(04-08-2014 02:44 PM)Houston Owl Wrote:  Bay Area - I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this. I think the AD at TAMU-CC would have a different opinion of the shape of the program when Willis was hired than you have. (I know because I spoke with him directly about the job. The AD that hired Willis left almost immediately after Willis was hired and he was very, very unhappy with the situation at TAMU-CC for a number of reasons).

You seem to be satisfied with Scott Thompson's performance as the coach, but seem to ignore the impact Willis (and Grey) had on that success.

I doubt that Willis was under any pressure at TAMU-CC this year, but I don't deny that he had bad seasons last year and the year before. This is really the first year he had all of his players. I saw the team play a couple of times and it was a good team that will only get better. He deserves the award.

The TAMU-CC AD that hired Willis would be Tim Fitzpatrick, the Greenspan lieutenant from Army and Indiana. It's not clear whether Perry Clark truly gave up or was pressured out, but the veteran Clark certainly didn't jump to a better situation. It may have been a bit of both, but at the time of Clark's departure, Fitzpatrick said that success in men's basketball is "critically important" to the athletic program at TAMU-CC. MBB at TAMU-CC is the centerpiece of the TAMU-CC athletic program. It needs to do well to keep the lights on for other programs. Just last year, Perry Clark became an assistant at South Carolina, so his 'resignation' at TAMU-CC certainly set his career back.

Willis Wilson was most certainly under pressure to produce this year. TAMU-CC could have fired him without any cost at the end of this season, since there was no buyout for the final season of his contract. Without an extension, Wilson could still be removed without penalty next season. This is why this coaching award is so mightily convenient for Wilson.

TAMU-CC needs its MBB program to do well, and it was actually doing OK before Wilson plowed it under with its two worst seasons. A third bad season would have certainly ended Wilson's tenure. I would argue going even 8-10 in the Southland this past season would have all but guaranteed the loss of Wilson's job with a final season record of 11-20. The final regular season record was actually 17-14. I guess those six Southland wins were the difference between the end of a D1 coaching career and national coach of the year!

(04-08-2014 03:11 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  All of Wilson's last 15 teams weren't as good as his first team.

Again, while you may certainly believe this, it isn't the 'obvious' thing you want to claim.

In 1993 we were 18-10 overall... 11-3 in conference. Made the NIT. In 2003 we were 22-11... 12-6 overall, with similar records in 2002 and 2004. We made the NIT twice in that period. If those teams weren't as good, they didn't miss by much.... and you have to go back decades to find another team anywhere close to any of them.

My problem isn't with your opinion... We all have them. My problem is with the apparent vigor with which you pursue this. The man hasn't worked for us for 7 years and you can't even let him get an 'atta boy' without trying to impune his efforts.

You can respond if you want, I'm done.

Congrats to Willis, hope he has continued success at A&M-CC.

I'm still mad at John Heisman. I don't care what he did after he left here or how many trophies are named after him, he was 14-18-1 here, and that is NOT great.

(04-08-2014 05:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'm still mad at John Heisman. I don't care what he did after he left here or how many trophies are named after him, he was 14-18-1 here, and that is NOT great.

And since he left, enrollment and tuition have been spiraling out of control!

Some additional information about the Texas A&M CC basketball program may also help shed some light on the job that Coach Wilson has accomplished at the school. The previous coach had struggled on the court during his last year at the school but there was a much larger deficit on the character, behavior, academic progress of the student athletes in the program. A few months later, Coach Wilson had to dismiss 4 players from the team due to their lack of adherence to policies, team rules and lack of academic progress. That meant that his first season was spent coaching only 7 returning players and 6 Freshman.

Subsequently, the NCAA announced that TAMUCC would receive a 1 year ban on post season opportunities, including participating in the post season conference tournament for the 2012-2013 season, due to the lack of academic progress under the former coach in part because 4 of the last 5 seniors who were recruited by Coach Arrow and Coach Clark did not graduate (http://www.caller.com/news/2012/jun/20/t...rogram-fa/) and the additional players Coach W had to dismiss from the program. The team also voluntarily reduced scholarships available in anticipation of the ruling for the 11-12 and 12-13 seasons.

