Jump to content
Billikens.com Message Board
Sign in to follow this  
HenryB

Sounds like Crews has the job

Recommended Posts

I stand by my statement. All I am saying is it is what I have heard OUTSIDE of this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaka and Stevens are not landing any 5 star kids. Their success is built on finding the right kids to play their systems. VCU's and Butler's current rosters each have only one 4 star kid on them and they are both freshman. Burgess for VCU isn't eligible to play this season either. Both programs have zero five and four star kids signed for next year.

So our strategy should be to not get any 4* & 5* recruits?

Butler and VCU are in the same boat as we have been: 4* & 5* kids want to play on national TV in The Big 10, BE, ACC, Big 12, SEC, or The Pac 12.

Now, if we get into the BE/C7+, we will be in there somewhere...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stand by my statement. All I am saying is it is what I have heard OUTSIDE of this board.

Top secret insider source? WHOA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So our strategy should be to not get any 4* & 5* recruits?Butler and VCU are in the same boat as we have been: 4* & 5* kids want to play on national TV in The Big 10, BE, ACC, Big 12, SEC, or The Pac 12.Now, if we get into the BE/C7+, we will be in there somewhere...

The strategy is to get the best players to play your system. If SLU decides it is going to win by out recruiting the big boys for 4 and 5 star players, we are going to be in for some ugly basketball and it will be a complete failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't like the notion that SLU owes Jim Crews a chance, and I believe some posters seem to feel that way or believe SLU will feel that way. SLU owes Jim Crews consideration, nothing more.

Chris May should already have a list of the traits and accomplishments he's looking for in a HC and an idea of what is the most important to him and SLU for the future of the program, not the past. If in the end SLU decides Crews is the man for the job due to how he fits the profile of what they want ... I'm good with it.

However, like any coach they hire, they have to live with the results. IF Jim Crews gets the job and doesn't recruit well when all of his past history including statements that have been attributed to him that he didn't care for it ... Mays will get hammered and rightfully so. Nothing predicts the future better than the past. Jim Crews past does not say strong recruiter. I get that he's suddenly energized, big fouking deal. Who the hell wouldn't be with this team. The question is ... for how long and how can SLU be sure that the new found love of coaching doesn't begin to fade away when normalcy hits again ... and it will.

skip glad to see we are on the same side of a debate for once in a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bizz and I rarely agree but I am with him on this one. I think the powers that be would be hard-pressed to release Crews once this season is complete.

I seem to be more in concert with Cowbvoy and clock and on clock's statement on past history, I still agree .. that being I don't know if Crrws is the right choice given past history. I just don't know.

Not only did Romar win with Spoon's players but Spoon won with Grawer's players too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On what basis do you make your statement that "May and Biondi have pretty much decided to retain Crews as the head coach" ?? I'll bet right now the answer is: NONE. Admit it. You have not talked with either May or Biondi and you have no inside source either. Instead, you are just a fan drinking the Kool-Aide (and by that, I mean watching our team win, reading the national stories, etc.).


In contrast, let me cite some facts and remind you of what has really been going on. First, it would totally irresponsible of Chris May (or any Athletic Director) not to have already been conducting a national search of coaching candidates and developing a "short list" dating back to last Fall. Second, I am confident that Chris May has either personally talked with such candidates or that he has talked with third parties of such candidates (to abide by NCAA rules and to not contact employees who already under contract with another school without the other school's permission) in order to guage interest in the job. Third, go back and read the posts of reliable posters on this Board, along with Chris May himself, who have confirmed that May and SLU have already begun such a national search. Fourth, go back and read the posts of this Board's reliable posters who previously posted (a few months ago) that private converstations were that Jim Crews would likely not be back and that a replacement search is underway. Fifth, it would totally irresponsible and insulting to Crews to not consider (or if the prior statement is true, not to re-consider) Crews for the job in light of the job coaching this team that Crews has done. If, as you speculate, SLU has privately reached a deal with Crews, then we will all know in a few weeks. Otherwise, standard, professional statements by May and SLU that they will not be distracted with discussions about the head coach during the season, etc. should not be interpreted by you, and others, that Crews will or will not be back.


