Why aren't big city programs like Georgetown, St. John's, and DePaul more successful?

#26
#26
Stoerner Fumbles said:
I don’t think world-shrinking, program-expanding, or airline prices are the fundamentals driving school choices for basketball players. Kids pick coaches over any variable. Kids are not going to Auburn for tradition. They also aren’t going small Catholic colleges like Villanova, Gonzaga, St. John’s or Georgetown for the city or the music scene. When Mark Few, or Jay Wright run your program, you get good kids. Places like Kentucky or UCLA get to add a cup of tradition into the recipe, but basketball kids typically follow coaches.
Click to expand...
I didn't say those were the only things driving kids from larger metro areas outside of those areas, but they certainly are factors in it. I'm also not saying you're wrong.

Forty or fifty years ago, those kids didn't need to leave the area to get access to the best programs/best coaches for a lot of the reasons you mentioned, but they also had less means and less desire to do so, as well. Much of it was due to the fact that access to areas outside of their immediate familiarity was much less available.

Your idea and mine aren't mutually exclusive. Both can be true. Mine also happens to exist beyond the scope of college athletics.
 
#27
#27
Bms4880 said:
Along with the points mentioned above, coaches were also a big part of it. Lou Carnesecca at St. John's (1965-1992), Ray Meyer at DePaul (1942-1984), and John Thompson at Georgetown (1972-1999). Much of these teams' success came under these coaches.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Georgetown's draw was definitely John Thompson, not the school or the District. None of the bigger name Hoyas during his years, like Ewing (Mass.), Iverson (VA), Mourning (Va.), Mutombo (Rep of Congo), Floyd (NC), Harrington (Miss.), Wingate (Md.), came from within the District. The closest was Wingate who played in Baltimore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bms4880
#28
#28
cncchris33 said:
I didn't say those were the only things driving kids from larger metro areas outside of those areas, but they certainly are factors in it. I'm also not saying you're wrong.

Forty or fifty years ago, those kids didn't need to leave the area to get access to the best programs/best coaches for a lot of the reasons you mentioned, but they also had less means and less desire to do so, as well. Much of it was due to the fact that access to areas outside of their immediate familiarity was much less available.

Your idea and mine aren't mutually exclusive. Both can be true. Mine also happens to exist beyond the scope of college athletics.
Click to expand...

Forty or fifty years ago, wasn’t the period being discussed. We were discussing the peak of programs like St. John’s, DePaul and the legendary John Thompson era at Georgetown. We were not discussing Hells Angels violence at Altamont or the Kent State shootings. The Georgetown dynasty was in the 80’s. My point was that most of the kids in these super programs at small (often Catholic) schools came from all over the country (sometimes world) in the specific period being discussed. They came for coaches. Those programs used to have great coaches for decades or even a whole career. There are many changes in sports, technology, incentives, handlers, prep schools, etc. The biggest change is one-dimensional. It’s almost impossible to keep a great coach at a small school. The exceptions are Gonzaga and Villanova. They’re doing fine in spite of developments in airline routes, the invention of electricity, Qanon, and quantum mechanics because they have great coaches that win and develop talent to an NBA level. I’m sure there are lots of inputs in many phenomena. In this instance there is no greater input than having a great coach who can recruit and develop talent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lurker
#29
#29
Those schools are expensive, difficult academically, and overall not fun (especially the catholic ones).
 
#30
#30
Stoerner Fumbles said:
Forty or fifty years ago, wasn’t the period being discussed. We were discussing the peak of programs like St. John’s, DePaul and the legendary John Thompson era at Georgetown. We were not discussing Hells Angels violence at Altamont or the Kent State shootings. The Georgetown dynasty was in the 80’s. My point was that most of the kids in these super programs at small (often Catholic) schools came from all over the country (sometimes world) in the specific period being discussed. They came for coaches. Those programs used to have great coaches for decades or even a whole career. There are many changes in sports, technology, incentives, handlers, prep schools, etc. The biggest change is one-dimensional. It’s almost impossible to keep a great coach at a small school. The exceptions are Gonzaga and Villanova. They’re doing fine in spite of developments in airline routes, the invention of electricity, Qanon, and quantum mechanics because they have great coaches that win and develop talent to an NBA level. I’m sure there are lots of inputs in many phenomena. In this instance there is no greater input than having a great coach who can recruit and develop talent.
Click to expand...
Have zero interest in the bulk of this conversation, but just throwing it out there that the 80s were 40 years ago, which, according to this post, was Georgetown's dynasty. So, yeah, that is the period being discussed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cncchris33
#31
#31
whobethis16 said:
Have zero interest in the bulk of this conversation, but just throwing it out there that the 80s were 40 years ago, which, according to this post, was Georgetown's dynasty. So, yeah, that is the period being discussed.
Click to expand...
Im obviously an English major. I did the math on 50, and almost vomited in my mouth. It doesn’t change the underlying logic, but it does shine a comical light on my sense of time. Small programs still can’t keep great coaches for life, and I’m really old.
 