That means that Coach Wilson was coaching a young, undermanned team for the first two years of the program. Year three of the program is the first year that he has had the opportunity to have a full number of scholarships. The day before the season started the team lost Freshman Rashawn Thomas to a broken Jaw which kept him out of the first 9 games. The rest of the team only had 5 players with more than 1 year of experience. Rashawn ended up averaging 10 points a game and 21 minutes a game when he returned, so he was a key part of their improvement.

TAMUCC lost to SFA in conference which was undefeated in the Southland Conference and ended up defeating Coach Rhoades VCU ballclub in the NCAA's before falling to UCLA in round two. Overall SFASU a 32 and 3 record. SHSU beat the Islanders twice, once by 4 points and once in the tournament by 7. SHSU won one game in the CIT tournament, the same as the Islanders. Pacific (the team that beat TAMUCC) made it to the semi-finals of the CIT tournament (3 wins) before they lost. The Islanders win over Northern Colorado was the school's first ever post season victory (excluding conference tournaments).

There were a number of excellent candidates for this coach of the year award as Bay Area Owl correctly points out. TAMUCC did have a solid turnaround given where the program was, with the third largest turnaround of any D-1 program in the nation. Ollie, Manning and others would have been just as deserving, but I think that Coach Wilson did a very good job and this award is nice recognition for that effort and their results.

(04-08-2014 07:07 PM)Kayjay Wrote:  Some additional information about the Texas A&M CC basketball program may also help shed some light on the job that Coach Wilson has accomplished at the school. The previous coach had struggled on the court during his last year at the school but there was a much larger deficit on the character, behavior, academic progress of the student athletes in the program. A few months later, Coach Wilson had to dismiss 4 players from the team due to their lack of adherence to policies, team rules and lack of academic progress. That meant that his first season was spent coaching only 7 returning players and 6 Freshman.

Subsequently, the NCAA announced that TAMUCC would receive a 1 year ban on post season opportunities, including participating in the post season conference tournament for the 2012-2013 season, due to the lack of academic progress under the former coach in part because 4 of the last 5 seniors who were recruited by Coach Arrow and Coach Clark did not graduate (http://www.caller.com/news/2012/jun/20/t...rogram-fa/) and the additional players Coach W had to dismiss from the program. The team also voluntarily reduced scholarships available in anticipation of the ruling for the 11-12 and 12-13 seasons.

That means that Coach Wilson was coaching a young, undermanned team for the first two years of the program. Year three of the program is the first year that he has had the opportunity to have a full number of scholarships. The day before the season started the team lost Freshman Rashawn Thomas to a broken Jaw which kept him out of the first 9 games. The rest of the team only had 5 players with more than 1 year of experience. Rashawn ended up averaging 10 points a game and 21 minutes a game when he returned, so he was a key part of their improvement.

TAMUCC lost to SFA in conference which was undefeated in the Southland Conference and ended up defeating Coach Rhoades VCU ballclub in the NCAA's before falling to UCLA in round two. Overall SFASU a 32 and 3 record. SHSU beat the Islanders twice, once by 4 points and once in the tournament by 7. SHSU won one game in the CIT tournament, the same as the Islanders. Pacific (the team that beat TAMUCC) made it to the semi-finals of the CIT tournament (3 wins) before they lost. The Islanders win over Northern Colorado was the school's first ever post season victory (excluding conference tournaments).

There were a number of excellent candidates for this coach of the year award as Bay Area Owl correctly points out. TAMUCC did have a solid turnaround given where the program was, with the third largest turnaround of any D-1 program in the nation. Ollie, Manning and others would have been just as deserving, but I think that Coach Wilson did a very good job and this award is nice recognition for that effort and their results.

Thanks for the great review. Sounds as if he had a rebuilding job not so different from what Rhoades faces here! I think we would all be reasonably happy to see similar results in 3 years.

