Travis Ford is not a good coach

[willie]

I find this whole topic somewhat amusing. Wasn’t it a year or so ago that the board was worried that we would lose Ford to a power 5 school. Let’s win the conference tournament and watch it flip again. 

[thetorch]

3 hours ago, SLU_Nick said:

Yea, I was defending Ford on Twitter and someone hit me with the stat that Ford is 6-25 against Dayton, VCU, Davidson, and Bonaventure in his tenure. 

That stat sort of shook me and made me put down the koolaid.  

I do agree with Roy though.  Ford is overall a good coach for us.  Some of us remember when Luke Meyer being able to dunk impressed all of us and it meant that we found the next Keith Van Horn.  

At least our talent is good enough to win even though the in-game coaching is a D+

 

 

 

That record isn't right.

We have 8 wins against those teams in Ford's tenure.

8-28 something like that.

[almaman]

48 minutes ago, Old guy said:

This is true. The coach can guide the plays but he does not actually perform the plays planned, the same thing with shooting. The coach does not shoot the balls, the players do, if they shoot bricks (this is particularly true for easy layups that do not go in) it is not the coach's fault.

 

thanks now I know y we don't c coaches on the court

[TheChosenOne]

3 hours ago, SLU_Nick said:

Yea, I was defending Ford on Twitter and someone hit me with the stat that Ford is 6-25 against Dayton, VCU, Davidson, and Bonaventure in his tenure.

Quick search, looking at only the conference schedule, that stat does appear to be accurate:

2016-17 - 0-6

2017-18 - 1-5 (win vs. Dayton)

2018-19 - 1-4 (win vs. Dayton)

2019-20 - 2-3 (win vs. VCU and St. Bonaventure)

2020-21 - 1-3 (win vs. St. Bonaventure)

2021-22 - 1-4 (win vs. Dayton)

As others pointed out, the tournament run in March 2019 gave us 3 more wins and it looks like we have only lost twice to that group in the conference tournament in other seasons.

[SLU_Nick]

23 minutes ago, thetorch said:

That record isn't right.

We have 8 wins against those teams in Ford's tenure.

8-28 something like that.

Ugh, I was out-twitter dueled.  

 

22 minutes ago, TheChosenOne said:

Quick search, looking at only the conference schedule, that stat does appear to be accurate:

2016-17 - 0-6

2017-18 - 1-5 (win vs. Dayton)

2018-19 - 1-4 (win vs. Dayton)

2019-20 - 2-3 (win vs. VCU and St. Bonaventure)

2020-21 - 1-3 (win vs. St. Bonaventure)

2021-22 - 1-4 (win vs. Dayton)

As others pointed out, the tournament run in March 2019 gave us 3 more wins and it looks like we have only lost twice to that group in the conference tournament in other seasons.

I would have never thought that.  The other coaches love seeing overrated SLU on the schedule.  Opportunity for a good W for the metrics and probably won't take an L. 

[BilliesBy40]

1 hour ago, willie said:

I find this whole topic somewhat amusing. Wasn’t it a year or so ago that the board was worried that we would lose Ford to a power 5 school. Let’s win the conference tournament and watch it flip again. 

Many people called that out as irrational

[HoosierPal]

4 hours ago, NH said:

Tramaine Isabell talked about how Ford was a very impressive recruiter and how Fords persuasiveness was what got Isabell to commit to SLU when he was planning on going to Xavier.

Ford was a very solid recruiter at Oklahoma State and UMass.

To your question, I don’t think we land those recruits without coach tate. But we also probably do not land them without Coach Ford.

That’s a valid point on Ford. But without Tate there may be no locals to land. For me, Ford hiring Tate may be the best thing he has done here. 

