no hyperbole. this is deep rock bottom for any team in this league. this is the kind of performance that makes you wonder if the BE would ever kick a team out.
The DePaul team is the worst team in BE history
- Thread starter SHUSA
- Start date
They’re in no danger of being booted, but I agree this is likely the worst team in Big East history. Just absolutely awful.
omg icing on the cake at the end. the depaul guy grabbed the rebound off the 1x1 and threw it out of bounds to the ref for a turnover. i need a full lowlights vid.
💀💀 💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀 💀💀💀💀💀💀
💀💀 💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀 💀💀💀💀💀💀
i heard back in the day shu was in danger of being booted. i cant imagine they were THIS bad.
the AD needs to go. the only guys playing for depaul are the ones who would have never dreamed of playing for BE team and are willing to be embarrassed night in and night out.
It will help. KenPom already jumped 12 spots from 68 to 56. I don't like how they overvalue big margin wins against bad teams, but it is what it is. We need it.
this is where i have to call BS on these metrics. teams SHOULD be smacking depaul up. even on the road. beating the worst team in big east history moves our metrics than beating a ranked team. think about that.
Some of the Seton Hall teams of the early years were pretty bad. P.J.'s first team went 6-23 and his third team was 0-15 in the BE before defeating UConn in Walsh in the last game of the season. They won 25 games overall and 4 BE games over his first three years.
The first few Miami teams and a couple of the Jim O'Brien BC teams are up there as well. As bad as the Georgetown teams of the past couple of years were, there was clearly more talent there.
This DePaul team has certainly put itself squarely in the middle of the conversation. Their 10 BE losses are by 36, 29, 3, 26, 25, 38, 14, 13, 23 and 33. That's 24 points per game. Their five home losses are by an average of 29.2.
The first few Miami teams and a couple of the Jim O'Brien BC teams are up there as well. As bad as the Georgetown teams of the past couple of years were, there was clearly more talent there.
This DePaul team has certainly put itself squarely in the middle of the conversation. Their 10 BE losses are by 36, 29, 3, 26, 25, 38, 14, 13, 23 and 33. That's 24 points per game. Their five home losses are by an average of 29.2.
DePaul averages 65.4 points per game and shoots 43.1% from the floor. We held them to 39 points and 22% shooting. On the other hand we shot 51% from the floor.
When you hold a team to a season-low in points (and I'm sure FGP but I'm not going to bother to check) that matters.
Being in a league is more than one sport (marquee) women's team is very competitive...other sports are competitive...they still need to go winless in league play, georgetown did do that in a recent season no?
Let's give hall some credit here. They made a bad team look terrible with our physical D..only 39 points.
Yesterday, everyone was soiling themselves at the thought of playing Depaul.
I was too young to be paying attention back then, but I believe it had more to do with the lack of resources the university was devoting to the program more than the team actually being inept (although there is often a correlation). That's usually the only reason teams are threatened with expulsion.
When Temple football was booted from the Big East, it was due to the total lack of resources devoted to the program, which resulted in them having none of the physical infrastructure necessary to compete. If it was just a matter of them being terrible for a stretch, the league would've booted Rutgers too, but Rutgers was at least making the moves to build up the infrastructure. (Temple's expulsion may have expedited that, too, but I don't recall. Timeline basically fits, though.)
As far as I can tell, DePaul has the infrastructure to be competitive. Their "NIL" is low, but that's understandable at this point after so many down years. They just keep hiring bad coaches.
I'm going to push back slightly on that very last point. Since Joey Meyer left, DePaul has mostly hired coaches with a solid track record. We can discuss their coaching ability but they had solid resumes. Admittedly none were John Wooden, Dean Smith types. In the Tony Stubblefield fired thread I did a before/during/after comparison on the post-Meyer era.
They replaced Meyer with Pat Kennedy. He may not have been the greatest x/o guy but he won games. He made an Elite Eight and a Sweet 16 at Florida State and had five 20-win seasons and two more with 19 in 11 years. He even made an NCAAT at DePaul but went 21-37 the next two years and was pushed out.
Next comes the first run of Dave Leitao. He had three above .500 seasons in three years -- they've had two since. His resume wasn't great with a failed run at Northeastern but he burnished his credentials with a second run as a UConn assistant. He made an NCAA and two NITs and then left for Virginia. Eventually he made his way back to the Second City, where the program was well behind what he left and had one of those two aforementioned plus-.500 seasons.
Jerry Wainwright won an NCAA game at UNC Wilmington and later moved on to Richmond where he earned one bid in three years. He also had the misfortunate of taking over the program as it moved to the Big East. He did win 20 games and made the NIT in year two but went 27-51 after that and was fired in the middle of his fifth year.
That brings us to Oliver Purnell. Our old friend Pir8tes was a big Purnell guy and wanted us to try to get him. Purnell won everywhere he went: Radford, Old Dominion, Dayton and Clemson. He went 93-41 with three NCAAs in his last four years at Clemson. Then he went to DePaul and went 54-105 in five seasons.
That brought Leitao back as DePaul tried to revive the "magic" of his first stint. Clearly it didn't work as other than a 19-17 season that featured a run to the CBI Championship game.
You can make the argument that none of these guys were taking DePaul to the Final Four but on paper they weren't "bad" coaches. This is simply a program that has been stuck in a hole for most of 30 years and has really never gotten itself to the point it can escape.
Maybe "coaches who were bad fits" is a more precise way to describe it. The struggles and/or unwillingness to play nicely with the Chicago high school coaches was a well-documented problem, and even if the focus has shifted somewhat away from high school programs, that damage endures and none have been able to effectively mend that wound.
I have to feel that Val will strongly be involved in the most important step, hiring a quality coach.
DePaul is in the mess they are in because of repeated hiring failures.
DePaul is in the mess they are in because of repeated hiring failures.
If he is really that good a coach, coming out of left field, but how about Mike Rice?
If Pitino "deserved" a second chance, why not Rice?
Depaul was missing at least 3 first string players last night, including their leading scorer. Since hiring this interim coach, they played much better in a couple of games, except last night. But losing so many first string players to injury made them look much worse than they actually are. (There is talent there; Stubblefield, who was a decent coach in past years, really blew it with this group, which did not play like a team at all. They reminded me of our play in the nonconference part of the season. We even resembled their hero ball play at times last night, e.g., when Dawes was forcing things last night on his own behalf and refusing to pass the ball.)
I do like Matt Brady, a good, solid coach, and if they play enough games at full strength, I do not think they'll go winless this entire season, even as bad as they've been.
I don't think this is unrealistic and I'd be curious to see how it played out if he took the job.
DePaul should use this as a template to save their program
Could you imagine the Hurley brothers in the same conference, one coaching what is currently a top 5 college program and the other coaching a bottom 5 program.
And yet this team somehow beat Louisville by 7 this year.
So what does that say about Louisville at this point?
Can you lose your historical blue blood status for being as bad as they have been the last two years?
So what does that say about Louisville at this point?
Can you lose your historical blue blood status for being as bad as they have been the last two years?