(04-08-2014 07:15 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 07:07 PM)Kayjay Wrote:  Some additional information about the Texas A&M CC basketball program may also help shed some light on the job that Coach Wilson has accomplished at the school. The previous coach had struggled on the court during his last year at the school but there was a much larger deficit on the character, behavior, academic progress of the student athletes in the program. A few months later, Coach Wilson had to dismiss 4 players from the team due to their lack of adherence to policies, team rules and lack of academic progress. That meant that his first season was spent coaching only 7 returning players and 6 Freshman.

Subsequently, the NCAA announced that TAMUCC would receive a 1 year ban on post season opportunities, including participating in the post season conference tournament for the 2012-2013 season, due to the lack of academic progress under the former coach in part because 4 of the last 5 seniors who were recruited by Coach Arrow and Coach Clark did not graduate (http://www.caller.com/news/2012/jun/20/t...rogram-fa/) and the additional players Coach W had to dismiss from the program. The team also voluntarily reduced scholarships available in anticipation of the ruling for the 11-12 and 12-13 seasons.

That means that Coach Wilson was coaching a young, undermanned team for the first two years of the program. Year three of the program is the first year that he has had the opportunity to have a full number of scholarships. The day before the season started the team lost Freshman Rashawn Thomas to a broken Jaw which kept him out of the first 9 games. The rest of the team only had 5 players with more than 1 year of experience. Rashawn ended up averaging 10 points a game and 21 minutes a game when he returned, so he was a key part of their improvement.

TAMUCC lost to SFA in conference which was undefeated in the Southland Conference and ended up defeating Coach Rhoades VCU ballclub in the NCAA's before falling to UCLA in round two. Overall SFASU a 32 and 3 record. SHSU beat the Islanders twice, once by 4 points and once in the tournament by 7. SHSU won one game in the CIT tournament, the same as the Islanders. Pacific (the team that beat TAMUCC) made it to the semi-finals of the CIT tournament (3 wins) before they lost. The Islanders win over Northern Colorado was the school's first ever post season victory (excluding conference tournaments).

There were a number of excellent candidates for this coach of the year award as Bay Area Owl correctly points out. TAMUCC did have a solid turnaround given where the program was, with the third largest turnaround of any D-1 program in the nation. Ollie, Manning and others would have been just as deserving, but I think that Coach Wilson did a very good job and this award is nice recognition for that effort and their results.

Thanks for the great review. Sounds as if he had a rebuilding job not so different from what Rhoades faces here! I think we would all be reasonably happy to see similar results in 3 years.

Congrats Willis !

(04-07-2014 06:31 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  Grow up, Rick, and learn to live in a world where ideas and criticism flow freely.

The Willis Wilson era in Rice basketball was disastrous, and it's true that I have never liked the way Wilson used repeated excuses and gimmicks such as "best dressed coach" to obscure his shortcomings and lowly record as a coach. His derogatory comments towards Rice when he assumed the TAMU-CC job weren't exactly classy. Now, African-American coach of the year? Really??? By going on a run against the patsies of the Southland, yet not getting past either SFA and SHSU??? It amazes me he has been able to stick around D1 so long, and yes, this undeserved award seems to be part of the over-inflated, hyped legacy of WTW.

I am certainly glad Rice is moving ahead with the Rhoades era.

It's not my problem you need to lionize all current and former Rice coaches to maintain your fragile psyche.

PS: I noticed that Willis Wilson was hired by then-TAMU-CC AD Tim Fitzpatrick, a long-time lieutenant of Rick Greenspan. Ick!

It could be argued that there has never really been a successful era in basketball at any time at Rice. Willis Wilson was just as unsuccessful as all the others.

(04-09-2014 12:15 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 06:31 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  Grow up, Rick, and learn to live in a world where ideas and criticism flow freely.

The Willis Wilson era in Rice basketball was disastrous, and it's true that I have never liked the way Wilson used repeated excuses and gimmicks such as "best dressed coach" to obscure his shortcomings and lowly record as a coach. His derogatory comments towards Rice when he assumed the TAMU-CC job weren't exactly classy. Now, African-American coach of the year? Really??? By going on a run against the patsies of the Southland, yet not getting past either SFA and SHSU??? It amazes me he has been able to stick around D1 so long, and yes, this undeserved award seems to be part of the over-inflated, hyped legacy of WTW.

I am certainly glad Rice is moving ahead with the Rhoades era.

