled mess of solid/good/mediocre after the top 2 or 3. The year isn't over yet, but it's looking like we are a longshot for the tourney -- a year in which the B1G isn't exactly a juggernaut. Our attendance this year (especially with the upper deck closed off) has been quite good for B1G games. Home has not been a huge issue this year. You are beating the crowd stuff into a pulp and exaggerating the attendance issues this year. Check out the numbers, it hasn't been bad at all. Great, NEB fans turnout...they are a terrible basketball team that should not beat us by nearly 20, when we have tournament hopes and one of the best players in the country....sorry, fan support or not, this team has been a disappointment in the mental toughness category. 12 of our 13 care about basketball? NW, NEB, and MINN at minimum care more about football, and it isn't close. NW doesn't really care about any sport that badly to begin with from a fan perspective -- despite the massive funding for FB. Please, the excuses from fan support to Shrews needing a decade timeline is the same stuff we've heard for yrs. Winning brings fans, and vice versa...right now there is a happy medium...the home crowd has been solid this year...now lets see the team rise above.

 

[scrivener]

If anything, right now the Northwestern example is one that shows what a little patience can do...Collins is coming off of 5 straight years with losing records. 6-12, 4-16, 3-17, 6-13, 7-13 in the B1G the last 5 years. How many would be fine with our coach putting up 5 straight seasons like that and still coming back for year 6? If Micah makes one dance in his first 9 seasons, will you consider that a success? I won't.

Collins is at NW, where (simply comparing it to PSU), sports are second to academic standing, and where the majority of their programs aren't very good. They have nowhere near the athletic prowess and bite of PSU from a national, historical perspective. The resources allocated cant be compared. We aspire to be better than NW on the court and football field. I used the Collins example b/c that is an even tougher job than PSU -- no NBA players to speak of, hardly a pulse of national recruiting appeal, high academic standards, etc. It's not comparable to psu. If you haven't been able to tell from the tone of my posts, your question at the end is pretty simple...Of course it wouldn't be a success if Micah has 1 tourney in 9 yrs...u kidding? I would expect many more.

 

[ryoder1]

This would be appropriate. No more 7 and 8 year contracts.

No way. By year 4 need to be dancing. No excuses.

 

[ryoder1]

That's pretty short-sighted IMO. So you want to fire a guy who is losing most of his starting lineup in year 2 if he doesn't do something PSU hasn't done in forever?

His improved recruiting classes will be true freshmen and sophomores. You want to uproot the top 2 classes we've had in awhile because they aren't tournament ready as youngsters?

Needs to get to the tourney by year 4. Guys he recruited for this year who are freshman will be juniors, guys who come in next year will be sophmores. That is a good amount of time. He also has the portal. If the excuse is that guys need to he juniors or seniors before they really blossom and make a big impact (ie helping us make the dance) then that means there is a recruiting and/or development issue.

 

[scrivener]

Needs to get to the tourney by year 4. Guys he recruited for this year who are freshman will be juniors, guys who come in next year will be sophmores. That is a good amount of time. He also has the portal. If the excuse is that guys need to he juniors or seniors before they really blossom and make a big impact (ie helping us make the dance) then that means there is a recruiting and/or development issue.

Exactly.... A mix of youth and experience is necessary so that you don't have a top heavy team that's old and then the next year or 2 you're just too young and haven't staggered the roster appropriately. But this idea that he needs his guys to be juniors and seniors to succeed I mean those days in sports are gone man... you have to win now with a blend of players...some you recruited some brought in from the portal

 

[Online Persona]

Needs to get to the tourney by year 4. Guys he recruited for this year who are freshman will be juniors, guys who come in next year will be sophmores. That is a good amount of time. He also has the portal. If the excuse is that guys need to he juniors or seniors before they really blossom and make a big impact (ie helping us make the dance) then that means there is a recruiting and/or development issue.

Guys can have an impact as sophomores and juniors but this team will have about zero senior leadership at that point. It doesn't make sense to me to make rash decisions when there is a gap of senior leadership and talent. What does it hurt to wait an extra year or two to allow for his guys to provide that senior leadership and even get more than 1 data point of his guys providing senior leadership?