[AnkielBreakers]

1 hour ago, TheChosenOne said:

Quick search, looking at only the conference schedule, that stat does appear to be accurate:

2016-17 - 0-6

2017-18 - 1-5 (win vs. Dayton)

2018-19 - 1-4 (win vs. Dayton)

2019-20 - 2-3 (win vs. VCU and St. Bonaventure)

2020-21 - 1-3 (win vs. St. Bonaventure)

2021-22 - 1-4 (win vs. Dayton)

As others pointed out, the tournament run in March 2019 gave us 3 more wins and it looks like we have only lost twice to that group in the conference tournament in other seasons.

Ok, it is 8 out of 25, right? So, we have won about 1/3 of the games. Ford also inherited the last place team in the A10, in late April. Then, had situation II. Not an easy way to start, so the first two years are kind of useless. 40% over the last three years is ok. The home loss to SBU is probably the most painful of these games, and would have moved it to 50%. We had that COVID thing last year. Hate to make excuses, but sometimes they are warranted. I didn’t make excuses for Crews.

 

[TheChosenOne]

2 hours ago, AnkielBreakers said:

Ok, it is 8 out of 25, right? So, we have won about 1/3 of the games. Ford also inherited the last place team in the A10, in late April. Then, had situation II. Not an easy way to start, so the first two years are kind of useless. 40% over the last three years is ok. The home loss to SBU is probably the most painful of these games, and would have moved it to 50%. We had that COVID thing last year. Hate to make excuses, but sometimes they are warranted. I didn’t make excuses for Crews.

I was merely validating the stat that was posted (“Ford is 6-25 against Dayton, VCU, Davidson, and Bonaventure” which is the record, not won 6 of 25, but rather won 6 and lost 25).

[wgstl]

Ford needs to spend $$ on a X and O assistant. 

[billiken_roy]

25 minutes ago, wgstl said:

Ford needs to spend $$ on a X and O assistant. 

That's what we thought giocolleti was.   Ford won't listen.  So why waste a spot?   Just load up with recruiters

 

[Taj79]

It take a very BIG man to evaluate his shortcomings, accepts the facts, and then go out and address them to correct them as best as possible.  Right now, I don't think anyone would put black marks on Ford's report card for recruiting, team atmosphere (Team Blue), and school representation.  On those marks alone I think he is a great coach.   Yes, I said great.

I think other areas need work ----- in eight years at Oklahoma State, he went 155 - 111 (.583) and won one NCAA game.  He has six plus years here and is 108 - 78 (.581) with no NCAA wins.  He was only 63 and 80 (.441) in the Big 12 but that is arguably a deeper conference; in the A10 he is 54 - 45 (.545).  He got out of Eastern Kentucky after one good year and then bolted Umass after two good years.  These numbers suggest that in terms of numerical and statistical sense, help is needed.  I am not smart enough to know what that is.  

I think we keep him but if he doesn't change some spots in some way shape or form, we better realize his track record puts him right where he is right now.  

[cgeldmacher]

On 2/27/2022 at 7:37 AM, Bay Area Billiken said:

St. Mary's plays at a much slower pace than Gonzaga and did so throughout the game last night.  The final score was St. Mary's 67 Gonzaga 57.  Gonzaga averages 88.3 points per game;  St. Mary's averages 69.6 points per game.  By both simply watching the game, and per the statistics, it was and is clear that St. Mary's was able to get Gonzaga to play its (St. Mary's) game and at its pace.

 

Did you watch the game?  St. Mary's was playing fast and pushing the ball most of the game.  Gonzaga was the one tryin to slow it down and play a half court game.  The announcers were commenting on that fact the entire time.

[Billikenbooster]

1 hour ago, Taj79 said:

It take a very BIG man to evaluate his shortcomings, accepts the facts, and then go out and address them to correct them as best as possible.  Right now, I don't think anyone would put black marks on Ford's report card for recruiting, team atmosphere (Team Blue), and school representation.  On those marks alone I think he is a great coach.   Yes, I said great.