And yes. My opinions on Jim Crews will not change if SLU wins the National Championship this year!! Why? Because Jim Crews is a 59 year man who has not shown me anywhere in his 35 years of prior coaching experience that he is the best person to run SLU's basketball going forward next year. Is he doing a great job this year? Absolutely!! Would I vote for him this year for National Coach of the Year? Yes. But look at what Romar did with Spoon's players -- Conf USA tourney run and NCAA appearance in his first year followed by miserable recruiting before running our program into the ground. Bruce Weber won big with Bill Self's team before running Illinois into the ground. Tuby Smith and Steve Fisher are both good (not great) basketball coaches who won with their prior coachs' talent but never could duplicate such accomplishments on their own. Crews would do the same thing if given the permanent head coaching job. Why I am so confident in my statement? Look at his body of work.

It's apples and oranges when it comes to his previous body of work in regards to recruiting. Why? B/c Crews has not been afforded the opportunity yet to recruit at this level of a program as a Head Coach. It's a wild card, and recruiting is and will be for a large majority of potential candidates. Outside of the elite level current head coaches, of which we are not going to have a great shot at (b/c it would mean them leaving already great places they have built up), we are going to have some unknowns with recruiting.

I think there are two potential routes. You hire a great Xs/Os guy (Crews), who can lead and develop the right kind of players or you take a shot at a young up and coming assistant at a BCS type program (or head coach at a smaller program where SLU would a step up). I'm personally leaning towards keeping Crews and then hopefully developing a great recruiting staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The strategy is to get the best players to play your system. If SLU decides it is going to win by out recruiting the big boys for 4 and 5 star players, we are going to be in for some ugly basketball and it will be a complete failure.

Nobody is saying that, I'm not suggesting we bite off more than we can chew.

I am saying that we will be "eligible" to get a good 4* - 5* big (or whatever) here and there if we get into the big show. Plug in, say, 7' 0" freshman Isaiah Austin into our rotation right, now, wow, that would do the trick. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCarthy, you can't put Steve Fisher in that group.

Bill Frieder left before the start of the 1989 NCAA Tournament to go to Tempe and Fish won it all...extremely different circumstances...but then he (and Ed Martin) recruited Jalen Rose, Chris Webber, Jimmy King, Juwaun Howard and Ray Jackson... and we obviously know how that story ends. I'm not a Michigan sympathizer by any stretch, but Steve Fischer has won wherever he's gone. He took San Diego State to the got damn Sweet Sixteen in 2010.

There were also people at Kentucky who were looking for an excuse to can Tubby Smith the moment he got to Lexington, so he was in a no-win-situation regardless of outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McCarthy, you can't put Steve Fisher in that group.

Bill Frieder left before the start of the 1989 NCAA Tournament to go to Tempe and Fish won it all...extremely different circumstances...but then he (and Ed Martin) recruited Jalen Rose, Chris Webber, Jimmy King, Juwaun Howard and Ray Jackson... and we obviously know how that story ends. I'm not a Michigan sympathizer by any stretch, but Steve Fischer has won wherever he's gone. He took San Diego State to the got damn Sweet Sixteen in 2010.

There were also people at Kentucky who were looking for an excuse to can Tubby Smith the moment he got to Lexington, so he was in a no-win-situation regardless of outcome.

while i am not a crews fan, i dont think he is a cheater like fisher was and probably still is. i would take crews over a steve fisher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skip glad to see we are on the same side of a debate for once in a long time.

I'm not even saying I'm against Crews getting the job. I'm just saying we shouldn't be pressured in any way to give it to him based upon this season. We need to conduct a search and if in the end, we feel Crews is the guy, give him the job and make sure we give him the support, ie... a top asst who is a recruiter type to do all the leg work if we even feel there is a chance it may not be his strongest suit.

