Willard & Maryland 2nd Place In b1g…..

[SHUSource]

People on here are still joking about Willard's lack of success in the NCAAT, yet they're ok with going from 6 of 7 tournaments to 0-3 as if our program was set back 12 years to 2010 and when we hired Sha we were trying to just rebuild our program from embarrassment back to relevance. That's an agenda.

Not an agenda, but an acknowledgement of the undeniable reality we exist in now. Comparing the environment Shaheen Holloway is trying to succeed in compared to what Kevin Willard coached, and trying to act as if they are the least bit analogous, reveals absolute ignorance of the game today. Holding the record of one up to the other is like comparing a cantaloupe to a shot put.

So, yes, I'm still standing behind a coach who I think is a good one (the fact that he's one of ours buys him some additional credit, but not that much), especially as he and our university try to figure out how to finance success in a landscape that seems to change every year. I'm not 100 percent sure it's going to work, but I know that while he is not blame-free here, the vast majority of this failure so far is not Holloway's fault.

Regardless of any of the new landscape, unless someone is clearly an incompetent, I tend to give a coach I support five seasons to reveal their abilities in a particular setting. I did for Kevin Willard, who I was 100 percent behind hiring and coaching this program. He finally got it together after that length of time (after finally deciding to work), and elevated us to a NCAA-in-most-years type of program, which I don't take for granted. But I also wish he'd have cashed in earlier than he did given us the chance to hire someone who could advance in the NCAAs. A gamble, for sure, since you never know for sure what you're going to get, but I welcomed the chance to roll the dice and be aggressive. To me, we have that sort of coach here now, but the timing did not line up for us or him, so now they all have to figure out how to make it work now, the way things are now. We'll see, but I still feel good about him. I wasn't out on Willard after three seasons when he was 3-15 in the league (despite not having to find $2 million to pay a roster), so I'm not going to be out on Holloway yet, either.

 

[NYShoreGuy]

From the two things can be true department. Shaka Smart at different points in his career led an 11 seed to a Final Four and lost seven consecutive tournament games.

Does that make him a "good tournament coach" or a "bad tournament coach." Or does it make him a guy whose team got hot at the right moment once and maybe he's somewhere in the middle?

Some context on this...VCU the season before the final four run won the cbi in his first season as head coach with much of the same cast on the roster. Irony about the tournament game loss streak is that was a major factor in waving goodbye to Barnes (Texas) because he just was not getting key results in March.

Here is one, Matt Painter...is he a bad coach for having lost to NJ low majors in back to back seasons? Purdue certainly has given him a long leash for not having won the big one.

 

[Hall Is Life]

Not an agenda, but an acknowledgement of the undeniable reality we exist in now. Comparing the environment Shaheen Holloway is trying to succeed in compared to what Kevin Willard coached, and trying to act as if they are the least bit analogous, reveals absolute ignorance of the game today. Holding the record of one up to the other is like comparing a cantaloupe to a shot put.

So, yes, I'm still standing behind a coach who I think is a good one (the fact that he's one of ours buys him some additional credit, but not that much), especially as he and our university try to figure out how to finance success in a landscape that seems to change every year. I'm not 100 percent sure it's going to work, but I know that while he is not blame-free here, the vast majority of this failure so far is not Holloway's fault.

Regardless of any of the new landscape, unless someone is clearly an incompetent, I tend to give a coach I support five seasons to reveal their abilities in a particular setting. I did for Kevin Willard, who I was 100 percent behind hiring and coaching this program. He finally got it together after that length of time (after finally deciding to work), and elevated us to a NCAA-in-most-years type of program, which I don't take for granted. But I also wish he'd have cashed in earlier than he did given us the chance to hire someone who could advance in the NCAAs. A gamble, for sure, since you never know for sure what you're going to get, but I welcomed the chance to roll the dice and be aggressive. To me, we have that sort of coach here now, but the timing did not line up for us or him, so now they all have to figure out how to make it work now, the way things are now. We'll see, but I still feel good about him. I wasn't out on Willard after three seasons when he was 3-15 in the league (despite not having to find $2 million to pay a roster), so I'm not going to be out on Holloway yet, either.