I think other areas need work ----- in eight years at Oklahoma State, he went 155 - 111 (.583) and won one NCAA game.  He has six plus years here and is 108 - 78 (.581) with no NCAA wins.  He was only 63 and 80 (.441) in the Big 12 but that is arguably a deeper conference; in the A10 he is 54 - 45 (.545).  He got out of Eastern Kentucky after one good year and then bolted Umass after two good years.  These numbers suggest that in terms of numerical and statistical sense, help is needed.  I am not smart enough to know what that is.  

I think we keep him but if he doesn't change some spots in some way shape or form, we better realize his track record puts him right where he is right now.  

Roy, don’t you think that would be May’s job? Travis‘s boss needs to sit him down and help him to do that reevaluation and to explain the areas where he thinks there needs to be improvement. Everyone gets a yearly evaluation at their place of employment. If Travis can’t do it for himself his boss should assist him.

[cgeldmacher]

Look, I don't think that any coach is above criticism.  I believe that Coach Ford could be better at game preparation, in game coaching, in game demeanor, and making adjustments.  However, I, and I suspect others on this board, are often hesitant to raise reasonable criticism of Ford, because there are so many on this board that are irrationally off the deep end about his coaching.  I think that the "Ford isn't a good x's and o's coach" is a lazy narrative that many stuffed in their back pocket when we hired him, because they heard that about his time at OK St.

He wasn't viewed that way at his other two coaching stops, only OK St.  Now, any time things don't go the way that certain posters want, they don't know how else to react or how else to explain their disappointment but to reach into that back pocket and pull out the narrative from the OK ST days.  Every coach who gets fired from a job where people thought that the talent they had underperformed gets the same label that they can't seem to shake.

The worst part is that many of the criticisms make no sense (the weave that almost every team runs; slowing the pace when leading at the end of the game; not putting in a guy at the end of the bench at the exact moment that a poster thinks would have completely changed the momentum of a game).  Also, no matter how often posters say "but I don't want to fire him.....yet" the tenor of their criticism is so hostile that it cannot really be read otherwise.

Roy and I agree a lot more than some of our posts would indicate about this, at least I think.  Ford and his staff are good recruiters.  It doesn't matter who does the recruiting.  Ford motivates his guys to play hard (that's rarer than you may think).  Ford promotes the program better than any coach we've ever had.  And, yes, I think that Ford is a good coach, albeit not a perfect one.

Roy pointed out that starting over is hard.  I totally agree.  However, what about starting over twice, or three, or four times.  There is no guarantee that whoever you bring in will work out.  The next guy could be the next Jim Crews.  Or the next two guys could be the next Jim Crews.  Switching to a new guy could be a good thing, or could be disastrous.  Ford's floor/ceiling is a floor of just above middle in the pack of the A-10 to a ceiling the program we want.  Given that his worst case is no where near the worst case scenario a new coach could bring and his ceiling is high, I suggest that posters cut him a break on his deficiencies.  Every coach out there has bad losses.  Every coach brings in guys that are inconsistent and don't always play the way they are coached.  Every coach out there has successes and failures.  The guy we have, though, can get us where we want to go.  Or he may not.  We just have to wait and see.  In the mean time, stop being so hypercritical and blaming everything that goes wrong on coaching decisions.  It will make your experience as a Billiken fan better.

 

[HoosierPal]

Watching St. Mary's and Gonzaga one has to look at St. Mary's bench.   Randy Bennett, 21 years at St. Mary's, and he will get them into their 8th NCAA in those two decades  +.  He is 454 and 192 entering this season.

That barn door was shut and nailed close 20 years ago, so why am I dreaming?

[Bay Area Billiken]

34 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

Did you watch the game?  St. Mary's was playing fast and pushing the ball most of the game.  Gonzaga was the one tryin to slow it down and play a half court game.  The announcers were commenting on that fact the entire time.