WHEN we get in this new conference we need to be prepared to do what it takes to become Marquette, not Depaul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
while i am not a crews fan, i dont think he is a cheater like fisher was and probably still is. i would take crews over a steve fisher.

Completely agree with you, Roy. Although I was just pointing out that while Fish won in 89 with Frieder's guys and Tubby won in 98 with mostly Pitino guys, both of them were able to recruit top talent to Ann Arbor and Lexington. The ethics of it aside, they didn't run their programs into the ground like Bruce Weber did in Champaign (besides, Eddie Sutton did that already at UK).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not even saying I'm against Crews getting the job. I'm just saying we shouldn't be pressured in any way to give it to him based upon this season. We need to conduct a search and if in the end, we feel Crews is the guy, give him the job and make sure we give him the support, ie... a top asst who is a recruiter type to do all the leg work if we even feel there is a chance it may not be his strongest suit.

WHEN we get in this new conference we need to be prepared to do what it takes to become Marquette, not Depaul

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree slufanakip, however, this season (and it's potential success in the tourney) is a datapoint that garners attention on his résumé vs. other top candidates. Basically, you can't just ignore what he's done this season (and what we might do from here through post-season).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure DePaul is as dead as some seem to think. We may be in for a rude awakening from our northside Chicago rivals in the years to come. And I'm not talking about the Cubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree slufanakip, however, this season (and it's potential success in the tourney) is a datapoint that garners attention on his résumé vs. other top candidates. Basically, you can't just ignore what he's done this season (and what we might do from here through post-season).

-I agree with Skip

-to me there is a BIG difference between, among other things, being charged with an experienced roster, very experienced at that, and coaching that team to what most expected to be success AND continuing the run by effective recruiting and either continuing with the current system or implementing a new one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not even saying I'm against Crews getting the job. I'm just saying we shouldn't be pressured in any way to give it to him based upon this season. We need to conduct a search and if in the end, we feel Crews is the guy, give him the job and make sure we give him the support, ie... a top asst who is a recruiter type to do all the leg work if we even feel there is a chance it may not be his strongest suit.

WHEN we get in this new conference we need to be prepared to do what it takes to become Marquette, not Depaul

I more or less agree. Whenever this season ends (hopefully later rather than sooner), have a look at who is out there and shows interest. While I included a list a few days ago of possible coaches, I admit that the crop this year from what I've seen, is somewhat lacking in established and successful coaches. Still, that can change if some coach in a mid-major conference puts together a good NCAA run. If we know we're in the Big East, our job becomes more intriguing and maybe someone we didn't think was a possibility suddenly shows interest. Heck, when Soderberg was fired, I didn't think Majerus was a viable alternative for several days.

If you have a look at who is out there and still think Crews is the best option, then make him the permanent coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not so sure DePaul is as dead as some seem to think. We may be in for a rude awakening from our northside Chicago rivals in the years to come. And I'm not talking about the Cubs.

Why do you say that? That program is an absolute disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think the Blue Demons will turn things around in the next few seasons and become a competitive team again in their (our--hopefully) conference. I don't expect them to move to the head of the class or anything, but Purnell has the track record and DePaul is still attractive in many ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just think the Blue Demons will turn things around in the next few seasons and become a competitive team again in their (our--hopefully) conference. I don't expect them to move to the head of the class or anything, but Purnell has the track record and DePaul is still attractive in many ways.

I'll agree with you on the track record of Purnell, but DePaul is not an attractive place to play. Nobody cares about DePaul in Chicago. Nobody. It is in no way, shape or form an attractive program for recruits from Chicago or anywhere else...great example of a program that was and could be something great and has elected to be nothing but an afterthought.