The non-conference disaster and far too many blowout losses last year were inexcusable. Will we ever have the collection of talent that we had on last year’s team again? Only time will tell but last year’s team was really good and Sha did not have them prepared. That’s on him and there’s nobody else to blame.

You want to blame this year’s season on the higher-ups? Sure. But there is no excuse for last year, 4th place finish in the Big East be damned. Time for him to put up or shut up. That’s where I’m at.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Not an agenda, but an acknowledgement of the undeniable reality we exist in now. Comparing the environment Shaheen Holloway is trying to succeed in compared to what Kevin Willard coached, and trying to act as if they are the least bit analogous, reveals absolute ignorance of the game today. Holding the record of one up to the other is like comparing a cantaloupe to a shot put.

So, yes, I'm still standing behind a coach who I think is a good one (the fact that he's one of ours buys him some additional credit, but not that much), especially as he and our university try to figure out how to finance success in a landscape that seems to change every year. I'm not 100 percent sure it's going to work, but I know that while he is not blame-free here, the vast majority of this failure so far is not Holloway's fault.

Regardless of any of the new landscape, unless someone is clearly an incompetent, I tend to give a coach I support five seasons to reveal their abilities in a particular setting. I did for Kevin Willard, who I was 100 percent behind hiring and coaching this program. He finally got it together after that length of time (after finally deciding to work), and elevated us to a NCAA-in-most-years type of program, which I don't take for granted. But I also wish he'd have cashed in earlier than he did given us the chance to hire someone who could advance in the NCAAs. A gamble, for sure, since you never know for sure what you're going to get, but I welcomed the chance to roll the dice and be aggressive. To me, we have that sort of coach here now, but the timing did not line up for us or him, so now they all have to figure out how to make it work now, the way things are now. We'll see, but I still feel good about him. I wasn't out on Willard after three seasons when he was 3-15 in the league (despite not having to find $2 million to pay a roster), so I'm not going to be out on Holloway yet, either.

How much different is the landscape other than it’s out in the open? Big money schools paying 5 times more to one player than we could afford has existed as a problem since Amaker left. Bobby G fought that fight. Willard fought that fight. Sha is fighting that fight. The only difference is no sit out. Nobody bitched when we picked up Dawes and Dre with no sit outs. Anyone think Powell was paid as much as 20% of what Zion made at Duke? The numbers are bigger but the concept is the same.

 

[Seton75]

It’s amazing how all of these threads turn into the same silliness. It’s been three years! In the immortal words of Seton 75, ……

Hey, I am an old dude and dont remember what I said. AIDGASE

 

[LeftCoastPirates]

How much different is the landscape other than it’s out in the open? Big money schools paying 5 times more to one player than we could afford has existed as a problem since Amaker left. Bobby G fought that fight. Willard fought that fight. Sha is fighting that fight. The only difference is no sit out. Nobody bitched when we picked up Dawes and Dre with no sit outs. Anyone think Powell was paid as much as 20% of what Zion made at Duke? The numbers are bigger but the concept is the same.

If I am not mistaken, in 2022 the rule was changed where you could transfer ONCE and not have to sit out. This is why we didn’t lose Dre, Kadary, or Dawes heading into the 2023-24 season.

The fact that you can now transfer annually without having to sit out is the key component that is not getting as much attention as it should. NIL is a huge piece of the puzzle but this impacts Seton Hall far worse.

Powell, Sandro, Rhoden, etc etc under Willard did not leave because they were poised to be breakout players come their junior seasons. No one wants to sit out at that point in their career when they are going to be the guy on their current team.