Yes, I watched the game.  The announcers, both of whom are from here in the Bay Area, actually commented that St. Mary's was making Gonzaga play its game, which was at St. Mary's slower pace, per both the announcers and from watching with my eyes.  I've seen both teams play quite a bit and am well familiar with both.  St. Mary's in Moraga is 10.8 miles from my desk.  Gonzaga has become the big destination school in the West, and I know several Gonzaga students and a Jesuit Priest stationed there.

What you saw was St. Mary's veteran point guard, Tommy Kuhse, largely controlling that game, including the pace.  It wasn't a stall, rather a point guard running the show, scoring off the dribble, off glass, with drives to the hoop.  St. Mary's also hit its 3's, and its 2 Bigs played the game of their lives.  It was the perfect storm.

This being said, the two could easily meet a week from tomorrow night in the WCC Tournament in Las Vegas, with Gonzaga blowing St. Mary's right off the court.  The Zags are that powerful.  But this past Saturday night in Moraga belonged to the Gaels.

[Bay Area Billiken]

36 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

Watching St. Mary's and Gonzaga one has to look at St. Mary's bench.   Randy Bennett, 21 years at St. Mary's, and he will get them into their 8th NCAA in those two decades  +.  He is 454 and 192 entering this season.

That barn door was shut and nailed close 20 years ago, so why am I dreaming?

Randy Bennett is from the Phoenix Area.  He was never coming to SLU as Head Coach, and still isn't.  He's had big Pac-12 opportunities, but is happy in Moraga.

Further, I’m not convinced Randy Bennett’s system, which has been largely reliant on multiple players from Australia, would translate to SLU and St. Louis. 

Travis Ford actually has the 3rd highest winning percentage (.590) of any SLU Coach since 1947-48.

[cgeldmacher]

Just now, Bay Area Billiken said:

Yes, I watched the game.  The announcers, both of whom are from here in the Bay Area, actually commented that St. Mary's was making Gonzaga play its game, which was at St. Mary's slower pace, per both the announcers and from watching with my eyes.  I've seen both teams play quite a bit and am well familiar with both.  St. Mary's in Moraga is 10.8 miles from my desk.  Gonzaga has become the big destination school in the West, and I know several Gonzaga students and a Jesuit Priest stationed there.

What you saw was St. Mary's veteran point guard, Tommy Kuhse, largely controlling that game, including the pace.  It wasn't a stall, rather a point guard running the show, scoring off the dribble, off glass, with drives to the hoop.  St. Mary's also hit its 3's, and its 2 Bigs played the game of their lives.  It was the perfect storm.

This being said, the two could easily meet a week from tomorrow night in the WCC Tournament in Las Vegas, with Gonzaga blowing St. Mary's right off the court.  The Zags are that powerful.  But this past Saturday night in Moraga belonged to the Gaels.

I thoroughly enjoyed watching the game.  I almost unquestionably cheer for Gonzaga, but I was cheering for St. Mary's in that one.  Wasn't going to affect Gonzaga's position in the tournament at all, but helped St. Mary's greatly.

[BilliesBy40]

19 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

Look, I don't think that any coach is above criticism.  I believe that Coach Ford could be better at game preparation, in game coaching, in game demeanor, and making adjustments.  However, I, and I suspect others on this board, are often hesitant to raise reasonable criticism of Ford, because there are so many on this board that are irrationally off the deep end about his coaching.  I think that the "Ford isn't a good x's and o's coach" is a lazy narrative that many stuffed in their back pocket when we hired him, because they heard that about his time at OK St.

He wasn't viewed that way at his other two coaching stops, only OK St.  Now, any time things don't go the way that certain posters want, they don't know how else to react or how else to explain their disappointment but to reach into that back pocket and pull out the narrative from the OK ST days.  Every coach who gets fired from a job where people thought that the talent they had underperformed gets the same label that they can't seem to shake.

