Only because buying him out is not feasible
Potential Sha Replacements
- Thread starter MichiganStoleTitle
- Start date
The massive rupture should not have impacted our OOC results. The massive rupture shouldn't cause us to lose on our home court by 30 against the 9th place team in the conference. This is a message board that had us finishing 5th-7th in the league when the coaches poll came out. Everyone knew NIL was here. Now it's just an excuse.
Yeah good to think Willards competitors, Boeheim and Calhoun never had players who got paid. LOL
No. Who in their right mind is going to turn down 2.5 million to coach basketball?
A lot of people. Especially when they can make that and more at dozens of other places with more to offer than Seton Hall.
Get creative and mainstream media coverage. Offer a superstar player-coach role for a season.
Of course it impacted it, and yes, even in the OOC. Because of pay-for-play, we had an entirely new roster this year other than who, Coleman, Tubek, and Addae-Wusu? A roster full of fingers-crossed hopes that these bargain basement finds could turn into something? As it turns out, they aren't great, can't shoot, can't play inside, don't match well together, and might not even be smart enough to learn defensive concepts. So yeah, having that mix of things leveled the competition significant toward the Hofstras and Fordhams, especially when this crew of knuckleheads probably thought they could just show up and beat those teams.
If the head coach was brand new and had no track record, I'd be a lot more concerned about him. But there is context around all of this and not conceding that fact is just stubbornness.
you are making a very strong case for keeping shaheen
Seriously. End this fire sha talk its not happening
Bottom line is we are not going to get any coach that has a better resume then Sha end of story! Bonus is he also is a SHU person with NJ area roots too!
Just about every school has about 10 new players. We will have 10 new players again next year, the year after that, and the year after that if the system remains the same. If having new players every year is what keeps us behind we've quite possibly just set up the excuse for the next century.
It's no secret that the roster construction this year was a disaster, and a good part of it was because of the coach's choices, electing to spread the meager amount he had across ten guys rather than around two or three guys who were surer bets and let them lead the others. That's not perfect either, but under the new constraints, it's the best bet we have.
We won't need excuses for the next century. Either Seton Hall equips the staff with the money to make the program viable, or it goes away within the next decade. The problem isn't necessarily having ten new players every year; it's having the wrong ten or an ill-fitting ten, or an untalented ten every year. That won't play. But it is the new reality. Enough of them have to come up heads every year or the season's shot. They should at least give the coach a fighting change to pick the right ones.
That’s fine but stop with the 10 new guys problem, no continuity problem because everyone is in the same boat as far as those things go. Poorly constructed roster is the issue, and as far as context and track record what track record does any coach have in getting 10 new guys every year?