So if Godswill stays and takes a big jump in his development….Heck it could be any player for that matter, they can leave for the money because they don’t have to sit out.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

If I am not mistaken, in 2022 the rule was changed where you could transfer ONCE and not have to sit out. This is why we didn’t lose Dre, Kadary, or Dawes heading into the 2023-24 season.

The fact that you can now transfer annually without having to sit out is the key component that is not getting as much attention as it should. NIL is a huge piece of the puzzle but this impacts Seton Hall far worse.

Powell, Sandro, Rhoden, etc etc under Willard did not leave because they were poised to be breakout players come their junior seasons. No one wants to sit out at that point in their career when they are going to be the guy on their current team.

So if Godswill stays and takes a big jump in his development….Heck it could be any player for that matter, they can leave for the money because they don’t have to sit out.

The one time no sit out rule was a joke that plenty of people like Earl Timberlake got around.

I agree the one time sit out rule is the difference, but this world of SHU getting out spent 5 times or 10 times is the same hill our previous coaches faced, not just Willard. That isn't new. Heck ratio wise we probably cut the gap from 25 to 1 down to 10 to 1.

 

[hallstorm]

If I am not mistaken, in 2022 the rule was changed where you could transfer ONCE and not have to sit out. This is why we didn’t lose Dre, Kadary, or Dawes heading into the 2023-24 season.

The fact that you can now transfer annually without having to sit out is the key component that is not getting as much attention as it should. NIL is a huge piece of the puzzle but this impacts Seton Hall far worse.

Powell, Sandro, Rhoden, etc etc under Willard did not leave because they were poised to be breakout players come their junior seasons. No one wants to sit out at that point in their career when they are going to be the guy on their current team.

So if Godswill stays and takes a big jump in his development….Heck it could be any player for that matter, they can leave for the money because they don’t have to sit out.

It isn’t just the immediate transfer rule—it’s that EVERY player now thinks they are entitled to money and will shop their offers around.

It used to be: “we’ll give you $100-200k” for a top 50 kid and the kid will commit right there. Now you’ve got bench kids seeing what they can get and no penalty at all for trying.

I’m sorry—but in Willard’s time you only had the top 15% or so that got a the extra money.

Those that are railing about this “just being out in the open” are not too keen on how things were or how they are now.

 

[donnie_baseball]

The non-conference disaster and far too many blowout losses last year were inexcusable. Will we ever have the collection of talent that we had on last year’s team again? Only time will tell but last year’s team was really good and Sha did not have them prepared. That’s on him and there’s nobody else to blame.

You want to blame this year’s season on the higher-ups? Sure. But there is no excuse for last year, 4th place finish in the Big East be damned. Time for him to put up or shut up. That’s where I’m at.

25 wins and 13 in conference is a good season. Full stop. You've tried to diminish this over and over again, and you're alone in that. You have two compatriots saying that it's "put up or shut up" time for Holloway, but fortunately most REASONABLE people, including the entire administration of SHU, don't feel this way. But you could take your own advice and put up ($$) or shut up.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

25 wins and 13 in conference is a good season. Full stop. You've tried to diminish this over and over again, and you're alone in that. You have two compatriots saying that it's "put up or shut up" time for Holloway, but fortunately most REASONABLE people, including the entire administration of SHU, don't feel this way. But you could take your own advice and put up ($$) or shut up.

The record is nice, but good seasons in a power conference equate to NCAA tournament games. Hard to imagine anyone else from a power conference calling an NIT season a good season unless they've had a long postseason drought where they feel they are finally going in the right direction. I'm not quite sure even a school like SJU, who hadn't been dancing in 5 seasons called their season last year a good season.

 

[TheHall87]

Some context on this...VCU the season before the final four run won the cbi in his first season as head coach with much of the same cast on the roster. Irony about the tournament game loss streak is that was a major factor in waving goodbye to Barnes (Texas) because he just was not getting key results in March.

Here is one, Matt Painter...is he a bad coach for having lost to NJ low majors in back to back seasons? Purdue certainly has given him a long leash for not having won the big one.