The worst part is that many of the criticisms make no sense (the weave that almost every team runs; slowing the pace when leading at the end of the game; not putting in a guy at the end of the bench at the exact moment that a poster thinks would have completely changed the momentum of a game).  Also, no matter how often posters say "but I don't want to fire him.....yet" the tenor of their criticism is so hostile that it cannot really be read otherwise.

Roy and I agree a lot more than some of our posts would indicate about this, at least I think.  Ford and his staff are good recruiters.  It doesn't matter who does the recruiting.  Ford motivates his guys to play hard (that's rarer than you may think).  Ford promotes the program better than any coach we've ever had.  And, yes, I think that Ford is a good coach, albeit not a perfect one.

Roy pointed out that starting over is hard.  I totally agree.  However, what about starting over twice, or three, or four times.  There is no guarantee that whoever you bring in will work out.  The next guy could be the next Jim Crews.  Or the next two guys could be the next Jim Crews.  Switching to a new guy could be a good thing, or could be disastrous.  Ford's floor/ceiling is a floor of just above middle in the pack of the A-10 to a ceiling the program we want.  Given that his worst case is no where near the worst case scenario a new coach could bring and his ceiling is high, I suggest that posters cut him a break on his deficiencies.  Every coach out there has bad losses.  Every coach brings in guys that are inconsistent and don't always play the way they are coached.  Every coach out there has successes and failures.  The guy we have, though, can get us where we want to go.  Or he may not.  We just have to wait and see.  In the mean time, stop being so hypercritical and blaming everything that goes wrong on coaching decisions.  It will make your experience as a Billiken fan better.

 

This is a really good post. I am curious though: what makes you think Ford’s ceiling is higher than what we have seen? You referenced his floor as being above middle of the pack in the A10 (seems pretty accurate), but everything we have seen to date says his ceiling is fairly close to the same level.

[Taj79]

Saying Ford can take this program further above where we want to be is one hell of a leap of faith.  I don’t think anyone is advocating bringing in anyone new at this point.  But time is running out.  Short of one four-game run a few years back, Ford has maintained his middle of the pack standing.  And that fact is further amplified by a steady decline in the A10 overall.  If you can’t win when it’s down how you going to win it otherwise?  

[wgstl]

25 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

Saying Ford can take this program further above where we want to be is one hell of a leap of faith.  I don’t think anyone is advocating bringing in anyone new at this point.  But time is running out.  Short of one four-game run a few years back, Ford has maintained his middle of the pack standing.

This had me curious as to what the overall standings over the past 5 years looks like.

1)Bonnies(3)

2)Davidson(3.2)

3)VCU(3.8)

4)Dayton(4.6)

5)SLU(5)

6)RI(6.4)

7)Richmond(7)

8  GMU(7.4)

While I cut Travis some slack because he's been dealt a pretty unlucky hand, I do still think he's underachieved.  We should be in the top 4 average. 

[Matty Light]

2 hours ago, BilliesBy40 said:

This is a really good post. I am curious though: what makes you think Ford’s ceiling is higher than what we have seen? You referenced his floor as being above middle of the pack in the A10 (seems pretty accurate), but everything we have seen to date says his ceiling is fairly close to the same level.

After Lute Olson left the Hawkeyes for Arizona, Iowa hired George Raveling. He brought in a load of talented recruits from Michigan that eventually played in the NBA, BJ Armstrong, Roy Marble, Ed Horton among them. He underachieved with those guys and was labelled a good recruiter / bad X and O coach.

Iowa dismissed Raveling and brought in Xs and Os coach, Tom Davis from Stanford, formerly at Boston College. Davis proved his Xs and Os guiding Raveling's recruits to an Elite 8 and Sweet 16.

But after those players graduated, Davis never returned to the Sweet 16 until 1999, his final season at Iowa. This was largely due to his inability to recruit.

I don't know about what Iowa basketball would have done with Raveling as coach instead of Davis, but it likely would have resulted in more Sweet 16s based on recruiting alone. The style of play would have been more entertaining as well. I actually switched allegiances from Hawkeyes to Cyclones in 7th grade. Johnny Orr's style was much more entertaining than Davis's.