I actually feel bad for Purnell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's apples and oranges when it comes to his previous body of work in regards to recruiting. Why? B/c Crews has not been afforded the opportunity yet to recruit at this level of a program as a Head Coach. It's a wild card, and recruiting is and will be for a large majority of potential candidates. Outside of the elite level current head coaches, of which we are not going to have a great shot at (b/c it would mean them leaving already great places they have built up), we are going to have some unknowns with recruiting.

I think there are two potential routes. You hire a great Xs/Os guy (Crews), who can lead and develop the right kind of players or you take a shot at a young up and coming assistant at a BCS type program (or head coach at a smaller program where SLU would a step up). I'm personally leaning towards keeping Crews and then hopefully developing a great recruiting staff.

What?? Crews has not been afforded the opportunity to recruit at this level as a Head Coach?? That is the most ridiculous statement I have heard on this topic. In response, I have not been afforded the opportunity to recruit at this level either and I can assure you that I would be a terrible choice for SLU's next head coach!! Reality: top head coaching positions are earned -- not given to nice guys, loyal guys and guys who step in and do a great job on a temporary basis. And yes, the elite coaches of college basketball earned their stripes.

For example, Bill Self did a really great job recruiting, developing and coaching at Oral Roberts and then at Tulsa before getting the chance to coach at Illinois. Self excelled at these schools even though he "was not afforded the opportunity to recruit at this level"!! Once at this level -- at Illinois -- Self not only inherited a strong team (recruited by Lon Kreuger) but then left a really good team which Bruce Weber inherited and took to the Final Four. Thereafter, of course, Self went to Kansas where he has kept KU at the top of college basketball while winning a National Championship.

RM won, and won big, at unknown places like Ball State, Utah and then SLU. No one said his days at lesser schools/conferences don't count b/c he "was not afforded the opportunity to recruit at this level"!! Instead, he won every where he went.

Pitino did the same thing at Boston U -- getting them to the NCAA for the first time in years-- and then also at Providence, taking them from 11-20 to the Final Four after only 2 years. Again, no one afforded him any such opportunity.

The list goes on and on and on...

Instead, good coaches win at every level they are at regardless of the conference, the facilities, the institutional support, etc. Don't get me wrong, conference, facilities, institutional support, etc. are important but they only go so far. Whether SLU is in the remaining A10 or the new Big East, we need a strong coach and, unlike you, I am not willing to ignore Jim Crew's prior 35 years of coaching experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I more or less agree. Whenever this season ends (hopefully later rather than sooner), have a look at who is out there and shows interest. While I included a list a few days ago of possible coaches, I admit that the crop this year from what I've seen, is somewhat lacking in established and successful coaches. Still, that can change if some coach in a mid-major conference puts together a good NCAA run. If we know we're in the Big East, our job becomes more intriguing and maybe someone we didn't think was a possibility suddenly shows interest. Heck, when Soderberg was fired, I didn't think Majerus was a viable alternative for several days.

If you have a look at who is out there and still think Crews is the best option, then make him the permanent coach.

My profession is not that of a D1 Athletic Director. As such, I don't have a "short list" to cite on my own. At the same time, I would suggest that $2 million salary is probably the going rate for a good (not elite) head coach. If Fr. Biondi, Dr. C, Novelly, etc. are truly committed to being a factor in college basketball, then that is probably what it will take. For instance, if the elite guys are making $3 to $5 million and the lesser D1 programs are paying $500,000, then I'd suggest that $2 million and the new Big East would attract some otherwise happy and content college head coaches. Again, as mentioned earlier, Spoon, Romar and RM were all prior head coaches. I am NOT suggesting we go with the unknown assistant coach and hope that he is the next "up and coming head coach" and I am NOT suggesting that we are limited to hiring the current crop of fired, failed and out-of-work coaches.

Why do so many of you want to settle? Why is the only alternative to Crews that of a unknown, risky assistant coach??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



And yes. My opinions on Jim Crews will not change if SLU wins the National Championship this year!!