Many fans are like impatient investors that bought a stock and let it go if it isn't up by X% immediately. Warren Buffet, famously said “The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient”. We see the parallel in the sports world all the time. Nebraska was unhappy with 9-win teams until they fired enough coaches to become a 4-win team. Miami has done the same. There are tons of examples. They make a new investment and ditch it before it has a chance to mature.

What's so wrong with giving Shrews up to 6 years which would allow 2 data points with his guys as senior leaders of the team? Maybe they just hit a string of injuries or bad luck in that 1st year of his guys as senior leaders but come back that next year and the breaks go their way to make the sweet 16. We don't know but rash decisions before he has had his players as senior leaders seems very short sighted to me. And more than 1 data point increases your confidence in any measurement.

 

[Erial_Lion]

You are beating the crowd stuff into a pulp and exaggerating the attendance issues this year. Check out the numbers, it hasn't been bad at all. ...the home crowd has been solid this year.

I couldn't disagree more. We're averaging just over 7k tickets sold per game. Butts in the seats are likely closer to 5k per game. Again, maybe those are solid crowds if we're recruiting against and competing against A10 teams, but not when we need to pull in kids that are looking at other Big Ten, Big East, and ACC programs.

If you're a kid from the Northeast that's down to Rutgers, Syracuse, Ohio State, and Penn State, do you really walk into the BJC during one of our home games and say "wow, this is the place for me". The atmosphere of our home venue is a tremendous advantage for coach Franklin...when it comes to hoops, its something that will likely hold us back for a while...and unfortunately, it is an indicator about how much our fans care about hoops when it comes to things like NIL which will become a bigger and bigger issue.

 

[AWS1022]

Collins is at NW, where (simply comparing it to PSU), sports are second to academic standing, and where the majority of their programs aren't very good. They have nowhere near the athletic prowess and bite of PSU from a national, historical perspective. The resources allocated cant be compared. We aspire to be better than NW on the court and football field. I used the Collins example b/c that is an even tougher job than PSU -- no NBA players to speak of, hardly a pulse of national recruiting appeal, high academic standards, etc. It's not comparable to psu. If you haven't been able to tell from the tone of my posts, your question at the end is pretty simple...Of course it wouldn't be a success if Micah has 1 tourney in 9 yrs...u kidding? I would expect many more.

PSU has no power or bite when it comes to basketball, period.

 

[ryoder1]

Penn State should be Rutgers. No reason why we can't. They are now an upper half B10 program. 10 years ago they were a joke. The fact that it is expected Rutgers can waltz into BJC and beat us is beyond frustrating.

Other examples given, NW, Miami. Dormant programs that have been resuscitated.

 

[ryoder1]

I couldn't disagree more. We're averaging just over 7k tickets sold per game. Butts in the seats are likely closer to 5k per game. Again, maybe those are solid crowds if we're recruiting against and competing against A10 teams, but not when we need to pull in kids that are looking at other Big Ten, Big East, and ACC programs.

If you're a kid from the Northeast that's down to Rutgers, Syracuse, Ohio State, and Penn State, do you really walk into the BJC during one of our home games and say "wow, this is the place for me". The atmosphere of our home venue is a tremendous advantage for coach Franklin...when it comes to hoops, its something that will likely hold us back for a while...and unfortunately, it is an indicator about how much our fans care about hoops when it comes to things like NIL which will become a bigger and bigger issue.

Get a team to the Dance a couple years in a row and that solves a lot; better attendance, more interest from higher end talent. And you don't need a 15,000 packed house to make the Dance because it is so essential to recruiting. Yes it helps, but is not the end all be all where you can say unless we have big crowds we never will be a good program. I know you are not saying that exactly but certainly seem to be drawing the inference.