It's not my problem you need to lionize all current and former Rice coaches to maintain your fragile psyche.

PS: I noticed that Willis Wilson was hired by then-TAMU-CC AD Tim Fitzpatrick, a long-time lieutenant of Rick Greenspan. Ick!

It could be argued that there has never really been a successful era in basketball at any time at Rice. Willis Wilson was just as unsuccessful as all the others.

The Scott Thompson era (while brief) was certainly successful.

(04-08-2014 03:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 03:11 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  All of Wilson's last 15 teams weren't as good as his first team.

Again, while you may certainly believe this, it isn't the 'obvious' thing you want to claim.

In 1993 we were 18-10 overall... 11-3 in conference. Made the NIT. In 2003 we were 22-11... 12-6 overall, with similar records in 2002 and 2004. We made the NIT twice in that period. If those teams weren't as good, they didn't miss by much.... and you have to go back decades to find another team anywhere close to any of them.

My problem isn't with your opinion... We all have them. My problem is with the apparent vigor with which you pursue this. The man hasn't worked for us for 7 years and you can't even let him get an 'atta boy' without trying to impune his efforts.

You can respond if you want, I'm done.

You can quibble about what SRS means in the sports-reference.com system, but it tries to be at least somewhat internally consistent about comparing within a year and applying the same methodology, after doing its rankings. I laid this chart out before (arguing in part about how comparatively bad the Braun years were), but 2003-04 was the best basketball year, by far, in the last 20+ years.

original posting: http://csnbbs.com/thread-677889-post-104...id10457581

Here's the chart I threw together, found at the link above. Interestingly, it said that the 1990-91 Thompson team was actually slightly better/more consistent than the 91-92 team.

Why did we have such a bad year in 99-00?

Per Wikipedia, Wilson had a higher win percentage (47%) than Thompson (45%). Thompson clearly left the program in better shape than he found it. However, his tenure as a whole hardly qualifies as a successful era. He had a couple of rebuilding seasons, a couple of decent seasons, then he left.

(04-09-2014 11:39 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Why did we have such a bad year in 99-00?

We had some pretty good seniors graduate the year before, Robert Johnson, (Jason?) Skaer, and TJ Armstrong and Derek Michaelis, who was very good, opted to play baseball as a senior. But injuries was the main cause and at one time, all 5 starters were out and I am not sure that there was ever a full set of starters on the court. I think the next year, Bobby paid to have a new floor installed. If I remember, there was a game when only 7 suited up or some such.

(04-09-2014 10:32 AM)gsloth Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 03:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 03:11 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  All of Wilson's last 15 teams weren't as good as his first team.

Again, while you may certainly believe this, it isn't the 'obvious' thing you want to claim.

In 1993 we were 18-10 overall... 11-3 in conference. Made the NIT. In 2003 we were 22-11... 12-6 overall, with similar records in 2002 and 2004. We made the NIT twice in that period. If those teams weren't as good, they didn't miss by much.... and you have to go back decades to find another team anywhere close to any of them.

My problem isn't with your opinion... We all have them. My problem is with the apparent vigor with which you pursue this. The man hasn't worked for us for 7 years and you can't even let him get an 'atta boy' without trying to impune his efforts.

You can respond if you want, I'm done.

You can quibble about what SRS means in the sports-reference.com system, but it tries to be at least somewhat internally consistent about comparing within a year and applying the same methodology, after doing its rankings. I laid this chart out before (arguing in part about how comparatively bad the Braun years were), but 2003-04 was the best basketball year, by far, in the last 20+ years.

original posting: http://csnbbs.com/thread-677889-post-104...id10457581

Here's the chart I threw together, found at the link above. Interestingly, it said that the 1990-91 Thompson team was actually slightly better/more consistent than the 91-92 team.