#32
#32
Stoerner Fumbles said:
Forty or fifty years ago, wasn’t the period being discussed. We were discussing the peak of programs like St. John’s, DePaul and the legendary John Thompson era at Georgetown. We were not discussing Hells Angels violence at Altamont or the Kent State shootings. The Georgetown dynasty was in the 80’s. My point was that most of the kids in these super programs at small (often Catholic) schools came from all over the country (sometimes world) in the specific period being discussed. They came for coaches. Those programs used to have great coaches for decades or even a whole career. There are many changes in sports, technology, incentives, handlers, prep schools, etc. The biggest change is one-dimensional. It’s almost impossible to keep a great coach at a small school. The exceptions are Gonzaga and Villanova. They’re doing fine in spite of developments in airline routes, the invention of electricity, Qanon, and quantum mechanics because they have great coaches that win and develop talent to an NBA level. I’m sure there are lots of inputs in many phenomena. In this instance there is no greater input than having a great coach who can recruit and develop talent.
Click to expand...
Your unprovoked smart-ass sarcasm aside, and the fact that you may want to recalibrate your abacus, I have no interest in attempting to carry on a civil conversation with someone who goes into ultra-aggressive mode as step 1 in their conversational skills. Take care, pal.
 
#33
#33
cncchris33 said:
Your unprovoked smart-ass sarcasm aside, and the fact that you may want to recalibrate your abacus, I have no interest in attempting to carry on a civil conversation with someone who goes into ultra-aggressive mode as step 1 in their conversational skills. Take care, pal.[/QUOTE

I don’t think I said anything ultra-aggressive, but am sorry if it came across that way. I just thought you were over-complicating a fairly simple issue. I also thought it was funny that I didn’t think through the math on your statement, and made fun of myself for it. I apologize if I hurt your feelings.
Click to expand...
 
#34
#34
Stoerner Fumbles said:
I don’t think I said anything ultra-aggressive, but am sorry if it came across that way. I just thought you were over-complicating a fairly simple issue. I also thought it was funny that I didn’t think through the math on your statement, and made fun of myself for it. I apologize if I hurt your feelings.
Click to expand...
No hurt feelings, here. I just recognize a devolving conversation when I see it. If you don't see how taking my examples and distorting them to an exaggeration that parallels the "invention of electricity" and Don McLean American Pie imagery might be perceived as an aggressive reply, then much like the actual topic at hand, we probably aren't going to find common ground on this issue, either.
 
#37
#37
JL24 said:
Being an old timer, I remember when these schools were powerhouses.

With so much talent available to these programs right in their backyard, it seems almost impossible that these teams struggle to even make the tournament.

My question is, what is the culture at these universities compared to big conference schools?

Where does athletics rank at big metropolitan universities?
Click to expand...

Bad coaches being hired.
 
#38
#38
IMO the Big East was made in the '80s by fledgling Northeast USA Bristol Connecticut based TV station. They started showing Big East throughout the week whereas others CBS/ABC/NBC showed an occasional weekend game that was relegated to the few of UNC, UCLA, Kansas Kentucky, and Indiana. If you were a college student turning on the TV at 3 AM ESPN replay of Georgetown vs St Johns etc. was the norm. It was a cheap start for ESPN that not only paid dividends to the Station but also catapulted the Big East. The other conferences caught up and while they did ESPN pockets got deep and they have played a big part in Sports since sometimes not so good.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top