 

[87 Penn St8]

I couldn't disagree more. We're averaging just over 7k tickets sold per game. Butts in the seats are likely closer to 5k per game. Again, maybe those are solid crowds if we're recruiting against and competing against A10 teams, but not when we need to pull in kids that are looking at other Big Ten, Big East, and ACC programs.

If you're a kid from the Northeast that's down to Rutgers, Syracuse, Ohio State, and Penn State, do you really walk into the BJC during one of our home games and say "wow, this is the place for me". The atmosphere of our home venue is a tremendous advantage for coach Franklin...when it comes to hoops, its something that will likely hold us back for a while...and unfortunately, it is an indicator about how much our fans care about hoops when it comes to things like NIL which will become a bigger and bigger issue.

Which is why the younger Mr. Booth and Mr. Shrew have ties to PSU or they wouldn't be coming here.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Which is why the younger Mr. Booth and Mr. Shrew have ties to PSU or they wouldn't be coming here.

And why Lively will portal here when he realizes another year of school will help his draft stock!

 

[87 Penn St8]

And why Lively will portal here when he realizes another year of school will help his draft stock!

One can dream : )

He did look great vs UNC....but then they went out and got spanked by Wake before closing late.

 

[ryoder1]

Guys can have an impact as sophomores and juniors but this team will have about zero senior leadership at that point. It doesn't make sense to me to make rash decisions when there is a gap of senior leadership and talent. What does it hurt to wait an extra year or two to allow for his guys to provide that senior leadership and even get more than 1 data point of his guys providing senior leadership?

Many fans are like impatient investors that bought a stock and let it go if it isn't up by X% immediately. Warren Buffet, famously said “The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient”. We see the parallel in the sports world all the time. Nebraska was unhappy with 9-win teams until they fired enough coaches to become a 4-win team. Miami has done the same. There are tons of examples. They make a new investment and ditch it before it has a chance to mature.

What's so wrong with giving Shrews up to 6 years which would allow 2 data points with his guys as senior leaders of the team? Maybe they just hit a string of injuries or bad luck in that 1st year of his guys as senior leaders but come back that next year and the breaks go their way to make the sweet 16. We don't know but rash decisions before he has had his players as senior leaders seems very short sighted to me. And more than 1 data point increases your confidence in any measurement.

Six years just seens too long to make an objective decision. I don't see why you need "senior leaders" before you can make a performance assessment. Your argument rings like "wait until next year". Problem is the "next year" we are all waiting for and hoping for never comes. Canning a coach after 4 years is not rash. It is the reality of the profession. Is there a possibility that we can Shrews at the end of year 4 and if we had kept him then in year 5 we have a strong NCAA run? Yeah but I don't think likely.

By year 4 you have 2nd and 3rd year guys. They should have the leadership to deliver a dance berth. Again you have the portal to fit pieces in the puzzle and help fill any leadership gaps. You don't need to be a senior. Look at football, Carter, Singleton, Allar, Theo Johnson will all be leaders. All non seniors and 2nd or 3rd year guys.

I see what you are saying about two data points. The only way I would entertain even a 5th year if we go 0-4 is some kind of amazing recruiting class and or a rash of injuries. It would need to be something that could be solid, fact based rationale to keep a coach who can't get a team to be a middling B10 team and make the dance.

Making the dance is not a huge accomplishment. Yes, somewhat difficult for perennial doormats like PSU but it is not some kind of transformational change in performance. We are almost there now. This year like last year is probably 2-3 wins short. I feel like a broken record, PSU has every right to be a consistent NCAA tourney team. Continually making excuses for underperforming gets us nowhere.

 

[Online Persona]

Six years just seens too long to make an objective decision. I don't see why you need "senior leaders" before you can make a performance assessment. Your argument rings like "wait until next year". Problem is the "next year" we are all waiting for and hoping for never comes. Canning a coach after 4 years is not rash. It is the reality of the profession. Is there a possibility that we can Shrews at the end of year 4 and if we had kept him then in year 5 we have a strong NCAA run? Yeah but I don't think likely.