PHP Code:

Season      Conf     W     L    W-L%     SRS     Coach(es)
2003-04     WAC     22    11    0.667    7.52    Willis Wilson (22-11)
1998-99     WAC     18    10    0.643    6.80    Willis Wilson (18-10)
1990-91     SWC     16    14    0.533    6.62    Scott Thompson (16-14)
1991-92     SWC     20    11    0.645    6.42    Scott Thompson (20-11)
2004-05     WAC     19    12    0.613    6.21    Willis Wilson (19-12)
1992-93     SWC     18    10    0.643    6.17    Willis Wilson (18-10)
2002-03     WAC     19    10    0.655    3.29    Willis Wilson (19-10)
1993-94     SWC     15    14    0.517    2.34    Willis Wilson (15-14)
2000-01     WAC     14    16    0.467    2.33    Willis Wilson (14-16)
1996-97     WAC     12    15    0.444    2.03    Willis Wilson (12-15)
2010-11     CUSA    14    18    0.438    1.67    Ben Braun (14-18)
2011-12     CUSA    19    16    0.543    1.42    Ben Braun (19-16)
1995-96     SWC     14    14    0.500    0.75    Willis Wilson (14-14)
1994-95     SWC     15    13    0.536    0.73    Willis Wilson (15-13)
1989-90     SWC     11    17    0.393    0.15    Scott Thompson (11-17)
2006-07     CUSA    16    16    0.500    -1.67    Willis Wilson (16-16)
1997-98     WAC      6    22    0.214    -2.16    Willis Wilson (6-22)
2001-02     WAC     10    19    0.345    -3.01    Willis Wilson (10-19)
1988-89     SWC     12    16    0.429    -3.25    Scott Thompson (12-16)
2005-06     CUSA    12    16    0.429    -4.00    Willis Wilson (12-16)
2008-09     CUSA    10    22    0.313    -5.05    Ben Braun (10-22)
2009-10     CUSA     8    23    0.258    -5.72    Ben Braun (8-23)
1987-88     SWC      6    21    0.222    -8.81    Scott Thompson (6-21
2013-14     CUSA     7    18    0.280    -9.00    Ben Braun (7-18)
1999-00     WAC      5    22    0.185    -9.42    Willis Wilson (5-22)
2007-08     CUSA     3    27    0.100    -10.29    Willis Wilson (3-27)
2012-13     CUSA     5    26    0.161    -11.12    Ben Braun (5-26) 


Sports-reference.com is a great website. While it is always good to analyze data, the assumptions in how data is gathered and assembled must also be taken with a sizable grain of salt. The 92-93 team was the culmination of Thompson's rebuilding campaign, and it was tragic that Thompson left when he did. The team would have benefited from an experienced coach. According to many observers at the time, the 1992-93 Owls were stocked with talent with Brent Scott in his senior year flanked with many veteran play-makers (Torrey Andrews, Marvin Moore, Adam Peakes, Scott Tynes, a good bench). I can't think of any Rice team with a greater depth of talent, with the possible exception of the previous year's team. In the opening game against the Fab Five of Michigan (the Calipari-led Kentucky of the day; Wilson's first game as head coach), the Owls gave them all they could handle, demonstrating the quality of the team. Wilson was finding his way in his rookie season as coach, and Rice had some disappointing results that season, most notably the crushing flop against Texas A&M which cost Rice the SWC championship. Rice could still have made the NCAA Tournament with a decent showing the conference tournament, but the first-round flop to Texas sent the Owls to the NIT. At least Rice won the first game of the NIT against Wisconsin, but Rice was then embarrassed by Boston College. I don't remember BC being particularly good, but the Owls were in noticeable disarray with the crushing collapse of such a promising season.

The previous two seasons (90-91, 91-92) under Thompson were exciting too, and I remember the 90-91 season being better than the W-L record would indicate. The 90-91 Owls were very competitive and produced the first winning season after a long drought, but they were still "learning how to win" and lost some games that could have gone in the W column with more experience. For anyone who was around the program at the time, the Thompson years were exciting.

Why was the 93-94 campaign so disappointing? Brent Scott was gone, but the team still had plenty of talent. We could perhaps understand and forgive Wilson's rookie blunders in 92-93, but it was the disappointing 93-94 season that began to call into question his coaching ability.