Huh? That's certifiable............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My profession is not that of a D1 Athletic Director. As such, I don't have a "short list" to cite on my own. At the same time, I would suggest that $2 million salary is probably the going rate for a good (not elite) head coach. If Fr. Biondi, Dr. C, Novelly, etc. are truly committed to being a factor in college basketball, then that is probably what it will take. For instance, if the elite guys are making $3 to $5 million and the lesser D1 programs are paying $500,000, then I'd suggest that $2 million and the new Big East would attract some otherwise happy and content college head coaches. Again, as mentioned earlier, Spoon, Romar and RM were all prior head coaches. I am NOT suggesting we go with the unknown assistant coach and hope that he is the next "up and coming head coach" and I am NOT suggesting that we are limited to hiring the current crop of fired, failed and out-of-work coaches.

Why do so many of you want to settle? Why is the only alternative to Crews that of a unknown, risky assistant coach??

A few points:

I would generally agree with the $2 million figure. That amount, coupled with the chance that we could be in the Big East or strongly expected to get a bid, plus our facilities could make us attractive to a current major conference coach. Depending on the coach, $2 million could be a bump up or a lateral amount.

As to the $500,000 figure for lesser D1 schools, that might be right in some cases, but also it is high in a number of others. Marshall at Wichita State, who is probably one of, if not the best mid-major option out there, is somewhere over $1 million.

While I had interest in bringing an assistant at one time, I have significantly cooled on that. Thus, I have made no suggestions of the sort in a while.

I don't think I'm advocating settling. I want to see what kind of interest this job attracts, especially with this possibly of the Big East in play. As I said above, I would be interested to see if SLU could attract an accomplished coach. Seemingly every year a BCS conference coach makes an unexpected move, either to another BCS school or to an above average mid-major program, and the new program ends up making a great hire. I think SLU could pull that off. I can also say that there are mid-major coaches out there who have positive but incomplete resumes, but if they win 2 games in the NCAA tourney they'll be treated as if they're the next in the line of great young coaches in college basketball, following Brad Stevens and Shaka Smart.

All I am saying is that if they see what the interest is in the job, and the decision makers at SLU are underwhelmed, plus they seem to think that Crews can hack it, then go ahead and hire Crews. I may have my concerns with Crews as a long term option, but if you have Crews out there and your other options are all very unimpressive, I might rather see what Crews could do, with the thought that he might at least provide some continuity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few points:

I would generally agree with the $2 million figure. That amount, coupled with the chance that we could be in the Big East or strongly expected to get a bid, plus our facilities could make us attractive to a current major conference coach. Depending on the coach, $2 million could be a bump up or a lateral amount.

As to the $500,000 figure for lesser D1 schools, that might be right in some cases, but also it is high in a number of others. Marshall at Wichita State, who is probably one of, if not the best mid-major option out there, is somewhere over $1 million.

While I had interest in bringing an assistant at one time, I have significantly cooled on that. Thus, I have made no suggestions of the sort in a while.

I don't think I'm advocating settling. I want to see what kind of interest this job attracts, especially with this possibly of the Big East in play. As I said above, I would be interested to see if SLU could attract an accomplished coach. Seemingly every year a BCS conference coach makes an unexpected move, either to another BCS school or to an above average mid-major program, and the new program ends up making a great hire. I think SLU could pull that off. I can also say that there are mid-major coaches out there who have positive but incomplete resumes, but if they win 2 games in the NCAA tourney they'll be treated as if they're the next in the line of great young coaches in college basketball, following Brad Stevens and Shaka Smart.

All I am saying is that if they see what the interest is in the job, and the decision makers at SLU are underwhelmed, plus they seem to think that Crews can hack it, then go ahead and hire Crews. I may have my concerns with Crews as a long term option, but if you have Crews out there and your other options are all very unimpressive, I might rather see what Crews could do, with the thought that he might at least provide some continuity.

-can you refresh my memory on a couple BCS coaches that were not fired that moved to mid-major jobs?

-at this moment SLU is not mid-major, might be soon, however

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...