Matt Painter?

The guy with 15 (soon to be 16) NCAA appearances including seven Sweet 16s, two Elite Eights and a Final Four in 20 years at Purdue? The guy who has won nearly 70% of his games as a college coach?

Sign me up for that kind of failure.

 

[Hall Is Life]

25 wins and 13 in conference is a good season. Full stop. You've tried to diminish this over and over again, and you're alone in that. You have two compatriots saying that it's "put up or shut up" time for Holloway, but fortunately most REASONABLE people, including the entire administration of SHU, don't feel this way. But you could take your own advice and put up ($$) or shut up.

Did you just call the SHU administration “reasonable”? Are you sure that you’re not Sha’s burner account?

 

[donnie_baseball]

Did you just call the SHU administration “reasonable”? Are you sure that you’re not Sha’s burner account?

Is there a broken record emoji?

 

[Piratz]

The one time no sit out rule was a joke that plenty of people like Earl Timberlake got around.

I agree the one time sit out rule is the difference, but this world of SHU getting out spent 5 times or 10 times is the same hill our previous coaches faced, not just Willard. That isn't new. Heck ratio wise we probably cut the gap from 25 to 1 down to 10 to 1.

It’s not new especially for the top tier players. But the rule changes have popped the cork on so much money pouring in at all levels it’s exponentially more than before available.

The old rules and restrictions and having to pay players through sneaker companies or with bag droppers did have some deterrence and capping. Everyone did it - that Barrett/Griffin class was living well - but it’s simply on steroids now.

 

[Hall Is Life]

Is there a broken record emoji?

Yea… 🤡

 

[donnie_baseball]

Yea… 🤡

If you were as diligent at doing your job as you are about repeating yourself for the past 3 months here, you could fix our NIL problems. But keep selling extended warranties from home.

 

[Hall Is Life]

If you were as diligent at doing your job as you are about repeating yourself for the past 3 months here, you could fix our NIL problems. But keep selling extended warranties from home.

You seem very concerned about other people’s careers here. Comes across as insecure. Might want to work on that.

 

[MichiganStoleTitle]

25 wins and 13 in conference is a good season. Full stop. You've tried to diminish this over and over again, and you're alone in that. You have two compatriots saying that it's "put up or shut up" time for Holloway, but fortunately most REASONABLE people, including the entire administration of SHU, don't feel this way. But you could take your own advice and put up ($$) or shut up.

Sha’s failure started before the season even began and poisoned the entire thing: had Sha not been stubborn, we might have retained Samuel at a reasonable price. Deserves significant criticism for that blunder alone. Need to evaluate his coaching performance given that counterfactual—and therefore discount it hugely. Good season, it was not.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

It’s not new especially for the top tier players. But the rule changes have popped the cork on so much money pouring in at all levels it’s exponentially more than before available.

The old rules and restrictions and having to pay players through sneaker companies or with bag droppers did have some deterrence and capping. Everyone did it - that Barrett/Griffin class was living well - but it’s simply on steroids now.

Yes but it's on steroids for everyone. Seton Hall's budget is on steroids compared to what it was 5 years ago. Duke was probably paying their entire team $3 million a couple years ago. Now they're starting 5 is probably $8 million. Weren't we looking to grab the Washburn brothers for a $3,000 storage bill payment? Now we're paying $1-$1.5 million. We've grown but others have been able to grow faster than us because of 1 or 2 big donors that we don't have. The other guys have always been ahead of us. Creighton, Marquette, Villanova, PC, all had more money than us. Willards strategy of staying old through the transfer portal was ahead of the times and now that everyone is doing that we need to be creative and come up with a new way to be ahead of the times. Otherwise we're going to be outbid and just waiting in need of a miracle donor instead of making something happen.

 

[PJVegas]

Yea… 🤡

That be you!