By year 4 you have 2nd and 3rd year guys. They should have the leadership to deliver a dance berth. Again you have the portal to fit pieces in the puzzle and help fill any leadership gaps. You don't need to be a senior. Look at football, Carter, Singleton, Allar, Theo Johnson will all be leaders. All non seniors and 2nd or 3rd year guys.

I see what you are saying about two data points. The only way I would entertain even a 5th year if we go 0-4 is some kind of amazing recruiting class and or a rash of injuries. It would need to be something that could be solid, fact based rationale to keep a coach who can't get a team to be a middling B10 team and make the dance.

Making the dance is not a huge accomplishment. Yes, somewhat difficult for perennial doormats like PSU but it is not some kind of transformational change in performance. We are almost there now. This year like last year is probably 2-3 wins short. I feel like a broken record, PSU has every right to be a consistent NCAA tourney team. Continually making excuses for underperforming gets us nowhere.

Let me state this more bluntly then. You are wanting to evaluate the performance of the coach while there is still a gap of no players from a year group (and not just any year group but the most experienced year group). Would PSU football have gone to the Rose Bowl if you wiped out any one of our recruiting classes? Would we have been an 11-win team even if you removed just the freshman class where the fewest number of players were contributing? How many wins if you get rid of all of the seniors?

You want to evaluate coach Shrews while he still has one hand tied behind his back. Let the man compete with his players in full recruiting classes for each year that most of the teams that we play also have. And then take a couple of data points when he is allowed to compete without one hand tied behind his back, so 2 years with all of his recruiting classes freshmen through seniors. That means years 5 and 6 are the first fair assessments for 2 data points. Everything prior to that is Shrews competing at a disadvantage to his competition because of how everything was blown up with the previous coach's departure.

And you can't just keep blowing up programs every few years. Occasionally a team gets lucky with a coach that comes in and puts together a roster that works but, in MOST cases, the team is blown up, you lose talent, consistency, momentum, and the program spirals worse. Look at Nebraska football not being content with 9 win seasons and now several fired coaches later they are a 4 win bottom feeder. Miami football went from consistent 9 wins or so to 5 wins last year and we took their fired coach who wasn't given much of a chance to build anything and rode him to one of the best defenses in the country. They got worse when they fired him too soon.

PSU basketball doesn't have the program pedigree to just blow it up and get by on a new coach and our reputation. We have to give Shrews time to try to build something. If you are letting coaches go before they ever have a chance to show what they are building, then you will spiral downwards like Nebraska and Miami football with each staff you fire.

 

[scrivener]

Six years just seens too long to make an objective decision. I don't see why you need "senior leaders" before you can make a performance assessment. Your argument rings like "wait until next year". Problem is the "next year" we are all waiting for and hoping for never comes. Canning a coach after 4 years is not rash. It is the reality of the profession. Is there a possibility that we can Shrews at the end of year 4 and if we had kept him then in year 5 we have a strong NCAA run? Yeah but I don't think likely.

By year 4 you have 2nd and 3rd year guys. They should have the leadership to deliver a dance berth. Again you have the portal to fit pieces in the puzzle and help fill any leadership gaps. You don't need to be a senior. Look at football, Carter, Singleton, Allar, Theo Johnson will all be leaders. All non seniors and 2nd or 3rd year guys.

I see what you are saying about two data points. The only way I would entertain even a 5th year if we go 0-4 is some kind of amazing recruiting class and or a rash of injuries. It would need to be something that could be solid, fact based rationale to keep a coach who can't get a team to be a middling B10 team and make the dance.

Making the dance is not a huge accomplishment. Yes, somewhat difficult for perennial doormats like PSU but it is not some kind of transformational change in performance. We are almost there now. This year like last year is probably 2-3 wins short. I feel like a broken record, PSU has every right to be a consistent NCAA tourney team. Continually making excuses for underperforming gets us nowhere.

What a post....best one of the entire thread. Your 2nd sentence about senior leaders is spot on.