The following seasons were also disappointments, and most D1 programs would have fired Wilson by the end of 1998, if not earlier. The momentum of the Thompson years was all gone. The 98-99 season was a pleasant surprise dependent on the scoring of senior guard Robert Johnson, but I don't remember the squad being a high-quality team, just one that could rack up some wins against a weak schedule. Look at the low SOS for that season on the website. Only 8-6 in the WAC, Rice was crushed twice by Bill Self's Tulsa team that year.

The 98-99 campaign was followed by the disastrous 5-22 season in 99-00. At this point, Wilson really needed to be shown the door. Then two more bad seasons. Ahem. After extreme patience by Rice, Wilson's Owls began to show some life in 2002-03 against a weak schedule, but bringing the father of a recruit onto staff is an ugly aspect of college basketball and not a classy move (it's essentially a laundered payout). The 2003-04 and 2004-05 squads were clearly Wilson's best assemblages of talent post-Thompson: Mike Harris, Jason McKrieth, and Brock Gillespie as upperclassmen, with a young, under-utilized Morris Almond. The 2003-2007 "Almond Years" should have been the long-awaited golden age for Wilson after such extreme patience by Rice, but in many ways, they brought back the frustrations of the 92-93 campaign. Why weren't we better? Why couldn't we make the Tournament? Why was Rice always bounced out early in the conference tournament? Why were we embarrassed in the first game of the NIT (losing to UW-Milwaukee 91-63 in 2004 and losing to Southwest Missouri State 105-82 in 2005)? By definition, the NIT doesn't have powerhouses, yet Rice was simply over-matched. Why couldn't Wilson win the big, important matches??? Coaches at top programs are judged by how they do in the winner-take-all post-season, and Wilson's post-season record is abysmal.

The 2004-05 and 2005-06 campaigns were deep disappointments, because Rice had Morris Almond as an upper-classman with a decent supporting cast. When Davidson went on a Tournament run with scoring machine Stephen Curry, I wondered why we couldn't have done so with Morris Almond. Rice had a better supporting cast than Davidson, but Davidson was much better coached. Then the floor fell out with the 3-27 season, revealing how dependent Rice was upon stars like Harris and Almond. The cupboard was bare.

When Braun had a full squad to work with (his third and fourth seasons), Braun at least fielded scrappy, competitive teams. Braun had problems delivering wins at the end of games, but at least his full squad teams could hang with pretty much anyone. I always felt Wilson's teams went down quickly against superior opposition. Braun's 14-18 season didn't have many wins, but I thought the only game that season in which Rice was over-matched was against Arizona. Braun couldn't hold his teams together, but his 2011-12 team was clearly better than Wilson's 98-99 team.

(04-09-2014 01:39 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  Sports-reference.com is a great website. While it is always good to analyze data, the assumptions in how data is gathered and assembled must also be taken with a sizable grain of salt. The 92-93 team was the culmination of Thompson's rebuilding campaign, and it was tragic that Thompson left when he did. The team would have benefited from an experienced coach. According to many observers at the time, the 1992-93 Owls were stocked with talent with Brent Scott in his senior year flanked with many veteran play-makers (Torrey Andrews, Marvin Moore, Adam Peakes, Scott Tynes, a good bench). I can't think of any Rice team with a greater depth of talent, with the possible exception of the previous year's team.

Don't forget that the team lost Chase Maag (a Juco Transfer that played only one year, IIRC) after the 91-92 season. Maag was a pretty solid contributor, and I think a starter.

I certainly remember Chase Maag. I think he was from Colorado, and he was a well-rounded player. He was a strong 6-4 player who could help on the boards, but he was a good ball-handler with a great outside shot. He would have only made the 92-93 stronger, especially with his outside shot.

What was great about the 90-93 teams was the diversity and depth of talent. Big B was always the centerpiece, but the other players could be mixed and matched to provide effective combinations. For instance, 6-11 Kenneth Rourke offered a different look than 6-5 Torrey Andrews at the PF position.

@BAO - one thing about the 93 Boston College team. It was the next year where they went on that run to the Elite Eight, including upsetting defending national champion UNC in the Round of 32 (I was at that game - had tickets for both first 2 rounds in DC, back when tickets were decently affordable). They had some talent - Billy Curley! (OK, maybe not entirely, but good enough for college.)