Davis provided a floor for Iowa of perennial appearances in the Big Dance but always a 2nd round exit.

I say this because we could conceivably get a better Xs and Os coach but will likely suffer greatly in recruiting. I've witnessed a lot of mediocrity in my 25 years as a Billiken fan. But watching the local talent play is far more enjoyable than the squads we used to assemble. Be careful what you wish for.

[BilliesBy40]

23 minutes ago, Matty Light said:

After Lute Olson left the Hawkeyes for Arizona, Iowa hired George Raveling. He brought in a load of talented recruits from Michigan that eventually played in the NBA, BJ Armstrong, Roy Marble, Ed Horton among them. He underachieved with those guys and was labelled a good recruiter / bad X and O coach.

Iowa dismissed Raveling and brought in Xs and Os coach, Tom Davis from Stanford, formerly at Boston College. Davis proved his Xs and Os guiding Raveling's recruits to an Elite 8 and Sweet 16.

But after those players graduated, Davis never returned to the Sweet 16 until 1999, his final season at Iowa. This was largely due to his inability to recruit.

I don't know about what Iowa basketball would have done with Raveling as coach instead of Davis, but it likely would have resulted in more Sweet 16s based on recruiting alone. The style of play would have been more entertaining as well. I actually switched allegiances from Hawkeyes to Cyclones in 7th grade. Johnny Orr's style was much more entertaining than Davis's.

Davis provided a floor for Iowa of perennial appearances in the Big Dance but always a 2nd round exit.

I say this because we could conceivably get a better Xs and Os coach but will likely suffer greatly in recruiting. I've witnessed a lot of mediocrity in my 25 years as a Billiken fan. But watching the local talent play is far more enjoyable than the squads we used to assemble. Be careful what you wish for.

Good example, albeit one that is apples to oranges. From my perspective, it would be a different discussion if we were routinely making the NCAA tournament under Ford. Also, I am not convinced we would suffer greatly in recruiting, especially if we were able to retain Corey Tate. SLU has a lot to offer local recruits. That will not go away someday when Ford is not our head coach.

[thatskablamo]

1 hour ago, Matty Light said:

After Lute Olson left the Hawkeyes for Arizona, Iowa hired George Raveling. He brought in a load of talented recruits from Michigan that eventually played in the NBA, BJ Armstrong, Roy Marble, Ed Horton among them. He underachieved with those guys and was labelled a good recruiter / bad X and O coach.

Iowa dismissed Raveling and brought in Xs and Os coach, Tom Davis from Stanford, formerly at Boston College. Davis proved his Xs and Os guiding Raveling's recruits to an Elite 8 and Sweet 16.

But after those players graduated, Davis never returned to the Sweet 16 until 1999, his final season at Iowa. This was largely due to his inability to recruit.

I don't know about what Iowa basketball would have done with Raveling as coach instead of Davis, but it likely would have resulted in more Sweet 16s based on recruiting alone. The style of play would have been more entertaining as well. I actually switched allegiances from Hawkeyes to Cyclones in 7th grade. Johnny Orr's style was much more entertaining than Davis's.

Davis provided a floor for Iowa of perennial appearances in the Big Dance but always a 2nd round exit.

I say this because we could conceivably get a better Xs and Os coach but will likely suffer greatly in recruiting. I've witnessed a lot of mediocrity in my 25 years as a Billiken fan. But watching the local talent play is far more enjoyable than the squads we used to assemble. Be careful what you wish for.

Poor Doc Tom -oh what could have been with that 93 squad. Chris Street’s 14.5 ppg would have helped against Wake in the second round of the tournament. Rodney Rogers went off for 30 if memory serves me right. He had a rough 99 with some less-than-savory characters Joey Range, Duez Henderson, etc. Carver used to be a rockin’ place in the 90s.