 

[scrivener]

Let me state this more bluntly then. You are wanting to evaluate the performance of the coach while there is still a gap of no players from a year group (and not just any year group but the most experienced year group). Would PSU football have gone to the Rose Bowl if you wiped out any one of our recruiting classes? Would we have been an 11-win team even if you removed just the freshman class where the fewest number of players were contributing? How many wins if you get rid of all of the seniors?

You want to evaluate coach Shrews while he still has one hand tied behind his back. Let the man compete with his players in full recruiting classes for each year that most of the teams that we play also have. And then take a couple of data points when he is allowed to compete without one hand tied behind his back, so 2 years with all of his recruiting classes freshmen through seniors. That means years 5 and 6 are the first fair assessments for 2 data points. Everything prior to that is Shrews competing at a disadvantage to his competition because of how everything was blown up with the previous coach's departure.

And you can't just keep blowing up programs every few years. Occasionally a team gets lucky with a coach that comes in and puts together a roster that works but, in MOST cases, the team is blown up, you lose talent, consistency, momentum, and the program spirals worse. Look at Nebraska football not being content with 9 win seasons and now several fired coaches later they are a 4 win bottom feeder. Miami football went from consistent 9 wins or so to 5 wins last year and we took their fired coach who wasn't given much of a chance to build anything and rode him to one of the best defenses in the country. They got worse when they fired him too soon.

PSU basketball doesn't have the program pedigree to just blow it up and get by on a new coach and our reputation. We have to give Shrews time to try to build something. If you are letting coaches go before they ever have a chance to show what they are building, then you will spiral downwards like Nebraska and Miami football with each staff you fire.

But you also make it seem like the guys that hes bringing in are going to be on this team all 4 years….. how do we know they don't transfer after one year, or after 2 years… Hence are we then really getting a true data point about how shrews did then with those guys since they were not here very long..unfortunately while your overarching premise is true, that's not the reality today's sporting world… you combine your high school recruits with guys from the portal and u have to be competitive right away like that's just the nature of sports… Gone are the days where you're bringing a recruiting class, 3 or 4 years later we get to see them blossom. I think I would actually agree with you more if this was football because your recruiting classes are so large and so many of those guys have to compete right away…. in basketball you're bringing in what, a couple of guys a year -- the majority of whom won't see the court especially if you have upper classmen and transfer portal guys similar to this year… so do we really we need to give our coach 4 or 5 years to see how he handles the couple of freshmen he brings in each year? I'm sorry to me that's asinine and I will trust Krafts intuition if he feels after 3 or 4 years he can make an upgrade go for it

 

[Online Persona]

But you also make it seem like the guys that hes bringing in are going to be on this team all 4 years….. how do we know they don't transfer after one year, or after 2 years… Hence are we then really getting a true data point about how shrews did then with those guys since they were not here very long..unfortunately while your overarching premise is true, that's not the reality today's sporting world… you combine your high school recruits with guys from the portal and u have to be competitive right away like that's just the nature of sports… Gone are the days where you're bringing a recruiting class, 3 or 4 years later we get to see them blossom. I think I would actually agree with you more if this was football because your recruiting classes are so large and so many of those guys have to compete right away…. in basketball you're bringing in what, a couple of guys a year -- the majority of whom won't see the court especially if you have upper classmen and transfer portal guys similar to this year… so do we really we need to give our coach 4 or 5 years to see how he handles the couple of freshmen he brings in each year? I'm sorry to me that's asinine and I will trust Krafts intuition if he feels after 3 or 4 years he can make an upgrade go for it

How do we know they don't transfer after one year, or after 2 years? Well, that is part of the assessment. If a coach brings in a class that would have become your senior leaders and they are all gone before they would be senior leaders, that gives you information about the program under that coach.

But on the mere possibility that they could transfer because a transfer portal now exists is not a reason to not allow a coach time to build to where his first couple of classes could be senior leaders. The bottom line, if you don't allow a coach enough time to show what he is trying to build, then why did you hire him in the first place? And why would the next coach want to come on board at that program if he knows his predecessor didn't get the full chance to show what he's trying to build?