 

[hallstorm]

Sha’s failure started before the season even began and poisoned the entire thing: had Sha not been stubborn, we might have retained Samuel at a reasonable price. Deserves significant criticism for that blunder alone. Need to evaluate his coaching performance given that counterfactual—and therefore discount it hugely. Good season, it was not.

You think Sha had $300k to pay Samuel?

Could you point me to any players getting paid $300k on SHU in ‘23-24?

 

[MichiganStoleTitle]

You think Sha had $300k to pay Samuel?

Could you point me to any players getting paid $300k on SHU in ‘23-24?

No idea. But irrelevant. The fact remains that Sha was stubborn and misjudged the market—it’s no excuse to say he might not have gotten the money had he asked for it. And had he asked and been denied, it simply would have represented yet another of his infirmities as a leader of program: inability to persuade admin and donors to give him the required resources.

 

[SHUSource]

How much different is the landscape other than it’s out in the open? Big money schools paying 5 times more to one player than we could afford has existed as a problem since Amaker left. Bobby G fought that fight. Willard fought that fight. Sha is fighting that fight. The only difference is no sit out. Nobody bitched when we picked up Dawes and Dre with no sit outs. Anyone think Powell was paid as much as 20% of what Zion made at Duke? The numbers are bigger but the concept is the same.

I think you're certainly smart enough to know the difference is enormous. I can't believe I forgot to mention the unrestricted transferring, which is just as big a factor (albeit a related one) as the professionalism, so thanks for adding that. But in terms of the payrolls themselves, five years ago, it was your primo guys making $50,000 to go to a school, and even then, it was usually a one-shot deal, maybe with some smaller perks along the way, and then they still couldn't leave. The schools, once you got a guy in, had all the leverage. Today, they've got none. And everything had to be so small as not to be glaringly obvious, or else it would arouse something deeper than suspicion on the part of the NCAA. That's obviously all out the window now.

Paying one guy $50,000 is a lot different than having to come up with $1.5 million, and then still have to pay the rest of the roster, too. FIfty grand gets you Gus Yalden today.

 

[Hall Is Life]

I think you're certainly smart enough to know the difference is enormous. I can't believe I forgot to mention the unrestricted transferring, which is just as big a factor (albeit a related one) as the professionalism, so thanks for adding that. But in terms of the payrolls themselves, five years ago, it was your primo guys making $50,000 to go to a school, and even then, it was usually a one-shot deal, maybe with some smaller perks along the way, and then they still couldn't leave. The schools, once you got a guy in, had all the leverage. Today, they've got none. And everything had to be so small as not to be glaringly obvious, or else it would arouse something deeper than suspicion on the part of the NCAA. That's obviously all out the window now.

Paying one guy $50,000 is a lot different than having to come up with $1.5 million, and then still have to pay the rest of the roster, too. FIfty grand gets you Gus Yalden today.

The transfer portal destroyed the sport. NIL is whatever. It’s always been the haves and have nots, but at least the have nots could keep and develop their own players. This basketball player roulette game is awful and I’m looking forward to the day it crashes and burns. It’s unsustainable and something has to give. Of course, as long as there are enough eyeballs on the tv, this nonsense will go on for as long as the money keeps pouring in.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

I think you're certainly smart enough to know the difference is enormous. I can't believe I forgot to mention the unrestricted transferring, which is just as big a factor (albeit a related one) as the professionalism, so thanks for adding that. But in terms of the payrolls themselves, five years ago, it was your primo guys making $50,000 to go to a school, and even then, it was usually a one-shot deal, maybe with some smaller perks along the way, and then they still couldn't leave. The schools, once you got a guy in, had all the leverage. Today, they've got none. And everything had to be so small as not to be glaringly obvious, or else it would arouse something deeper than suspicion on the part of the NCAA. That's obviously all out the window now.