 

[scrivener]

How do we know they don't transfer after one year, or after 2 years? Well, that is part of the assessment. If a coach brings in a class that would have become your senior leaders and they are all gone before they would be senior leaders, that gives you information about the program under that coach.

But on the mere possibility that they could transfer because a transfer portal now exists is not a reason to not allow a coach time to build to where his first couple of classes could be senior leaders. The bottom line, if you don't allow a coach enough time to show what he is trying to build, then why did you hire him in the first place? And why would the next coach want to come on board at that program if he knows his predecessor didn't get the full chance to show what he's trying to build?

Again I agree with your overarching premise… but what does a full chance mean… a good number of high school seniors you bring in in today's climate in sports probably won't see 4 years at the University… so it's arbitrary to you, to me, and to our athletic director as to what a full chance means… but you can't just say well he needs 2 full recruiting classes of 4 year players that's just impossible these days

 

[AWS1022]

Again I agree with your overarching premise… but what does a full chance mean… a good number of high school seniors you bring in in today's climate in sports probably won't see 4 years at the University… so it's arbitrary to you, to me, and to our athletic director as to what a full chance means… but you can't just say well he needs 2 full recruiting classes of 4 year players that's just impossible these days

We’ve had this discussion about every coach PSU basketball has ever had….at some point we may have to accept that it’s not about the coach, it’s about the school and no matter how many changes we make, we’re going to get similar results.

 

[Online Persona]

Again I agree with your overarching premise… but what does a full chance mean… a good number of high school seniors you bring in in today's climate in sports probably won't see 4 years at the University… so it's arbitrary to you, to me, and to our athletic director as to what a full chance means… but you can't just say well he needs 2 full recruiting classes of 4 year players that's just impossible these days

I described it in the post that you quoted. And yes, most HS seniors that you bring into sports do see 4 years at Penn State. Some go to the NFL early, some get injured, some transfer, some stay 6 years and start NIL businesses, etc., but the majority do see 4 years as long as you don't fire the coaching staff early. If you do fire the staff early, then you will very likely see significantly more student athletes leave before their 4 years of eligibility is used up.

It isn't arbitrary at all. It is based on allowing your recruited athletes to mature and use their full eligibility to maximize their potential at the college level. 2 or 3 classes being permitted to maximize their potential under a staff should be a reasonable point of assessment for that staff. You have a few full data points to evaluate.

 

[scrivener]

We’ve had this discussion about every coach PSU basketball has ever had….at some point we may have to accept that it’s not about the coach, it’s about the school and no matter how many changes we make, we’re going to get similar results.

Agreed until now I think...Kraft seems like an AD who won't follow in the past 50 yrs of indifference regarding the program. I agree with u it has been about the school and it's lack of strong desire to truly be a winner. I do feel that Kraft will change the past approach to a new and strong vision for the future.

 

[Psugo823]

Agreed until now I think...Kraft seems like an AD who won't follow in the past 50 yrs of indifference regarding the program. I agree with u it has been about the school and it's lack of strong desire to truly be a winner. I do feel that Kraft will change the past approach to a new and strong vision for the future.

Agreed. It's not JUST the coach but the BIGGEST part is the coach. Its also about our joke of a "home court" the BJC...which Kraft MUST fix, then it's about the dollars and NIL, and THEN we might have a frigging chance

 

[AWS1022]

Agreed until now I think...Kraft seems like an AD who won't follow in the past 50 yrs of indifference regarding the program. I agree with u it has been about the school and it's lack of strong desire to truly be a winner. I do feel that Kraft will change the past approach to a new and strong vision for the future.

But it goes beyond the AD as well. Is the university committed to building a winning basketball program? I would say no.

 

[Psugo823]

But it goes beyond the AD as well. Is the university committed to building a winning basketball program? I would say no.

I will say you are correct about this in the past before Kraft. But I believe Kraft is the first A.D. who has cared...maybe ever.

He's not giving Shrewsbury 6 years. That's for certain.

 

[AWS1022]

I will say you are correct about this in the past before Kraft. But I believe Kraft is the first A.D. who has cared...maybe ever.

He's not giving Shrewsbury 6 years. That's for certain.

We’ll see…and since you think so highly of him, and he does decide to give Shrewsbury 6 years, will you still admit he knows what he’s doing?

 

[Psugo823]

We’ll see…and since you think so highly of him, and he does decide to give Shrewsbury 6 years, will you still admit he knows what he’s doing?

He's not giving him 6 years.

 

[scrivener]

But it goes beyond the AD as well. Is the university committed to building a winning basketball program? I would say no.

The athletic budget is separate from the University fund...a winning program means being a tournament team every other yr IMO...maximum every 3 yrs...do I think Kraft and the department will aim to at least be that...absolutely.

 

[ryoder1]

But it goes beyond the AD as well. Is the university committed to building a winning basketball program? I would say no.

Why would they not? Kraft knows we need a good hoops program. New pres who hired him (I think) so they will be aligned. The coach is integral to our success and a better coach in the past would have reaped benefits in the past despite the lousy AD and weak BOT. Meaning at least a dance bid every 5 years. Jury out on Micah, trending down at this point but time will tell.

 

[ryoder1]

How do we know they don't transfer after one year, or after 2 years? Well, that is part of the assessment. If a coach brings in a class that would have become your senior leaders and they are all gone before they would be senior leaders, that gives you information about the program under that coach.

But on the mere possibility that they could transfer because a transfer portal now exists is not a reason to not allow a coach time to build to where his first couple of classes could be senior leaders. The bottom line, if you don't allow a coach enough time to show what he is trying to build, then why did you hire him in the first place? And why would the next coach want to come on board at that program if he knows his predecessor didn't get the full chance to show what he's trying to build?

Basically what you are saying is years 1 and 2 are carte blanche to underperform and not take accountability because the players on the floor or the senior leaders or vets are players who you did not recruit or develop. There are no senior leaders that are your guys so you are completely handcuffed until you flush the program of any player you have not recruited or developed for 2 plus years. The clock starts in year 3 and we give the coach 4 years at that point. Problem is that PSU has some good solid players that were in the program and he got Funk so you can't just punt on this year or last year.

Tell me, would a large company hire a CEO and say for the first two years the board of directors and all the shareholders would be fine with below average sales results and weak profits because the CEO inherited a "bad" strategic plan or the CMO is lousy or the sales team is not "his or her sales team"?

 

[Online Persona]

Basically what you are saying is years 1 and 2 are carte blanche to underperform and not take accountability because the players on the floor or the senior leaders or vets are players who you did not recruit or develop. There are no senior leaders that are your guys so you are completely handcuffed until you flush the program of any player you have not recruited or developed for 2 plus years. The clock starts in year 3 and we give the coach 4 years at that point. Problem is that PSU has some good solid players that were in the program and he got Funk so you can't just punt on this year or last year.

Tell me, would a large company hire a CEO and say for the first two years the board of directors and all the shareholders would be fine with below average sales results and weak profits because the CEO inherited a "bad" strategic plan or the CMO is lousy or the sales team is not "his or her sales team"?

You said that not me. Also, is our goal not to give a new coach an honest assessment? You want to assess before we see what he is trying to build. I'm done discussing the issue with you. You advocate getting rid of a coach before we can see what they are trying to build. I disagree.

 

[scrivener]

You said that not me. Also, is our goal not to give a new coach an honest assessment? You want to assess before we see what he is trying to build. I'm done discussing the issue with you. You advocate getting rid of a coach before we can see what they are trying to build. I disagree.