Paying one guy $50,000 is a lot different than having to come up with $1.5 million, and then still have to pay the rest of the roster, too. FIfty grand gets you Gus Yalden today.

comparatively it’s the same. Tell me why you think we lost out on Tyreke Evans when Gonzo thought we had a great chance. Answer is big money for his family. Why did we lose out on Kyle Anderson. Answer is big money for his family. Why did we lose Khadary. Answer is big money for his family. Recruiting has been about paying the best kids for decades. It still is.

If the debate is you didn’t have to do this with the 8th guy in the rotation, people got to get their head out of their asses because the 8th guy in the rotation isn’t the difference between 3rd place and 11th place.

 

[SHUSource]

comparatively it’s the same. Tell me why you think we lost out on Tyreke Evans when Gonzo thought we had a great chance. Answer is big money for his family. Why did we lose out on Kyle Anderson. Answer is big money for his family. Why did we lose Khadary. Answer is big money for his family. Recruiting has been about paying the best kids for decades. It still is.

If the debate is you didn’t have to do this with the 8th guy in the rotation, people got to get their head out of their asses because the 8th guy in the rotation isn’t the difference between 3rd place and 11th place.

Again, there is a huge difference between coming up with $50,000 and $1.5 and then also having to pay on a scale on down the line. And in the cases where, historically, we could not afford the star, we took three-star guys and developed them. Now, they show some skills and they are gone to chase their own million somewhere else. The entire dynamics around it all are entire different and thus, not comparable. You have examine these things as occurring in two different eras.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Again, there is a huge difference between coming up with $50,000 and $1.5 and then also having to pay on a scale on down the line. And in the cases where, historically, we could not afford the star, we took three-star guys and developed them. Now, they show some skills and they are gone to chase their own million somewhere else. The entire dynamics around it all are entire different and thus, not comparable. You have examine these things as occurring in two different eras.

There's also a difference of 3 people contributing to paying the players and now every single person in the world can. The rules of the game have changed to where the number of people involved has gone up and so has the amount making it the same game, larger scale.

 

[hallstorm]

Again, there is a huge difference between coming up with $50,000 and $1.5 and then also having to pay on a scale on down the line. And in the cases where, historically, we could not afford the star, we took three-star guys and developed them. Now, they show some skills and they are gone to chase their own million somewhere else. The entire dynamics around it all are entire different and thus, not comparable. You have examine these things as occurring in two different eras.

This is exactly my point above. The dollar amounts that a couple posters point to as being the same game but larger figures clearly don’t understand what’s happening and the shopping around ( egregiously). It isn’t that simple and it’s easy to understand.

Every single division I kid—and his family and friends—now expect money and perks. It used to be the top 50, now it’s every one.

If anyone can’t understand that plus the free transferring rule as being a completely and entirely different animal, I really don’t know what to say.

 

[hallstorm]

No idea. But irrelevant. The fact remains that Sha was stubborn and misjudged the market—it’s no excuse to say he might not have gotten the money had he asked for it. And had he asked and been denied, it simply would have represented yet another of his infirmities as a leader of program: inability to persuade admin and donors to give him the required resources.

How can you misjudge a market you have zero dollars to spend on?

How do you know he didn’t ask for it?

Just to be clear: when a SWAC coach can’t get a Kadary Richmond or lets a player transfer out to a school that can pay him it’s the coach’s fault?

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

This is exactly my point above. The dollar amounts that a couple posters point to as being the same game but larger figures clearly don’t understand what’s happening and the shopping around ( egregiously). It isn’t that simple and it’s easy to understand.

Every single division I kid—and his family and friends—now expect money and perks. It used to be the top 50, now it’s every one.

If anyone can’t understand that plus the free transferring rule as being a completely and entirely different animal, I really don’t know what to say.

Yet you ignore the fact that 2-4 people were taking care of payments in the past. Now schools are reaching out to local businesses and all donors. I can do the same thing and say imagine if Willard, Gonzo and Orr could’ve gone to every alum and local businesses to get players. When you have 1,000 times more people involved of course prices will quadruple or more.