But, this is why its a good thread discussion...and I appreciate the convo we have all had. Everyone's perspectives are different...your version of an honest assessment is different than mine, other posters and probably Kraft -- but it doesn't mean it's wrong. As the previous poster wrote...You can't discount someone's first two years...now, I understand that the first couple of seasons is where a coach lays his footprint on the program -- from style, schematics, etc., combined with getting his kind of players. However, if the portal wasn't a thing...I would be on your side. Of course, with simply the 'old style' recruiting of HS players...then yes...most guys don't develop in 1 or 2 years...but look at the top 5 or 6 players on this team...all upperclassmen from PSU or transfers...yet we are 0-7 when trailing at the half and step on our dic** in nearly every late game situation to win a game. Having this very experienced basketball team has pretty much had zero effect. So, next year, barring a huge influx in the portal, we will be very young. Will that be the excuse next year if they don't trend positively? There is no right answer...but by year 4, if they still haven't made the tournament, then what? Two more years by your version of honest assessment? 1, 3? It's all arbitrary.

 

[ryoder1]

But, this is why its a good thread discussion...and I appreciate the convo we have all had. Everyone's perspectives are different...your version of an honest assessment is different than mine, other posters and probably Kraft -- but it doesn't mean it's wrong. As the previous poster wrote...You can't discount someone's first two years...now, I understand that the first couple of seasons is where a coach lays his footprint on the program -- from style, schematics, etc., combined with getting his kind of players. However, if the portal wasn't a thing...I would be on your side. Of course, with simply the 'old style' recruiting of HS players...then yes...most guys don't develop in 1 or 2 years...but look at the top 5 or 6 players on this team...all upperclassmen from PSU or transfers...yet we are 0-7 when trailing at the half and step on our dic** in nearly every late game situation to win a game. Having this very experienced basketball team has pretty much had zero effect. So, next year, barring a huge influx in the portal, we will be very young. Will that be the excuse next year if they don't trend positively? There is no right answer...but by year 4, if they still haven't made the tournament, then what? Two more years by your version of honest assessment? 1, 3? It's all arbitrary.

It is a good discussion and I appreciate the points of view. You and I advocate for a 4 year term and Online Persona advocates for the 6 year plan. In the end we all want PSU basketball to succeed and I believe we all can agree that it can and should succeed.

To be clear, I am a fan of Shrews and believe he was a good hire but simply believe he needs to get us dancing by year 4. I hope Kraft is not faced with that situation where next March we find ourselves four years into the Shrews tenure and no dancing.

Finally, I do think absent of the portal we can recruit some players that can make an impact as freshman or sophomores. Will be hard to find for us since no future lottery picks are knocking on our door but it can be done. Need to think big. And you make a good point, if veteran guys were so critical why are we still losing this year in close winnable games where in theory they should be helping you.

 

[AWS1022]

Why would they not? Kraft knows we need a good hoops program. New pres who hired him (I think) so they will be aligned. The coach is integral to our success and a better coach in the past would have reaped benefits in the past despite the lousy AD and weak BOT. Meaning at least a dance bid every 5 years. Jury out on Micah, trending down at this point but time will tell.

Because they never have ever.

 

[AWS1022]

He's not giving him 6 years.

And you have inside information?

 

[ryoder1]

Because they never have ever.

I think they wanted to but did not have the competence. The school was dominated by football and Paterno, hoops got lost for decades.

 

[fairfaxlion2]

I think they wanted to but did not have the competence. The school was dominated by football and Paterno, hoops got lost for decades.

In the 90s PSU was mediocre but not horrible, and, when Dunn got fired there was legit interest from some fairly big names. They have been repeated many times over the years; ancient history now. PSU proceeded to brush off nearly every applicant and convince everyone in the CBB world that they were not serious about winning in basketball. To this day, I think many coaches do not want to come here at all.

 

[Psugo823]

I think they wanted to but did not have the competence. The school was dominated by football and Paterno, hoops got lost for decades.

This was not Joe Paternos fault.

 

[fairfaxlion2]

But it goes beyond the AD as well. Is the university committed to building a winning basketball program? I would say no.

the Ad before the last one was not committed to building a winning program, in fact sometimes seemed to be actively trying to do the opposite

 

[AWS1022]

the Ad before the last one was not committed to building a winning program, in fact sometimes seemed to be actively trying to do the opposite

And was she doing what she was instructed to do? Why was she able to try to do the opposite? The AD has bosses too.